Blizzards 25 man mistake.

[Talen]

Why do you insist on making provably false statements?

Because they aren't false. At least, I'm not aware of ANY flaw in the LK system that the current system doesn't at leats mitigate.

LK model lacked the feeling of content progression of TBC because it was easy to see the whole instance in normal/10man modes before doing the actual "progress" (25hc).

You get the "new" feeling whenever you first run the content. That you see 25hc as the one true path of progression and thus the one true way to see the game and thus running through the game in any other mode or difficulty or format simply means wrecking the feel is not a problem with the game.

It's a problem for you. You could, after all, just do 25m Heroic and forget about the other modes.

There's a strong reason to do 10s: Easier access to rewards. So people choose 10s, not because they prefer to raid with 9 instead of 24 other people, but because they prefer to get the rewards for the least amount of effort and skill required (which is perfectly rational).

Because it takes a lot of skill and effort to apply to a guild? I don't see that personally. No, this is simply the old "10s don't deserve rewards because 10s are easier" argument and its one which isn't particlaurly relevant these days. Its not even an argument most players who advocate 25s even try to advoxcate these days because Blizzard appears to have done a failry good job with the internal balance this tier.

No, the real ease of access for 10s leis elsewhere.

It's simply easier to get into 10s, easier to find a group which fits your schedule. You don't have to put as much work into looking for a group.
But for normals...and especially for heroics - you ARE expected to put just as wmuch work into 10s as 25s. The only real issues 10s have is that its easier to skew progression.

Then why is it OK for the current model to force people into 10s

If you want a blunt - albeit simplistic - answer, its because it isn't Blizzard doing the so-called forcing. Its the lack of numbers of players doing 25s. It's the lack of interest in the format. Its the increased workload leading to fewer leaders. Blizzrad took away anything and everything that attracted players to either formt and let each stand on its merits.

Both have the same gear, prestige, challenge, content. But 10s don't have the huge logistical burden. 10s have far more players willing to take on a leadership role. 10s are more common so they are easier to join and schedule. 10s are smaller so its easier to pick up a PUG so a no-show won't stop your raiding. And so on.

The one flaw the model has is that it doesn't do enough to recognise the logistics workload of running a 25 man and so creates and exacerbates various opressures inhibiting the formation of, and encouraging the breakup, of 25s.

Many were forced into 10s, while myself I quit.

Probably explains why you still think 10s are easier.

It's a simple, factually accurate statement.

No. It simply sounds right. There are more players after all to make mistakes in 25s. There are also more chances to recover - a point this argument glosses over. A loss in 25s is not as devastating as a loss in 10s. And while you are correct that of players in 25s keep making mistakes in 25s, the boss will never die...that is also true for 10s. Some mechanics will require more skill in 25s, others more skill in 10s.

The argument sounds good. It feels right. It is one often put forward by players who advocate 25s. Ultimately, though it is incorrect.

25s have higher executional burden.

For the raid leader.

From an overall game design perspective you have to measure 25's against 3x 10 man. (or 2x 25 versus 5x 10 man) to get a best fit.

I've always found this a poor argument.

The point is simple. It is easier for a raid leader to work with a 10 man than it is to work with a 25 man because there is so much less to keep track off. While there are theorhetically more players to shoulder the burden in 25s, in practise that very often doesn't work out. Few players actually want to lead anythign as complex as a 25 man, and even were they simply to be responsible for 5 or 10, the extra players simply add too much unwanted complexity. End result - players don't want to lead 25s.

If you exclude LFR then you have less people raiding now than in Wrath so current system actually caused decrease in raiding. How do you explain that?

Why should you exclude one raiding format simply beacsue you don't like it? After all, look at how few players raided in LK...if we exclude all 25 man formats.

Yes 10 mans gives them easier path to rewards but that doesn't mean they like it, in most cases they have no other choice if they want to raid.

"Some case" you'd get away with. "Many" would be pushing it. "Most" is almost certainly untrue. "Most" players likely prefer 10s.

[It's 10 man or nothing. Look at this http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...urrently-in%29
1/3 of the current 10 man raiders would like to raid 25 man if they could.

An unscientific, skewed and biased poll. Not the most reliable source.

Blizzard's definition of "raiding" doesn't matter one bit for this argument. It's a completely pointless discussion and an utter waste of time. What matters is this: The number of people engaging in the type of gameplay that used to be called "raiding" in vanilla

Ironic.....LFR requires more skill than old raids such as Molten Core. But MC is a raid in your eyes but LFR is not. Heh - if the lootship is considered a raid, why not LFR?

TBC, WotLK and early Cata has dropped. Another type of gameplay that only shares a few superficial traits with what used to be called "raiding", but is fundamentally different, has become popular and has affected the number of players engaged in what used to be called "raiding".

Even granting this childish argument some degree of merit....what relavance does it have.

Thanks to LFR, raiding in WoW is getting far more devlopment than it has for years. Sure, a lot of players who used to do "proper" raiding have moved over to it.

So what? The raids so far are better and more fun than they have been for quite some time.

In WotLK people had the option to do 10 mans, yet they chose not to. The new raid model forced people out of 25 mans and into 10 mans. Anyway, your apparent complete ignorance of what it is to run and manage 25 man guilds in a broken raiding system like WoW's makes discussion pointless.

Nothing forced players out of 25s except their own choice. In LK, 10s were jokes and also rans. if you wanted serious raiding, you ran 25s. That gave you the gear, the prestige, the challenge.

Now, if you want gear...you have a choice of 10s and 25s.
Challenge? 10s or 25s.
Prestige? 10s or 25s.
To raid with only your friends? 10s.
To minimise the logistical burden? 10s.
To get a raid your PC can handle? 10s.

Because one of the sizes requires far less effort to get those rewards, which necessarily obsoletes the other no matter how much people would prefer it.

Only so far as raid logistics goes. Leaving aside the raid leader, the effort is pretty much equal. Maybe it'll be different in 5.2. But for now, Blizzard did a good job this tier. If you aren't one of those players who leads a 25s, the difference in effort is minimal.

Why are you avoiding answering my question . You disagree that raiding scene is much smaller than it was in Wrath and you're using LFR numbers to support that while failing to acknowledge that LFR didn't exist back then?

Bad. Bad argument. Bad.

It doesn't matter if LFR existed back then or not.

Let's say we had 4 million raiders back then. Does it matter if we have only 500k now doing Normal and heroic if we have 8 million doing LFR?

Same content, same mechanics. Players choose their difficulty and get the rewards they deserve and raiding gets much, much more attention.
I don't see how this point has any relevance.

More people make use of the raiding content than ever before and as a result, we get better raids. Casuals and less skilled players don't take part so while there are fewer players, they are liekly also better players.

I fail to see how this is anything but a win/win situation for all involved.

About the one thing I do regret with the current model is that it isn't feasible to visually scale the encounter appropriately; it will always need to be big enough to hold 25 player and while it would be possible to implement a smaller version, that would also drastically increase the development costs.

EJL

[Deleted]

Talen you dont do either 10 either 25-man.
Your doing Lfr and ofc since i Que with you your somehow the player=Afk tunnel the wrong thing etc...etc.
Anything with 10 or 25 man changed won't have nothing to effect your gameplay since you dont play in any of those format.
So keep you not knowing thing's for yourself. Ty

[Talen]

Talen you dont do either 10 either 25-man.
Your doing Lfr and ofc since i Que with you your somehow the player=Afk tunnel the wrong thing etc...etc.
Anything with 10 or 25 man changed won't have nothing to effect your gameplay since you dont play in any of those format.
So keep you not knowing thing's for yourself. Ty

So....the great refutation of the points and arguments I bring up, the points and arguments Blizzard themeslves often agree with or raise as concerns/issues themselves, the points and arguments that not only I but many others on these and other forums share is....

"GTFO. I think I raid with you sometimes and I think you AFK."

Great debating technique.

EJL

[Deleted]

Because they aren't false. At least, I'm not aware of ANY flaw in the LK system that the current system doesn't at leats mitigate.

I gave you an example in the very next sentence which proved your statement false. Anyway, if you want to debate, you need to learn to express yourself more effectively, there's no point replying to such badly structured walls of text.

[Seriss]

I gave you an example in the very next sentence which proved your statement false. Anyway, if you want to debate, you need to learn to express yourself more effectively, there's no point replying to such badly structured walls of text.

His post was very much fine. One of the better ones in this thread even. It was well-written, understandable, nicely structured what with the statements and his responses to each individually... I liked reading it.

And contrary to most of what is written in this thread, I at least had the feeling that he's not just being selfish and condescending to whichever raidsize he's not raiding. Few people have the experience and common sense to be capable of mustering a halfway objective POV on this matter.

Former 25-man raider here, switched to 10-man for MoP. I liked 25s from the gameplay PoV. Spamming AoE heals was easier than what I do now. I liked having little responsibility. Now I have more. It's stressful. But I raid with mostly people that I like. And I like my raid leader for how knowledgeable and sensible he is. He knows what he does. He's got a good eye for encounter mechanics - but he'd never lead a 25-man raid because it's hard to find 30 decent people and he doesn't want to go back to carrying 10 lesser players. It's already hard enough to find 12-13 people who are decent and have time. And real life can really screw you over in a 10-man. Progression is basically on hold at this time because people have car accidents, family issues (of the sad and/or difficult kind), or have to work a lot of overtime. Things like these were barely noticeable to me when raiding 25-man. It was just easier to grab a guy from the bench, tell him a few things about tactics, not give him a special job, and there you go.

Also, people need to get off their high horses about 25-mans still being oh so difficult and great and blahblah. It annoyed me 2 years ago already, it still annoys me today. A long time ago, 10-mans were easy, dropped lower ilvl, were a nice pastime for when you had a raidless day. From T-11 on, things changed, but the minds of people were still stuck in ICC times where you got your high ilvl gear and roflstomped 10-man with it.

Today, 10-mans only become easy when you're able to class-stack. It's very efficient raiding when you can do that. 10-mans usually can't do this. 25-mans can go and grab 10-man kills with perfect setups. It's what a former guild I was in did for Al'akir so as to snatch server-first away from the 10-man guilds because that boss' encounter mechanics made it easier when you had fewer people. No one in their right mind in that 25-man raid would have thought about snatching server-first Nefarian on 10-man though because that encounter was icky for 10s.

So, go away with all the whining about difficulty.

Logistics are what makes a 25-man harder to maintain. But as soon as you have your roster, you're well-set. Personal responsibility in a 25-man is lower. You have a handful of people who handle the special jobs. The rest just tunnels away and avoids bad stuff on the ground.

For a raid leader, herding all those sheep is very stressful. It's why so few people with leadership skills want to do it. Higher ilvl loot might be an incentive for people to want to raid 25-mans. But it still won't give them willing and first and foremost capable leaders.

[Deleted]

You said in a previous thread, that you ARE RUNNING a casual 25 man raiding guild...It doesn't even worth looking it up. It was the one you had some nice monty pythons video from people to answer to your words "of wisdom"...

Nope, never said any such thing. I've also never posted a monty python vid. You've either got me confused with someone else or you are being less than honest.

So you gave up 25s in wrath eh? Right...

After running raids since MC and Onyxia, yes.

[Deleted]

Logistics are what makes a 25-man harder to maintain. But as soon as you have your roster, you're well-set. Personal responsibility in a 25-man is lower. You have a handful of people who handle the special jobs. The rest just tunnels away and avoids bad stuff on the ground.

That's not completely accurate. Yes, logistics make 25-mans take significantly more skill to run, but that's not all. 25 mans require players that are capable of more personal responsibility and are more skilled. This is because in 25 mans you cannot afford to make as many personal mistakes as in 10 mans. It's very simple, in 10 mans you can afford to make less than one mistake in ten tries, while in 25 mans you can afford to make less than one mistake in 25 tries, that requires significantly higher concentration and ability to perform perfectly over and over in 25 mans. Further, in 10 mans it is very easy to track every other player and call things out and control them, this means that you can afford to have players with less personal skill since the raid leader can carry and handhold them in 10 mans. In 25 mans there are simply too many people to track. And finally, playing in a group of 25 requires every single person to have more raid awareness and ability to cope with more moving parts, whether it's healing (who is healing whom, how are CDs being rotated?) or movement (where can I find a free spot and how are all these other people going to move?) or unexpected events (will someone else deal with this thing/fuckup or should I deal with it?).

These of course only apply when you're playing at the edge of performance and on fights that actually matter. If you're only dicking around in content that you can clear even if half your raid are mouthbreathers, then none of this matters anyway.

[Seriss]

That's not completely accurate. Yes, logistics make 25-mans take significantly more skill to run, but that's not all. 25 mans require players that are capable of more personal responsibility and are more skilled. This is because in 25 mans you cannot afford to make as many personal mistakes as in 10 mans. It's very simple, in 10 mans you can afford to make less than one mistake in ten tries, while in 25 mans you can afford to make less than one mistake in 25 tries, that requires significantly higher concentration and ability to perform perfectly over and over in 25 mans. Further, in 10 mans it is very easy to track every other player and call things out and control them, this means that you can afford to have players with less personal skill since the raid leader can carry and handhold them in 10 mans. In 25 mans there are simply too many people to track. And finally, playing in a group of 25 requires every single person to have more raid awareness and ability to cope with more moving parts, whether it's healing (who is healing whom, how are CDs being rotated?) or movement (where can I find a free spot and how are all these other people going to move?) or unexpected events (will someone else deal with this thing/fuckup or should I deal with it?).

These of course only apply when you're playing at the edge of performance and on fights that actually matter. If you're only dicking around in content that you can clear even if half your raid are mouthbreathers, then none of this matters anyway.

I've raided 25-man for years, only having switched to 10-mans in MoP. You don't get me with that (old and often repeated, but still illogical) argument: Every player makes a mistake once so you wipe 25 times in 25-man and 10 times in 10-man per boss? That logic is flawed. Especially when we're talking about really good guilds, the kind that you're referring to later in your post in an attempt at discrediting the argumentations of people who do disagree with you.

In 25-man, you don't need to track every player. You assign special tasks to a handful of people. The rest just does their job. In 10-man, the same handful of people do their tasks. Encounter-specifically, the people needed to deal with special crap may be identical or not. The rest just does their job. And if a 10-man raid leader had to babysit every one of their raiders, oh god... I really think you never tried 10-man in relevant post-ICC content.

Especially healing is way easier in 25-man, believe me this. If you believe nothing else that I say, believe me at least this. Because that's the one thing that I have more experience in than most. Cooldown rotations are fixed and perfected after a few tries or even planned ahead already. Healing assignments are way cleaner. You guys watch the tanks, you guys watch the raid, you help out where needed. And it remains rather static throughout an encounter. Ever since I've begun with 10-mans, I've learnt that you can't be so static when there is only 2 healers most of the time. You have to be way more flexible. You have fewer cooldowns to work with. Depending on who your healing partner is, this may lead to unforeseen difficulties (see, not everyone can make it to every raid, and rosters are deliberately small).

From a healer-POV, you need more precision in a 10-man, even when you say "I'll take care of the raid and help out on the tank when the raid is safe and when I see that you're in trouble, buddy." You need to rely MORE on your healer-mate, not less. In 25-man, everyone has HoTs ticking on them, AoE splash heals are flying about.

In 25-man, small mistakes are hidden by the sheer amount of people. Some mistakes may never get noticed even. In 10-mans, you're way more visible. You get called out way more easily when you screwed up. It's one of the things that I hate about 10-mans. You're so visible. You can't blend in with the background. On the other hand, it makes me concentrate harder and put in even more effort (I actually put too much pressure on myself because I am a larger part of the raid and therefore more important now than I used to be).

I never needed more concentration to not make mistakes in 25-man than I need them in 10-man. That's a logic that I can't follow.

Number of wipes stands in no correlation to the number of people that are in a raid.

[Deleted]

I've raided 25-man for years, only having switched to 10-mans in MoP. You don't get me with that (old and often repeated, but still illogical) argument: Every player makes a mistake once so you wipe 25 times in 25-man and 10 times in 10-man per boss? That logic is flawed. Especially when we're talking about really good guilds, the kind that you're referring to later in your post in an attempt at discrediting the argumentations of people who do disagree with you.

I not only raided 25-man for years, but run a guild and did raid leading (we weren't "hardcore" but killed almost all 25 man content released by Blizzard in all difficulty modes). And that's exactly how it works. I can tolerate lower skill level and more personal mistakes from my players in 10 mans while making the same progress. And if you're going to call the logic flawed, at least say why you think it's flawed.

In 25-man, you don't need to track every player. You assign special tasks to a handful of people. The rest just does their job. In 10-man, the same handful of people do their tasks. Encounter-specifically, the people needed to deal with special crap may be identical or not. The rest just does their job. And if a 10-man raid leader had to babysit every one of their raiders, oh god... I really think you never tried 10-man in relevant post-ICC content.

You're not refuting my point here, which is simple. In 10 mans I can track and control my players, in 25 mans I can't. Thus I can tolerate lower quality of players in 10 mans while still matching the progress of 25 mans with higher quality players.

In 25-man, small mistakes are hidden by the sheer amount of people. Some mistakes may never get noticed even. In 10-mans, you're way more visible. You get called out way more easily when you screwed up.

My point exactly. In 10 mans it's so easy to see who is about to make a mistake or made a mistake, and therefore it's easy to fix. In 25 mans it's difficult, you often cannot see who made the mistake or what exactly it was, just that your whole raid is now dead. That's why you need higher quality players who do not make those mistakes in 25 mans.

[Deleted]

I've raided 25-man for years, only having switched to 10-mans in MoP. You don't get me with that (old and often repeated, but still illogical) argument: Every player makes a mistake once so you wipe 25 times in 25-man and 10 times in 10-man per boss? That logic is flawed. Especially when we're talking about really good guilds, the kind that you're referring to later in your post in an attempt at discrediting the argumentations of people who do disagree with you.

In 25-man, you don't need to track every player. You assign special tasks to a handful of people. The rest just does their job. In 10-man, the same handful of people do their tasks. Encounter-specifically, the people needed to deal with special crap may be identical or not. The rest just does their job. And if a 10-man raid leader had to babysit every one of their raiders, oh god... I really think you never tried 10-man in relevant post-ICC content.

Especially healing is way easier in 25-man, believe me this. If you believe nothing else that I say, believe me at least this. Because that's the one thing that I have more experience in than most. Cooldown rotations are fixed and perfected after a few tries or even planned ahead already. Healing assignments are way cleaner. You guys watch the tanks, you guys watch the raid, you help out where needed. And it remains rather static throughout an encounter. Ever since I've begun with 10-mans, I've learnt that you can't be so static when there is only 2 healers most of the time. You have to be way more flexible. You have fewer cooldowns to work with. Depending on who your healing partner is, this may lead to unforeseen difficulties (see, not everyone can make it to every raid, and rosters are deliberately small).

From a healer-POV, you need more precision in a 10-man, even when you say "I'll take care of the raid and help out on the tank when the raid is safe and when I see that you're in trouble, buddy." You need to rely MORE on your healer-mate, not less. In 25-man, everyone has HoTs ticking on them, AoE splash heals are flying about.

In 25-man, small mistakes are hidden by the sheer amount of people. Some mistakes may never get noticed even. In 10-mans, you're way more visible. You get called out way more easily when you screwed up. It's one of the things that I hate about 10-mans. You're so visible. You can't blend in with the background. On the other hand, it makes me concentrate harder and put in even more effort (I actually put too much pressure on myself because I am a larger part of the raid and therefore more important now than I used to be).

I never needed more concentration to not make mistakes in 25-man than I need them in 10-man. That's a logic that I can't follow.

Number of wipes stands in no correlation to the number of people that are in a raid.

Yes like in your very example in 25m, Comax would shine even more as disc. 10m disc is good, but 25m OP. Reason being PoH spam which was first weak but is now insanely OP, plus SS throughput. But where in 10m the priest needs to also care for specific players like tank or soaker etc, in 25m they can simply keep AoE healing.

---------- Post added 2013-02-06 at 01:04 PM ----------

You're not refuting my point here, which is simple. In 10 mans I can track and control my players, in 25 mans I can't. Thus I can tolerate lower quality of players in 10 mans while still matching the progress of 25 mans with higher quality players.

We've already been there. It is a scaling as well as a leadership issue. Learn to delegate responsibility and tasks instead of being a control freak who is babysitting 24 irresponsible babies.

[Deleted]

We've already been there. It is a scaling as well as a leadership issue. Learn to delegate responsibility and tasks instead of being a control freak who is babysitting 24 irresponsible babies.

You're missing the point entirely.

[Ragedaug]

I not only raided 25-man for years, but run a guild and did raid leading (we weren't "hardcore" but killed almost all 25 man content released by Blizzard in all difficulty modes). And that's exactly how it works. I can tolerate lower skill level and more personal mistakes from my players in 10 mans while making the same progress. And if you're going to call the logic flawed, at least say why you think it's flawed.

I'm going to preface my response by saying I think Seriss was off on one point. I think most of us have raided both formats, which I believe the 25 man raiders tend to forget or overlook. Most of us were playing in Vanilla or BC or Wrath or a combination of those. Most of us 10 man raiders know exactly what is it to be a 25 man raider, because we have been one. So getting that out of the way, we already discount a lot of the rhetoric coming from the 25 mans. In my progression 25 mans in BC and Wrath we easily had 1-3 players every progression kill that died because they couldn't get out of a fire. We lost at least 5 to fire on the ground killing OS+3 in 25 man mode, where losing 1 player in OS+3 10 man means guaranteed wipe. You don't auto wipe every time a 25 man player makes a mistake. More often then not, you can survive several of the players not only making a mistake, but also dying, which does not happen in 10 mans. We've been there. We know you can carry 2-5 bads and still progress in 25 mans. No amount of hand waving will make that untrue.

You're not refuting my point here, which is simple. In 10 mans I can track and control my players, in 25 mans I can't. Thus I can tolerate lower quality of players in 10 mans while still matching the progress of 25 mans with higher quality players.

And you are missing the counter point in that players in 25 mans hide behind the "hard to track" nature of it, which is why you end up carrying bads for as long as you do until you can figure it out and replace them. There's more personal responsibility in 10 mans because of this point. You can rarely to never hide behind a wipe and not get noticed as the one who messed it up.

My point exactly. In 10 mans it's so easy to see who is about to make a mistake or made a mistake, and therefore it's easy to fix. In 25 mans it's difficult, you often cannot see who made the mistake or what exactly it was, just that your whole raid is now dead. That's why you need higher quality players who do not make those mistakes in 25 mans.

~See above

[Paladin885]

And you are missing the counter point in that players in 25 mans hide behind the "hard to track" nature of it, which is why you end up carrying bads for as long as you do until you can figure it out and replace them. There's more personal responsibility in 10 mans because of this point. You can rarely to never hide behind a wipe and not get noticed as the one who messed it up.

ohhhhh yes you can in 25man. The only difference is, if one person messes up in a 10man its a wipe... that does not occur as easily in a 25man unless it's hard mode. HC 25man raids run like 10mans in that all 25 slots are needed, especially for enrage timers.


Coming from a HC 25man raid who runs 10mans on off nights, or when raids nights are drawn out to a crawl due to real life issues, I will tell you this...

The mistake with 10man v 25man design is just that, the design. The difficulty scale from regular to hardcore in 10man is inferior to 25man's lvl of difficulty. This is partly due to limited size and limitations to class makeup within the raid, but the fact still remains...
- heroic 10man is easier to form
- it's easier to progress
- it's easier to maintain on a weekly basis
- it's easier to farm
- it's easier to kill

gamers love to win and like the easy road to the top, and 10man offers this at a much cheaper cost. The current 5.2 proposal to 25man will not work imo, a new change needs to be made. I've proposed that 25man loot is all upgraded loot and 10man loot is not (but can be like gear can currently). Instead... they propose that both raids drop enhanced items with 25man dropping them at a greater rate. -______-

[Deleted]

You don't auto wipe every time a 25 man player makes a mistake. More often then not, you can survive several of the players not only making a mistake, but also dying, which does not happen in 10 mans. We've been there. We know you can carry 2-5 bads and still progress in 25 mans. No amount of hand waving will make that untrue.

You're comparing a 10 man fight tuned in a way that does not allow carrying people or deaths with a 25 man fight that's tuned to allow those things. That's fine, but those two fights will not be the same fight. If I can carry bads in a progress boss in 25 man mode, you can bet I can carry bads in the 10 man version as well. If I can survive a fuckup or death in a progress fight on 25 man mode, you can bet I can survive the same fuckup on or death on 10 man as well.

And you are missing the counter point in that players in 25 mans hide behind the "hard to track" nature of it, which is why you end up carrying bads for as long as you do until you can figure it out and replace them. There's more personal responsibility in 10 mans because of this point. You can rarely to never hide behind a wipe and not get noticed as the one who messed it up.

No, you're missing the point, which is that while you can hide with your mistake in 25 mans, you won't be killing the boss. While in 10 man you cannot hide, the mistake will be fixed and the boss will die. This is why 25 mans require more personal responsibility and higher standard of performance from players to match the progress of 10 mans. And that holds true based on observations too. I've seen plenty of 25 man guilds shoot up in progress when they switch to 10 man, and I've seen plenty of 25 man guilds built from merging two 10 man guilds fail to make anywhere near the same progress they used to have as 10 mans.

[Deleted]

You're missing the point entirely.

Your statement is so full of irrefutable proof, it deserves a Nobel prize.

In 10 mans I can track and control my players, in 25 mans I can't.

I envision you sitting behind your computers with 10 monitors, multiboxing 10 accounts, "controlling them 10m raiders." Tears in my eyes.

I'll explain it to you once more. You really don't seem to fathom it at all. I'm starting to believe you are actually not leading a 25m guild because I can't imagine someone who leads a 25m guild wouldn't understand this. What you need when you are managing 25 people is to delegate responsibility and tasks for precisely the reason you state: you cannot "control" 25 players at the same time. If your RL/GM can't delegate, they're doing a bad job. Leading, as in managing, is about putting trust in people who deserve it, and giving responsibility to those who are willing to take it. If you're unable to delegate, you are a shit leader, and I can tell you boy have I met some. Not only talking about gaming here. Anyone who's had a professional career knows these examples. And delegation is everywhere. Heck, its how our DNS structure works. Heck, its how MMOC is structured.

In case you still don't grasp it:

http://www.businessballs.com/delegation.htm

This article is plain ace. It covers every aspect of delegation.

http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_98.htm

I pref other sources, but this part I liked:

Why People Don't Delegate

To figure out how to delegate properly, it's important to understand why people avoid it. Quite simply, people don't delegate because it takes a lot of up-front effort.

After all, which is easier: designing and writing content for a brochure that promotes a new service you helped spearhead, or having other members of your team do it?

You know the content inside and out. You can spew benefit statements in your sleep. It would be relatively straightforward for you to sit down and write it. It would even be fun! The question is, "Would it be a good use of your time?"

While on the surface it's easier to do it yourself than explain the strategy behind the brochure to someone else, there are two key reasons that mean that it's probably better to delegate the task to someone else:

First, if you have the ability to spearhead a new campaign, the chances are that your skills are better used further developing the strategy, and perhaps coming up with other new ideas. By doing the work yourself, you're failing to make best use of your time.
Second, by meaningfully involving other people in the project, you develop those people's skills and abilities. This means that next time a similar project comes along, you can delegate the task with a high degree of confidence that it will be done well, with much less involvement from you.

Delegation allows you to make the best use of your time and skills, and it helps other people in the team grow and develop to reach their full potential in the organization.

http://www.ee.ed.ac.uk/~gerard/Management/art5.html

Another well written article, wholly worth it.

http://www.managementstudyguide.com/...delegation.htm

Short, well written article which explains and I quote:

Through delegation, a manager is able to divide the work and allocate it to the subordinates. This helps in reducing his work load so that he can work on important areas such as - planning, business analysis etc.

With the reduction of load on superior, he can concentrate his energy on important and critical issues of concern. This way he is able to bring effectiveness in his work as well in the work unit. This effectivity helps a manager to prove his ability and skills in the best manner.

Article includes further short articles if you click on the table of contents.

So with the above in mind, all I get from you is: I can't delegate a few people to lead my 24 babies. No wonder 25m raiding is hard for you kizziz.

[Deleted]

I'll explain it to you once more. You really don't seem to fathom it at all. I'm starting to believe you are actually not leading a 25m guild because I can't imagine someone who leads a 25m guild wouldn't understand this. What you need when you are managing 25 people is to delegate responsibility and tasks for precisely the reason you state: you cannot "control" 25 players at the same time.

Are you trying not to understand on purpose, or are you really just incapable of doing so? I do not try to control everything in a 25 man, it's impossible, you need to delegate. I don't know why you keep repeating that as if it was somehow relevant. The point is that in 10 mans I don't need to delegate, I can control the whole thing myself, which means I don't need to find people capable enough to delegate to and I can centrally control everything, which means I have more overall knowledge when making decisions than when a delegated structure makes decisions.

The end result is that I can progress further and faster with similar skill distribution in my raid in 10 man mode than I could in 25 man mode.

[Nimitzles]

Rest Assured if blizzard could go back in time they would never have made the change to make 10s and 25s equal as it has decimated realm communities and left many raiders without a raid spot for each guild that downsized or disbanded. It was the biggest mistake they have made. Over 80% less 25 man raiding guilds today then there was in WOLTK.

Total guild numbers have stayed the same, just that over 80% are now 10 man where it used to be 80% over 25 man, u do the math.

The problem is they can't reverse the change because it will do more harm then good.

[Deleted]

PvE is a scripted environment, the only randomness is RNG. The rest you can all plan ahead. RNG requires communication / awareness. In 10m you just as well need to delegate as 25. If you are a manager and you are leading 9 people then you will delegate tasks. At 2 people you will start to assign roles who does what which is already a hatchling iteration of delegation. It lies within the nature of teamplay to delegate. And delegation happens in 10m, I know first hand. The severity of the delegation is different in 25m, and likely more top-down hierarchy, with stronger responsibility to those directly under the RL/GM. But managing more people isn't necessarily more difficult. See the healer example.

[DreamCast]

Rest Assured if blizzard could go back in time they would never have made the change to make 10s and 25s equal as it has decimated realm communities and left many raiders without a raid spot for each guild that downsized or disbanded. It was the biggest mistake they have made. Over 80% less 25 man raiding guilds today then there was in WOLTK.

Total guild numbers have stayed the same, just that over 80% are now 10 man where it used to be 80% over 25 man, u do the math.

The problem is they can't reverse the change because it will do more harm then good.

Bang on 100%

[Deleted]

PvE is a scripted environment, the only randomness is RNG.

Oh the "scripted environment" nonsense. You know scripted opponents can beat the best chess players in the world? And the best StarCraft players in the world? Being scripted says nothing interesting or useful. RNG itself is "scripted".