Blizzards 25 man mistake.

[Deleted]

The current system solves, or at least mitigates, every problem the LK model had. And the LK model is pretty much the TBC model with raids available to all.

Why do you insist on making provably false statements? 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). And that's just one example.

What the current system does not have is a strong reason for players to raid 25s and without that, players go for the format that they prefer. However, without something to draw players to 25s, the logistics issues for 25s become much more pronounced.

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).

It is consistent. I don't want players forced or obligated into either format but to be able to run the format they like.

Then why is it OK for the current model to force people into 10s? Because that's what's happening, and it's a fact. I had a choice after 25 man raiding died on my realm: do 10s or quit. Many were forced into 10s, while myself I quit.

point is, this argument is popular with people who want to run down 10s. It is, however, wrong.

It's a simple, factually accurate statement. Just because you refuse to accept facts doesn't make it "wrong". You should really learn that distinction. In 25 mans you cannot afford as many personal mistakes, because with 25 people making mistakes the boss will simply never die. In 25 mans you need higher personal skill because a raid leader can't keep an eye on you personally and call it out when you're about to screw up like they can in 10s.

In which case you are yet another player who is willing to kill off 10s simply to allow you to raid 25s.

I am not. You're just blindly repeating your usual drivel without actually reading or understanding the positions of the people you're "replying" to.

[Deleted]

Well imo you don't need special rewards other than a reskinned version of the 10 man glory mount for a 25 glory achiev and seperating realm firsts to 10/25s. Do 25 man because you enjoy the challenge, not because you feel like you should be more rewarded for it, else just form 3 10 mans and recruit 5 more players.

One final note: I love how a lot of people in this thread say "Ppl do 10s for easier rewards, not because they prefer it". Well THANK YOU VERY MUCH, you guys totally know what I like. I don't know what I like, you do. I would say that I love raiding 10s because it's much cleaner, I don't have to boost ppl and I don't have to deal with more drama and feel insignificant in an army full of names but since you guys say that I don't like it and just want the reward... SURE! You know me better than me, right? LOL.

[Deleted]

No, i'm sorry but 25 man doesn't require a higher skill requirement and less room for mistakes, it requires 75% of the raid to boost the other 25% to be successful.

I'm talking about progression raiding and bosses that actually matter. Not stuff you can kill while a quarter of your raid is just dicking around.

You have an equal free choice to play the mode you prefer, if you prefer 25man raiding then you do that. You are recruiting for 15 more people, so you are going to have a harder time recruiting that. But you dont have to recruit 15 AMAZING people, you just need to recruit 15 "decent" people. 10mans and 25mans have difficulty recruiting, a huge chunk of good raiders have left the game or moved to other servers it seems, cause we struggle to recruit for 10mans on my server, yet we would prefer to do 25mans.

I do not have a choice in practice, and that's all that matters. I was running a 25 man guild in cata (with roots going back to vanilla), which failed along with every single other 25 man guild. Do you think all us officers in all the guilds just suddenly forgot how to run a raiding guild? Or maybe the system was simply broken by Blizzard to the point where 25 man raiding is simply not viable in practice when there's an alternative way to the same rewards that takes much less effort and skill.

We weren't looking for 15 "decent" people. We were looking for 15 people capable of progression raiding at a level where they do not make frequent stupid mistakes, know how to use their class effectively, and can learn new fights quickly. Other guilds were looking for just anyone to fill their rosters. Neither worked out. Every. Single. 25. Man. Guild. Died. BTW, Paragon failed to exactly the same thing, inability to find people that were up to their standards, so it goes all the way from the bottom to the top.

The reason good raiders are leaving is because the whole raiding model does not appeal to them after it was dumbed down and refocused on capturing the farmville audience. Sure 25hc fights are still very challenging and require all the effort they always did, however, they no longer provide the sense of progression and the rewarding feeling of having actually achieved something meaningful when you can see all of it through LFR/normal/10.

[Espe]

No, i'm sorry but 25 man doesn't require a higher skill requirement and less room for mistakes, it requires 75% of the raid to boost the other 25% to be successful. You have an equal free choice to play the mode you prefer, if you prefer 25man raiding then you do that. You are recruiting for 15 more people, so you are going to have a harder time recruiting that. But you dont have to recruit 15 AMAZING people, you just need to recruit 15 "decent" people. 10mans and 25mans have difficulty recruiting, a huge chunk of good raiders have left the game or moved to other servers it seems, cause we struggle to recruit for 10mans on my server, yet we would prefer to do 25mans.

This, exactly this.

This is what the devs have stated over and over again, while 25m may have a higher logistical (outside of raid) burden, the executional (inside of raid) burden will always be harder on 10m guilds.

There is a reason we only have 25m LFR. Check my sig for more details.

[Deleted]

This is what the devs have stated over and over again, while 25m may have a higher logistical (outside of raid) burden, the executional (inside of raid) burden will always be harder on 10m guilds.

25s have higher executional burden. When I did 10s I could track the whole raid and call out everything for everyone, it was much, much easier to execute than in 25s. In 25s you need people that screw up less (because with 25 people screwing up means there's always someone every try that fucks it up, while in 10s you just don't care and go again).

[Deleted]

25s have higher executional burden. When I did 10s I could track the whole raid and call out everything for everyone, it was much, much easier to execute than in 25s. In 25s you need people that screw up less (because with 25 people screwing up means there's always someone every try that fucks it up, while in 10s you just don't care and go again).

That's because someone else is looking after the other 15 people who are raiding and whom you can no longer see.

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.

All that happens when 25's go to 10's is that the delagation/management burden is authmatically spread accross more people, but it's still there. Each person from their own perspective thinks it's easier and i'd agree that it is, but as a whole package it's not THAT much easier to run many 10 mans over a few 25's.

[Deleted]

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.

No, no you don't. This has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I've read on these forums so far. The experience of the individual player, the one that's the customer, the one that's paying for the whole thing is only affected by how many people are in his raid.

[Deleted]

The reason good raiders are leaving is because the whole raiding model does not appeal to them after it was dumbed down and refocused on capturing the farmville audience. Sure 25hc fights are still very challenging and require all the effort they always did, however, they no longer provide the sense of progression and the rewarding feeling of having actually achieved something meaningful when you can see all of it through LFR/normal/10.

The problem with this sort of comment (and the mentality behind it) is that you are asking the game to be changed for HC raiders when even as part of the raiding community they are a niche. Overall game design features in a mass market game such as wow should be made with the average in mind, not freaky outliers.

[Deleted]

The problem with this sort of comment (and the mentality behind it) is that you are asking the game to be changed for HC raiders when even as part of the raiding community they are a niche. Overall game design features in a mass market game such as wow should be made with the average in mind, not freaky outliers.

The problem with your comment is that you're assuming things I never said and arguing against those. I never said all the content must be for HC raiders. My position is that there should be content that suits every play style from the unskilled casual that plays once per week to the hardcore that play 10 hours per day. Blizzard tried to use the same content for all of them, it failed miserably. The only option is to provide different content for the different groups, or the game will just keep degenerating until they might as well just release it on FB.

[Karazee]

How am I sure of that? it was once stated that WoW has less active players than total accounts. kinda fitting to my statement above dont you think? Yes I know... i cant prove that's the bigger or smaller reason of WoW subscription loss, but, you who wish to respond to this post of the post, also cant prove that isnt the bigger or smaller reason of Wow subscription loss.

Why would you bold this, or even point it out? You're stating the obvious, because it's not like it's possible to have MORE active players than total accounts, since you need an account to play in the first place.

Stop trying to be a forum hero and read what you're writing.

[Deleted]

No, no you don't. This has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I've read on these forums so far. The experience of the individual player, the one that's the customer, the one that's paying for the whole thing is only affected by how many people are in his raid.

Yeah, and my point is that the individual players experience is missing something - the knowledge of what all the other people who he used to raid with are up to.

We see the same sort of confirmation bias amongst hardcore raiders who think wow is easy - they can't see all the people they have booted from their raids who are out there, struggling away and so their personal experience misleads them into thinking everyone is capable of the same level of performance.

If you are blizzard, you don't have the choice of 10 man or 25 man, you always have millions of would be raiders to find homes for and need to find a format that takes away the burdens from the leadership as far as is possible. 10 mans spread out leadership duties automatically, making them much easier for each individual doing the task, but add those efforts together and compare it to an equivalent amount of raiders doing a larger format and it'll not be that far off.

Organise 3x10 man all by yourself and then do 1x25. Which is easier?

[Radalek]

25s already receive a multitude of incentives to compensate for their slightly higher logistical (i.e. outside of raid) requirement.

* More drops per kill.
* Higher chance of raiders being able to actually use the loot than in 10m.
* Much, much less executional (i.e. inside of the actual raid instance) responsibility per person.
* Multiple battle rezes for longer progression attempts and easier kills.
* Slightly less tightly tuned enrage timers on both normal and heroic modes than 10m.

It seems to me that if people still don't want to do 25s with so many incentives as it is, maybe 25s should simply be brought up to be even with 10m. Give them the same drops per boss, give them the same increased difficulty as 10m, take away their extra battle rezes and even though they still have a distinct executional advantage maybe people will actually take them seriously enough to want to try them again. As it is now most 25m encounters are an under-tuned joke.

This guy again, what the f...Did you actually claim again that 10 man has tighter tuned enrage timers? That's absolute lie. Everything you said in your post is more or less a lie but it can be argued...but enrage timers? I said this on some other threads but will repeat it again. Every single DPS check boss in last 2-3 years was killed in the last possible second by 25 man guilds while wiping loads of time previously due to enrage while their 10 man counterparts killed it with 20-30 seconds left with no fuss at all. Check world firsts kills of Baleroc, Ultraxion, Gara'jal, Elegon, check DPS needed to push P3 on Rag hc with 2 meteors. Difference is huge.

edit: And just to add, your out of context sig is pulled from dev talking about LFR only and they also stated that 25 man is more complex but you will not add that, will you.
As for the rest: - 25 man has whooping 4% more loot per raider, chance of getting the loot is higher but it's blow out of proportion from zealots like you.
- On any hard progress boss you have the same executional responsibility on both 10 or 25, you can't afford a single mistake or you wipe. And due to that it's much harder to execute 25 man boss due to having 25 people that need to keep focus and play as a team compared to 10.
- Multiple battle resses? Would you suggest that 25 people in the raid which is getting hit by more damage per raider, where chances of someone making mistake or getting randomly gibbed are much higher should have 1 res like 10 man raiders? That's absolutely ridiculous.

And your self look like a fool saying how "if 25 were harder someone would take it seriously then". Can you tell me then why all the best guilds play 25 and why the only proper 10 man guild, Paragon, wishes they could be 25 man again? Because they want challenge and recognition by beating the hardest content and being best at it. Challenge and recognition that they will not get in 10 man enviroment.

[Deleted]

This guy again, what the f...Did you actually claim again that 10 man has tighter tuned enrage timers? That's absolute lie. Everything you said in your post is more or less a lie but it can be argued...but enrage timers? I said this on some other threads but will repeat it again. Every single DPS check boss in last 2-3 years was killed in the last possible second by 25 man guilds while wiping loads of time previously due to enrage while their 10 man counterparts killed it with 20-30 seconds left with no fuss at all. Check world firsts kills of Baleroc, Ultraxion, Gara'jal, Elegon, check DPS needed to push P3 on Rag hc with 2 meteors. Difference is huge.

World first and HC kills aren't really important here. We are talking about sorting out the right format for the average guild.

[Deleted]

Yeah, and my point is that the individual players experience is missing something - the knowledge of what all the other people who he used to raid with are up to.

It's not missing. It is entirely, completely, 100% irrelevant and should not and must not be any kind of consideration for game design.

We see the same sort of confirmation bias amongst hardcore raiders who think wow is easy - they can't see all the people they have booted from their raids who are out there, struggling away and so their personal experience misleads them into thinking everyone is capable of the same level of performance.

Can you please read what I'm actually writing instead of repeating your tired old arguments? I'm not saying there can't be content for people who have lower level of performance and who struggle, by all means do that. The failure lies in Blizzard's attempt to cut costs by using the same content for both the hardcore raiders and those who are struggling. What is needed are different sets of content for different players.

If you are blizzard, you don't have the choice of 10 man or 25 man, you always have millions of would be raiders to find homes for and need to find a format that takes away the burdens from the leadership as far as is possible. 10 mans spread out leadership duties automatically, making them much easier for each individual doing the task, but add those efforts together and compare it to an equivalent amount of raiders doing a larger format and it'll not be that far off.

But I'm not Blizzard. You are not Blizzard. Your armchair game design is completely meaningless. We're both customers and only thing that should matter to us is the experience we get out of the game. Currently I do not get a meaningful experience out of the game because Blizzard killed 25 man raiding, so I'm not paying them money. The fact that there's two other 10 mans doesn't make my 10 man interesting or intellectually challenging enough for me to bother playing it.

Organise 3x10 man all by yourself and then do 1x25. Which is easier?

Please tell me how this is in any way relevant?

[Deleted]

It's not missing. It is entirely, completely, 100% irrelevant and should not and must not be any kind of consideration for game design.

Can't see your reasoning.

Can you please read what I'm actually writing instead of repeating your tired old arguments? I'm not saying there can't be content for people who have lower level of performance and who struggle, by all means do that. The failure lies in Blizzard's attempt to cut costs by using the same content for both the hardcore raiders and those who are struggling. What is needed are different sets of content for different players.

Erm lower = normal. This is exactly what I meant. Raids (both in difficulty level and format) aren't designed with complete retards who can't even point their character the right way all the time in mind, so why design them for people on the other end of the bell curve? Either way you penalise the normal, average raider.

But I'm not Blizzard. You are not Blizzard. Your armchair game design is completely meaningless. We're both customers and only thing that should matter to us is the experience we get out of the game. Currently I do not get a meaningful experience out of the game because Blizzard killed 25 man raiding, so I'm not paying them money. The fact that there's two other 10 mans doesn't make my 10 man interesting or intellectually challenging enough for me to bother playing it.

The experience we get in the game is that 10 mans are a lot better than 25's. Both to raid in and lead. The playerbase obviously and overwhelmingly agrees. (I note you've made the hardcore bias mistake again here - most people don't raid for the interest or the intellectual challenge, they do it for loot.)

Please tell me how this is in any way relevant?

Because it reveals that by going with 10 mans, that a burden is removed from the player, which impoves the fun level.

[Deleted]

Erm lower = normal. This is exactly what I meant. Raids (both in difficulty level and format) aren't designed with complete retards who can't even point their character the right way all the time in mind, so why design them for people on the other end of the bell curve? Either way you penalise the normal, average raider.

Once again I have to ask you to read what I wrote before you reply. The whole problem is that they're designing all raids for everyone. It was a decent theory, but practice showed that it doesn't work. What happens in reality is that you end up with content aimed at the lowest common denominator (because that's what it takes to "see the content") while everyone above that are just grinding the same content over and over in increasing difficulty modes. That's a terrible gaming experience and I'm not going to pay a monthly fee for that when the same money on Steam buys me gaming experiences that actually suit me perfectly without trying to be a half-assed compromise to satisfy everyone with the lowest possible cost.

The experience we get in the game is that 10 mans are a lot better than 25's. Both to raid in and lead. The playerbase obviously and overwhelmingly agrees. (I note you've made the hardcore bias mistake again here - most people don't raid for the interest or the intellectual challenge, they do it for loot.)

There is no such experience from the game. The experience from the game shows that people will go for the easiest path to the rewards. Further, that doesn't show that taking that path will actually give them the most enjoyable experience, and indeed you can see that the sub numbers are not skyrocketing with millions of new satisfied players coming into the game. People are shown in numerous studies to be incapable of knowing what will make them happy. They will choose the best effort/reward path even if it makes them less happy with the game (again, similar findings can be found in peer reviewed psychology research if you're interested in digging around scholar.google.com).

Because it reveals that by going with 10 mans, that a burden is removed from the player, which impoves the fun level.

It does not do that in any shape or form.

[Deleted]

Once again I have to ask you to read what I wrote before you reply. The whole problem is that they're designing all raids for everyone. It was a decent theory, but practice showed that it doesn't work. What happens in reality is that you end up with content aimed at the lowest common denominator (because that's what it takes to "see the content") while everyone above that are just grinding the same content over and over in increasing difficulty modes. That's a terrible gaming experience and I'm not going to pay a monthly fee for that when the same money on Steam buys me gaming experiences that actually suit me perfectly without trying to be a half-assed compromise to satisfy everyone with the lowest possible cost.

How does more people raiding now than at any time in the games history show that the theory doesn't work?

You not liking it doesn't matter a gnats chuff.

There is no such experience from the game. The experience from the game shows that people will go for the easiest path to the rewards. Further, that doesn't show that taking that path will actually give them the most enjoyable experience, and indeed you can see that the sub numbers are not skyrocketing with millions of new satisfied players coming into the game. People are shown in numerous studies to be incapable of knowing what will make them happy. They will choose the best effort/reward path even if it makes them less happy with the game (again, similar findings can be found in peer reviewed psychology research if you're interested in digging around scholar.google.com).

Erm people like the easiest path to rewards. 10 mans give them an easier path. Therefore 10 mans are better for people. Simply logic.

It does not do that in any shape or form.

1 10 man is easier to run and manage than 1 25 man. So while the average amount of effort goes up per player, because that effort is spread amongst more people it feels like less effort to each one of them. (Here I am assuming the managing and running raids is a chore that few actually enjoy, which given the lack of people who step up to tdo it is a fair assumption..)

I think that the average wow player just wants things you don't, Martoshi.

[Radalek]

How does more people raiding now than at any time in the games history show that the theory doesn't work?

Erm people like the easiest path to rewards. 10 mans give them an easier path. Therefore 10 mans are better for people. Simply logic.

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?

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. 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.

[Deleted]

How does more people raiding now than at any time in the games history show that the theory doesn't work?

LFR doesn't count as "raiding" and simply raiding does not mean people are enjoying the game more than before.

Erm people like the easiest path to rewards. 10 mans give them an easier path. Therefore 10 mans are better for people. Simply logic.

Doesn't mean they like it, it means they will take it when making a decision. It doesn't mean they are happier with the game as a result. Also, put in solo or 5 man modes to the "raids" and you'll see many, many people taking that. So it would make the game better by your logic. Put in all the gear to a vendor and you'd see people using that, would it make the game better?

1 10 man is easier to run and manage than 1 25 man. So while the average amount of effort goes up per player, because that effort is spread amongst more people it feels like less effort to each one of them. (Here I am assuming the managing and running raids is a chore that few actually enjoy, which given the lack of people who step up to tdo it is a fair assumption..)

That's just nonsensical. For one thing you're assuming linear scaling of effort as a function of players in raid, which is completely false.

[Zanno]

I have a core I5, 8 gigs ram, 660 ti video card, 2x ssd hard drives. With that said. I still wont raid 25 man lag fests. Its bad enough doing Sha with 10 fps. In 10 mans, i hover around 30. Thats sad. And I can only imagine other peoples computers having to deal with 25 man and world bosses.

25 man raiding is dead and will stay dead. Hmm lets see. Do I want to depend on 15 other people, make things more difficult for the same rewards. Or do it with 10 people where I wont lag as heavily, have less stress and easier management including pugging. Yeah, Ill stick with 10 man raiding forever lol.

You're playing on a 50" TV what do you expect?

I just had to comment on this one....

Uhm, what does the size of his monitor have to do with anything he's complaining about?

/confused