Personally, I think it should be 20-man. The average 25-man guild I've ever been in has, at most, maybe five "dead weight" raiders on their roster. It would be a perfect merge for 10-man guilds as they simply a. merge two 10-man groups or b. merge two 10-man guilds and 25-mans it would be perfect because they drop their five worst and it's not a major middle finger.
Fenixdown (retail) : level 60 priest. 2005-2015, 2022-???? (returned!)
Fenixdown (classic) : level 70 priest. 2019 - present
If you think 25m raids are cool and want to go through the extra effort and carry 15 more bads then go for it. Nobody is stopping you. If you can't, suck it up buttercup. You don't deserve extra rewards, the reward is doing something you like and not having the feature taken away for you even though it's inferior in terms of sheer practicality (easier to find 10 non-mouthbreathers, easier to get mats ready, easier to keep everyone on the same page etc). People shouldn't have to do 25m raids because they give something cool...they don't want to do them. If they did, they'd do them anyway because they're fun for them.
That is what most people are missing the point of. You aren't special for doing 25m raids. You shouldn't get anything extra. Nobody should be forced to do something they don't want just because YOU want something extra for nothing.
Paladin Bash has spoken.
Thats what i don't like with many that come into support of the 10 man. You don't focus on the problem but on the people. Your concern is for the others not to have something more than you do and your eternal syndrom is for what you do not to be considered inferior.
Why do you think that this aproach even matters?
25s are dying for sure, but you can see that raiding is also diminishing as an hole.
Everything has to fall appart till you people change the "you aint special" tune?
They can plan....but its going to be problematic no matter how its done. 10/25 man raiding is going to be going on in some form until the next Xpac launches, but what you would also need would be a quiet period - such as a long period when raiding naturally dies down. The year for DS/LK would have been a good time - raiding dies down, and people and guilds start thinking about the next XPac.
You mean, force 10 man guilds to find an extra 5 or so players....then force 25s to tell at least 10 players "Sorry, you ain't raiding today".A 15-man raid in the final patch before a new expansion--not trivial but not earth-shattering in difficulty or importance--wouldn't be a terrible idea either.
I think that'd be a terrible idea. What you'd want would be some sort of pick up raid, something players could just try out but without pushing it into the status of a mainstream. What you'd get are the various guilds complaining about having to recruit or sit so many raiders.
I'd go further....the complete destruction of serious hardcore 25 man raiding might not be serious enough to warrant the change. Further, if they do want to minimise disruption during a transition, then a fixed 10 man size would be preferable in many ways.Given circumstances like that it might work but no one should be kidding anyone that it wouldn't be a difficult thing, cause a lot of grief, etc. The fact is that 15-man raids would be more work to do than 10's. Not as much as 25s of course but more nonetheless. There's no guarantee that betting everything on a 15-man raid size would work out which is why I said earlier that they need a damn good reason to do it. The current situation, which might be amenable to tweaks here and there and gradual pushes, may not be serious enough to warrant such a decision.
Given past responses, players would react very negatively to such a change and I think there would be a drop in subs; only this time there'd be no large amount of incoming players to offset anyone who leaves.
It's very much a last resort for a very good reason. But I think the game would have to be in very dire straits for them to seriously consider this.
The problem is simple.
Not enough players want to do 25s. There are a number of reasons why they don't want to do it, but ultimately I think the reason is 10s minimise the aspects of raiding they don't like. Guild and Raid Management. Logistics. Recruiting. Scheduling. Guild/Raid drama. And so on. 10s would also be a nice fit for a usual circle of friends within the game, and its easy to get PCs to power such content. For all the supposed feel 25s offer some people, most players just do not want to deal with its logistical issues.
And your concern is...the exact same. You don't want 10s to have more than 25s, and that's just as selfish as denying 10s any degree of viability by (for example) calling for the LK model to return.Your concern is for the others not to have something more than you do and your eternal syndrome is for what you do not to be considered inferior.
One of the main reasons the LK model failed is because it denied smaller guilds equality and viability.
Raiding has always been a minority interest in the game. Always. Players didn't want the hassle of organising, running , scheduling, dealing with guild drama and so on. Today? Today players have the option of LFR and I'd bet a LOT of players who used to raid now do LFR instead. The format a certain group of players don't see as real raiding.25s are dying for sure, but you can see that raiding is also diminishing as an hole.
What you want to say is that the players interested in taking part in organised raiding had decreased,and /or been split between various modes.
EJL
Last edited by Talen; 2013-02-08 at 02:48 AM.
Forum conversations are hard sometimes. See #1047 which is the short version of what I think about it and is pretty much in agreement with you. The other post that you quoted was mostly a thought experiment based on what might be a logical way forward if Blizzard decided to say, "OK. We'll do this."
The piece that you thought was such a terrible idea (the 15-man raid at the end of an expansion) should be viewed in the context that an announcement had been made months before and that people would be more or less aware of what was about to happen. It's probably idealistic to think that guilds would plan for such a thing in advance but truly, the idea was to signal that a new raiding reality was about to come to pass and if people hadn't gotten their act together it was time to do so instead of waiting until a new expansion and multiple raids dropped that would be more serious business.
Perhaps I didn't lay that out well enough. I'm still very much on the side that 10s/25s should stay as they are and that Blizzard should do everything they can think of to redeem the situation before pulling the trigger on anything radical. In that case, I would agree, things would be in dire straits. No argument whatsoever that it would be something of a trauma for many involved, would drive a large portion of the serious raiding population to consider leaving altogether and pretty much gut raiding as we know it. Whether anything good would rise out of that is an open question.
"...money's most powerful ability is to allow bad people to continue doing bad things at the expense of those who don't have it."
Meh not again this guy...
No easy solutions the devs said EJL but diagnosed a problem... So you preaching leave things as they are, is not relevant. You re something like "last expansion's trend" a worn out fashion.
You mean the same way that some people were forced not to raid at all, or not to raid 25s at the begining of cataclysm?
You didnt seem so sensitive on those "issues" back then!
Spare me m8...
You think wrong. Take any guild you want and check people flows over the period of a year. Nothing is static, everything evolves. Your argument is based on a static representation of a present were raiding is dying. A present that needs to become part of the past. A snapshot.
Nooo! EJL tears for the few remaining 25s that got spared so far by the horrendus raiding model THAT HE SUPPORTS!!! What a hypocrite!
At least final sentence reminds people who you actually are and how clueless on top of everything!
So you suggest 10s to stay unchanged so the 15 (and not 10) spare people from a downsized 25 to remain with no raiding team whatsoever???
How deep your thought is!
Lol so now you re resorting to "past responces", like the responce that your precious present raiding model received maybe, but never the less you have written 5000 posts in favor of it?
Hmm like experiencing a decline in people raiding of over 50% maybe? Like seeing subs going under 10 million AGAIN? You know raise dead doesnt work. The patient has to be alive in order to receive a successfull treatment!
Your problem is simple. You re biased and clueless.
And you prefer to ignore statements like
However, calling 25-player raids less favorable in unfounded and an unfair assessment. Tons of players would love to do 25s, but the coordination and effort to do so is more difficult with very little additional reward. 10s aren't more popular because the entire community agreed they're more fun, it's just a simple case of effort versus reward.
Since they don't fit your agenta eh?
You remember were those words come from?
The Blizzard devs! The ones that introduced this horrentus system your so fond about in the first place!
No my concern is that i want raiding to thrive the way it was during WotLK. If you fail to see that i have nothing else to say to you on the matter.
LK model did not fail. Cataclysm model did, and still does as we speak. There is only a fake perseption of equality. Equality means same efford same reward. Here obviously this equation is distorded and you can see the results.
So because it has been a minority interest we can have 1 guild remain raiding if that means that your precious model survives EJL?
Do you know how much % of the actual community those 1,3 million people raiding were? Do you?
Your grudge is with the existance of guilds now as well?
Pressing auto buttons is the future? Cheers, you can squeeze them as much as you want but ill pass and i will continue claiming what i believe it is better.
No what you want to say is that you have no clue but in fancy words.
We have systemic problems. Solve them and then lets see what the people interest is about. Deal?
If you need help to spot the problems we can help you, just reach out...
Also i hope this will be received as "quotation" in the same manner that EJL's post was "quoting" mine...
I am genuinely surprised when i see that this particular guy is so well received by mods, even when he contradicts Blizzard Developers. Till end of september i thought it was because he was expresing the "politically correct" opinion. The one that was publicly shared by the devs (though they were horribly wrong).
The problem is that it WOULD be idealistic. Regardless of how much notice you give there would always be a sizeable fraction of guilds who weren't ready. Dropping a 15 man into the mix at the same time as 10s and 25s, however, is just begging for trouble. You would be expecting guilds to raid with multiple sizes. You'd be expecting them to resize mid-Xpac.
If we were to go this route, then the ideal time would be when x.0 launched, the pre-launch patch where it could be presented as an intro, kinda like how Theramore was previewed. Hopefully, it would be better and more interesting and better presented than that.
I think the answer, this late into the games life cycle, is no. A single fixed size raid of between 12 and 18 players would be near perfect. But hindsight is 20/20. While there would be some good to come form the change, the truth is I think it would simply be too disruptive to the game. It would need to be packaged as part of some radical overhaul. A relaunch of sorts. Short of anything like that, I don't see the long term cost being worth the gain; LOSING 25 Normal and Heroic woudl probably be less traumatic for the game.Whether anything good would rise out of that is an open question.
No, I think the core issues began in TBC when Blizzard brought in two sizes of raid. Two incompatible raid sizes. Looking back, it seems as if they wanted the smaller guilds to be more casual, and the larger to reflect the more hardcore. But in TBC, that got wrecked because players ended up doing both. They designed LK that way...but still ended up with the smaller guilds being sidelined. In Cata, they finally got to a situation where both raid sizes are viable...but where the logistics and organisational issues, combined with sub loss due to a poor expansion, a need for increased PC specs and several other factors combined to make the larger size much less attractive, especially to the most important raiders in the game - the people who actually organise raids.
How to fix that? My answer is simple - you can't. For both sizes to be viable, BOTH must have EQUAL rewards. Theres some room to tinker around the edges with drop rates but as soon as you ensure one is seen as better for loot, people will flock to it. If both are equal, players will gravitate to the format that minimises the aspects that they don't like.
And players don't like managing raids.
Leaving the problem that if you can't give the format more difficult to organise raid better rewards to draw players to it, players will shy away from it precisely because it embodies aspects they don't like. Unlike others, I don't really see raid difficulty or this path of least resistance aspect as a major issue. From my pov, the issue is simple. I players want to raid, they will either create a raid and get players or they will join a raid based on factors that suit them - and those factors are (IMO) more likely to be aspects such as scheduling and how they interact with other raid members than whether format A is 3% more difficult than Format B.
EJL
The decline in 25m raiding was player driven only.
Both should have been driven by player and guild preference, but instead players flocked to what proved to the easier route, the one with less organisational requirements rather than the one they enjoyed.
25m with superior loot forced it to be a mandatory progression rather than a choice, and unfair on those not in sufficiently sized guilds for organised progression above 10m.
That is why blizzard equalised the loot, to make it fair.
You make it sound like they haven't stated something I've been stating flat out for the past while.
I didn't post on those issues back then because beta was over and I'd made my point there, on those forums. When Cata launched was the time to see how accurate the predictions were going to be. I don't think I was far off with my 90-10 split forecastYou mean the same way that some people were forced not to raid at all, or not to raid 25s at the begining of cataclysm?
You didnt seem so sensitive on those "issues" back then!
Spare me m8...
As it is, I would suggest that there is a clear difference between Blizzard making the player do something, and the player making a choice because he doesn't like what Blizzard has done. Blizzard designed a system where they expected anyone who couldn't raid 25s would switch to 10s. Where the answer to a no-show was...split the raid into 2 tens until the player gets back. What happened was "Player X doesn't show up leads to Raid not happening".
Players made a choice based on the game conditions at the time. Blizzard didn't create conditions which forced them to act in a certain way. Blizzard remoevd the need for players to raid 25s and as a result, players left in droves. Players switched to 10s in their thousands.
Perhaps. However, your instructions aside, I just have to look at threads such as this were we have players still moaning about the loss of 40 man raids, and look back to the disruption caused by the switch to 10s and 25s at the start of TBC and the reported loss of subs to actually see what happens when raid sizes change. As GC stated, there are players who still haven't forgiven that change and I don't see the fact 25s have been around for 6 years instead of 2 making things any easier. The game doesn't have masses of players joining up to cushion the blow this time.You think wrong.
And, even if you are right, the point is simple - do you truly think this is a risk worth taking?
I've made no secret of the fact I think the current raid model is far superior to that of the LK for various reasons.Nooo! EJL tears for the few remaining 25s that got spared so far by the horrendus raiding model THAT HE SUPPORTS!!!
I support the current raid model. I prefer 25s. I think there needs to be a solution, but one that doesn't undermine the current raid model. I think most of the solutions presented so far are foolish in that they ignore Blizzards desire to keep 10s viable.What a hypocrite!
Where is the hypocrisy?
It's facing reality. If Blizzard were to move to a single raid size model, they can either disrupt every guild in the game or they can disrupt a few hundred or a few tens. Disruption affecting a few players is far preferable to disruption affecting all players.At least final sentence reminds people who you actually are and how clueless on top of everything!
I would have thought you had realised that players leaving a guild CAN actually form a new one. Not to mention that you are complaining about the same problem your idea of a 15 man raid would cause.So you suggest 10s to stay unchanged so the 15 (and not 10) spare people from a downsized 25 to remain with no raiding team whatsoever???
No. Raiding population has actually doubled since LK. Seriously. I should know - I was the only player raiding at the time. In the entire world. These days, my brother also raids. So...now there are two raiders, instead of 1.Hmm like experiencing a decline in people raiding of over 50% maybe?
Those other folk? Oh...they don't count as raiders.
See - I can arbitrarily discount people as well.
You seem to miss the point. This isn't about trying to ensure 25s "win" over 10s; this is about trying to ensure raiding is available for all, in a format players like. You may want to discount LFR as a true raiding format, but it is still a bunch of players making use of raid content in a raid group experiencing raid mechanics. At an easy difficulty level, sure - but if MC or the Gunship counts as a raid, why can't LFR? Simply because it undermines your point that there are fewer raiders now than before?
Yeah. The CRZ and daily fiasco had a cost. Thankfully, it didn't really affect raiders.Like seeing subs going under 10 million AGAIN?
No. I don't. I also don't ignore statements where Blizzard discuss the many reason why players prefer 10s, the logistics issues facing 25s and so on. As it is, I largely agree with that statement - 10s, after , do require less logistical and organisational effort on behalf of the player.Your problem is simple. You re biased and clueless.
And you prefer to ignore statements like
More raiders now than ever before and you claim raiding isn't thriving.No my concern is that i want raiding to thrive the way it was during WotLK. If you fail to see that i have nothing else to say to you on the matter.
Yes, unfortunately...it did. There are reasons why it was changed. It worked, but not well enough. Its flaws outweighed its successes.LK model did not fail.
I see raids which require equal effort to play through but where one requires much less effort to join and where the other has a relatively huge logistical burden most players do not want to shoulder. I see that leading to a situation where most raiders get the same reward for the same effort, but where many raiders choose formats based upon little things such as "I can raid at this time so this raid fits".Equality means same efford same reward. Here obviously this equation is distorded and you can see the results.
How many players do you know who are interested in the day to day grind of running a guild or raid and all that comes with it? How many players do you know just want to raid? In my case, the answers are "none" and "a lot" respectively. Oh, I know players who WILL run a 25 man guild/raid - I don't know anyone who actually truly wants to do it.So because it has been a minority interest we can have 1 guild remain raiding if that means that your precious model survives EJL?
Because, you see...raiding as you see it (and I'm leaving out LFR here) has always been a minority interest. Its been able to succeed because those players were largely channelled into one raid size, one raid difficulty and that was supported by the attraction of the best gear in game. Its easy to be "successful" when there is no choice.
But then Blizzard introduced choice. Players had a choice of raid sizes, and raid difficulty. One choice...became four, but skewed because of the gear aspect. And then four became five, and the skewed nature was removed. So now, all those players that used to have a choice of one raid format, one raid difficulty now have five viable formats in which to raid. This allows for far better balance and design and targeting by Blizzard....but it also dilutes the audience for each format.
Which leads us to the situation where you can ask if having just 1 25 man guild remaining is worth the new model.
To which the answer is, as things stand.....yes. Better balanced, better targeted raids and a hefty raider population that ensures the actiivty will contineut o be funded by Blizzard.
To me, thats better than having everyone in one format, which is imperfectly tuned for everyone because it has to cater for everyone and which is so exclusive that raiding is shut down as it can't justify its costs.
I don't believe I have ever contradicted Blizzard developers. Disagreed with them? Sure...Do that all the time.I am genuinely surprised when i see that this particular guy is so well received by mods, even when he contradicts Blizzard Developers.
EJL
Last edited by Talen; 2013-02-08 at 05:38 AM.
Our 3-page discussion involved your statistical fluke regarding no bow dropping for 4 hunters in 25m for 12 weeks. You went for an argument, and I completely debunked your premise, while I don't even necessarily agree or disagree with your argument. Your premise was plain poppycocks. But you had to vigilantly defend it, with your buddy Matoshi claiming something vague about PRNG (which emulates RNG closely enough).
I'll explain it you once more: if you get an ice block under you 3x on Stone Guards that is RNG, "bad luck". When you stood in it 3x without blue being active that isn't "bad luck"; that's bad play. The ice block spawning 3 times under you isn't some faerie at Blizzard pulling a lever "lets grief that guy". If you do TK twice and get A'lar that's not Blizzard flagging your account "allowed to receive mount", that is called "being lucky" or "good RNG". If you're trying to pick a lock and you roll 2D and you need to roll more than 4 to succeed but you roll 3 then you had good odds but you lost it with "bad luck" or "bad RNG". There's no magic force involved in it. It isn't something you take into account "next time I'll get it" because it stands on its own (future rolls aren't causal related to this one).
Back to our Stone Guards example: if the chance of getting 3 times the ice block in a row is 1 in 1000 or 0,1% then it will happen sometimes given the boss is killed more than 1000 times a week (which makes the chance at least 1 in 1). However, just because this happens, does not warrant some kind of argument for some kind of crybaby RNG club where people complain about RNG. Instead, people should realize they just had bad luck.
Which means if 4 hunters for 12 weeks do not get in 25m (6 drops) something with 10% drop chance they are incredibly unlucky and off from the statistical median. They are statistical flukes (6 x 12 = 72 drops with 10% drop chance means 720% drop chance of 1 bow which means the bow on average would've dropped 7,2 times. Which means well over 7 hunters would've gotten their bow. In your case, it did not drop at all, out of the 4 hunters not 1 got their bow. We are not even taking Lucky Charms and LFR into the equation here. We can feel sorry for you (you're fishing for pity tho IMO), we can pray to the RNG gods (if you believe in them), but that is all we can do. What we cannot do is take your example as "how hardcore raiders are still doing LFR". For one, the amount of hardcore raiders isn't that large. Second, the chance this type of thing occurs is incredible rare. To prove your argument there are much better examples available which don't require anecdotes or statistical flukes.
You might want to go over your Statistics I and Statistics II notes, what you described here is NOT how statistics works, and I'm not gonna go through the process of explaining it at the moment. I just got my Gao-Rei after 72 attempts at a weapon (including Spirit Kings LFR/Normal/Heroic and Tsu-Long LFR/Normal, coins used on every attempt). That's 3.5 months of raiding with a blue weapon
On topic - For me, merging achievements/lockout was a HUGE mistake. As a poster previously said, 10man guilds do their progress during the week, then on a Sunday (for example), get together with another 10man guild and go raid 25man. Likewise, the 25man guild could do their progress during the week, then on their offday/offdays, make 2-3 10man groups. People whined about TOC and it's 4 resets (10N/10HC/25N/25HC), but do you honestly prefer having ONE reset?
@lola
You kill leu shi:
he drops 6 pieces of loot of which 3 are tokens.
so we have 3 items
he has a loottable of 17 items excluding tokens.
for each of the 3 items there is a 1/17 chance that the game rolls the gun.
Does the chance of 1/17 change over time. No it does not.
if you were to claim that you might also claim that the chance of a given combination coming out in the lottery increases over time which is complete and utter nonsense.
if we are to calculate the chance that it does not drop we have to look at the combination that all 3 loot rolls lead to it not dropping. there is a 16/17 chance everytime. so 16/17=94% chance of the game not rolling the gun. We then do that 3 times so end up with .094*0.94*0.94=.83= 83% chance each week that the gun didn't drop.
If we look at it over 12 weeks what is the chance that it didn't drop all these weeks that the same scenario happened. We multiply the 83% 12 times = 0.83^12 = 0.10=10%, so there is a 10% chance that after 12 weeks of killing that boss the gun didn't drop at all.
So it is not that unlikely that the gun hasn't dropped at all.
But that is only calculating that over time statistically it schould have dropped.
But over time statistically doesn't say anything about the next kill because at each kill he has a chance of 83% that the gun will not drop and that is the important part.
And coins do not increase it dramatically. Firstly the coin has to end up dropping loot which has an unknown propability. And then he has a 25% chance of getting the gun because the hunter loottable of lei shi is 4 items (gun,token,trinket,belt).
And LFR again unknown propability of game rolling loot and when it rolls loot he only has a 25% chance of getting the gun.
Last edited by mmoc30cfcfeceb; 2013-02-08 at 02:55 PM.
Current Blizzard incentives for 5.2 are simply not enough.
It either needs to go back to the Wrath of the Lich King model, or put non-gear things that are highly sought after, like cool mounts exclusive to 25-mans.
Basically drastic problems require drastic solutions.
Yeah that's true, permutations.
Dax, someone else told me, in this very thread, the bow has a 10% drop chance. I went with that number. I didn't know the loot table was shared with Tsulong. I did not calculate the tier tokens indeed, my bad.
It also isn't my job to refute your premise because it is your job to prove yours; you did not do this.
The original premise was that "hardcore raiding guilds had to do LFR to get the bow from Lei Shi LFR". With the ranged weapon being your example. My reply was this was exceptionally rare. 10% is rare, but like you said I agree 10% is not exceptionally rare.
However you need to factor in the follow statistics as well:
1) Charms on N/H; 12 additional shots.
2) LFR; 12 additional shots.
3) Charms on LFR; 12 additional shots.
4) This puppy on H: http://www.wowdb.com/items/87069-fan...park-of-titans (hardcore raiding guilds have Will of The Emperor on farm); 12 additions shots.
You'll find because of these 4 factors the chance of none of these factors triggering makes the chance the hunter has to do Lei Shi LFR is much lower than 10% of all hardcore raiders.
Although we need to define what a hardcore raiding guild is (top100? top300?) and the amount of mains who are hunters.
Yes but we need to take into account the chance of none of these 4 factors triggering AT ALL.So it is not that unlikely that the gun hasn't dropped at all.
But that is only calculating that over time statistically it schould have dropped.
But over time statistically doesn't say anything about the next kill because at each kill he has a chance of 83% that the gun will not drop and that is the important part.
And coins do not increase it dramatically. Firstly the coin has to end up dropping loot which has an unknown propability. And then he has a 25% chance of getting the gun because the hunter loottable of lei shi is 4 items (gun,token,trinket,belt).
And LFR again unknown propability of game rolling loot and when it rolls loot he only has a 25% chance of getting the gun.
There is nothing fair about the current system. I'm a 25 man raider, I have no interest in 10 man raiding, however, in the current system I have no choice in practice to play 25s. So I had to quit.
Also, few more ilvls on the gear is hardly "forcing" anyone. It just shows how little people actually care about the raid size, few ilvl more is much more important than running 10 instead of 25.
Le sigh. Another post with 0 objectivity or comprehension of the facts.
Nobody is saying 25's is "special", whatever that means to you, people are noting its differences. The primary difference is that 25's are much more difficult to maintain logistically than 10m's. People who want to do 25's cannot either find a good fit for them or are unable to maintain that raid group because of said logistical differences. Rewards, no rewards, those people who want to do 25's and cannot or are doing 25's and would like to be able to maintain their roster/raid group without perpetual headaches are seeking some alleviation to these aforementioned problems.
Get a better understanding of a thread and issue before you spout this kind of ignorant shlt. Thx ^.^
If the size of raid groups must be re-evaluated, I think 20 is a good, round number but I don't see blizzard taking out 10's and making 20m the only size. I could, however, seeing them eliminate 25's and introducing 20's in some attempt to "keep larger, more challenging raiding alive without taking anything away from the playerbase". At least that is what I imagine Blizzard would say :/
Agreed, the incentives are not a viable solution to keeping 25’s alive. Incentives are nice, and a few more might help but are not ultimately what will bring 25’s back from the grave, as the main issues remain to be logistical.
-=-Sig by Rivellana-=-
Agreed, but the point is not to make people who genuinely enjoy a 10m environment more than a 25m environment feel too pressured into having to do a different raid format (as that is what is happening now for 25s to 10s due to logistics and availability) just because of what would then be too strong incentives. A problem that exists is that almost any incentive to 25's and the 10m people will cry their little hearts out that it's "zomg totally unfair! :*( qq"
-=-Sig by Rivellana-=-