Blizzards 25 man mistake.

[Radalek]

According to this post, blizzard stated that 25mans are easier.

---------- Post added 2013-02-09 at 04:40 PM ----------


But it doesnt require...

Do you know you quoted Espe, biggest troll in this and other 10vs25 man threads? By quoting that guy as a support of your claims everything you say lost it's credibility...
Guy is quoting out of context blue post that talked about LFR alone and trying to make it look as if they said 25 man is easier when they actually never did. They infact stated that 25 man is more complex, which is logical ofc.

Here's blue post qoute for you:
In short, we're not satisfied with the current status of 25-player raids. There are clear logistical challenges to sustaining a 25-player raiding group. It's inherently 2.5 times as much churn.
25-player raiding is more complex on a macro level (more moving pieces). Even perfect tuning doesn't compensate for the logistical difficulties, though.

That is a blue post.

[Hakto]

Do you know you quoted Espe, biggest troll in this and other 10vs25 man threads? By quoting that guy as a support of your claims everything you say lost it's credibility...
Guy is quoting out of context blue post that talked about LFR alone and trying to make it look as if they said 25 man is easier when they actually never did. They infact stated that 25 man is more complex, which is logical ofc.

Here's blue post qoute for you:
In short, we're not satisfied with the current status of 25-player raids. There are clear logistical challenges to sustaining a 25-player raiding group. It's inherently 2.5 times as much churn.
25-player raiding is more complex on a macro level (more moving pieces). Even perfect tuning doesn't compensate for the logistical difficulties, though.

That is a blue post.

Unfortunately, logic won't work in these scenarios.

People are set in their ways and thinking, I simply do not bother.

For example, we get people saying 10 man raiding is the popular choice now let's get rid of 25 mans all together, actually I would personally say that LFR is the most popular choice as it has the highest number of participants: should we just scrap all normal and heroic raiding if we're deciding based on what's the most popular?

Many things have been 'popular' throughout history without being right or the best.

[Elegiac]

Unfortunately, logic won't work in these scenarios.

People are set in their ways and thinking, I simply do not bother.

For example, we get people saying 10 man raiding is the popular choice now let's get rid of 25 mans all together, actually I would personally say that LFR is the most popular choice as it has the highest number of participants: should we just scrap all normal and heroic raiding if we're deciding based on what's the most popular?

Many things have been 'popular' throughout history without being right or the best.

LFR and raiding proper are two different species. For the latter, it has become evident that 25 mans are not fun enough in of themselves to remain viable.

[Radalek]

LFR and raiding proper are two different species. For the latter, it has become evident that 25 mans are not fun enough in of themselves to remain viable.

That's why 1/3 of the current 10 man raiders would like to raid 25 man if they could. How do you explain that?

[Elegiac]

That's why 1/3 of the current 10 man raiders would like to raid 25 man if they could. How do you explain that?

Laziness, because if they were so intent on doing it then they would form 25 man groups.

[Radalek]

Laziness, because if they were so intent on doing it then they would form 25 man groups.

But that's directly contradicting what you said in your previous post. Problem is not that they are not fun, people are too lazy to organize 25 man due to not having enough incentives to do so.
Or you think multibillion company would risk giving incentives to "not fun, non viable" form of raiding.

[Elegiac]

But that's directly contradicting what you said in your previous post. Problem is not that they are not fun, people are too lazy to organize 25 man due to not having enough incentives to do so.
Or you think multibillion company would risk giving incentives to "not fun, non viable" form of raiding.

If they were fun, people would be motivated to do them.

Yes. Multibillion dollar companies do stupid shit all the time. Look at CRZ.

[Hyrican]

But that's directly contradicting what you said in your previous post. Problem is not that they are not fun, people are too lazy to organize 25 man due to not having enough incentives to do so.

Partly right. There are not enough incentives to start a 25m and be the organizer, incentives to join a 25m that is running is good. So good, that bad players swarm 25m raids on servers with enough active population. The amount of good people willing to put up with bad players is shrinking as the game gets older. 10m gets more attractive for reducing the amount of bad players in a raidgrp.

And downsizing from 25 to 10 man for an encounter where you already wiped a good amount will not be with the one who always sucks at the encounter. He will not be invited... Try that in 10man without downsizing?

[Radalek]

Partly right. There are not enough incentives to start a 25m and be the organizer, incentives to join a 25m that is running is good. So good, that bad players swarm 25m raids on servers with enough active population. The amount of good people willing to put up with bad players is shrinking as the game gets older. 10m gets more attractive for reducing the amount of bad players in a raidgrp.

And downsizing from 25 to 10 man for an encounter where you already wiped a good amount will not be with the one who always sucks at the encounter. He will not be invited... Try that in 10man without downsizing?

Problem is...25 man guild that downsizes is as good as dead. It's sure path to perma downsize or guild death. I wouldn't call that a good option for any 25 man guild. It does sound great, "if you can't kill it on 25, downsize, pick 10 best players and kill it" but in reality it's something that any guild that would like to stay 25 will avoid. Once you do it your fate is set sadly...

[Hakto]

Problem is...25 man guild that downsizes is as good as dead. It's sure path to perma downsize or guild death. I wouldn't call that a good option for any 25 man guild. It does sound great, "if you can't kill it on 25, downsize, pick 10 best players and kill it" but in reality it's something that any guild that would like to stay 25 will avoid. Once you do it your fate is set sadly...

While not 'strictly' true, this is correct.

We had to temporarily downsize to 2 x 10 mans in firelands, killed H beth (2 groups) in ~ 3 hours of attempts and managed to get enough recruits to go back to 25.

Fortunately we've never been quite in that position again, sure we've had our revolving door of raiders, but we've managed to stay 25 since, and are just now seeing a resurgence in people wanting to raid 25's over 10's.

Usually their reasoning is along the lines of: "I miss the feel of 25 man raiding, I miss the complexity and the elation of downing that hard boss"

These are not my words but typical of the reasons applicants state for wanting to join us.

[akris15]

Laziness, because if they were so intent on doing it then they would form 25 man groups.

Let me point out why this isn't feasible at the current point. We have the guild <Awesome> here that is say 8/16 HM that is on a Medium population server. <Awesome> has 12 members with 2 tanks, 2 healers, a DPS/healer and 7 dps. They have a website, mumble and are currently stable. <Awesome> loves 25 mans though so they have 2 options.

Option A - Go with 10s.

The benefits:
+They have the same loot as 25s
+They are considered the same difficulty as 25s
+They are in the same server first race as 25s

Option B - Go to 25

To do so they need to:
-Recruit a minimum of 18 players (even then a roster of 30 is small for 25s). In addition they would need to recruit about 6 more healers. This becomes a problem because right now with recruitment there are these issues 1. People looking for new guilds seem to want high progression only, it seems that about if your guild isnt 12/16 heroic your not going to get the recruits these guilds will have at this point. 2. People are iffy about 25s, naturally, if you are asking for someone to switch to a medium pop server for 25 dollars you better have a good sales pitch because a 10 or a high pop server will probably be a hard selling point to compete against. 3. You need to find players of the same skill level, if <Awesome> wants to continue their trend of Above average heroic killing then they need to recruit the same skill level, finding 18 players of the same skill level in a short period of time is very harsh, if not impossible. All in all this will require a total investment of at minimum 450 US dollars (doesn't include faction switches) to even try to get this off the ground.

-<Awesome> will need to develop a loot system for the new players to keep the power levels of players near the same. While loot councils are nice you have to distribute the same because your only as strong as your weakest link. Therefore someone will have to manage a loot system.

-<Awesome> will need to develop a system of communication to keep 25 people talking in once during a fight. Therefore <Awesome> needs to assign role managers.

-<Awesome> will need to maintain its talent to hit the progression wall bosses coming up on 13/16 Heroic. Therefore we need to evaluate all the players to try to find their weakness. More administrative time.

-<Awesome> will need to prevent attrition. There is 2.5 more time a player will become upset, leave or have some situation happen. Therefore we need to constantly recruit to prevent this from happening.

There are a few more reasons but I think I made my point.

The benefits:
+They have the same loot as 10s
+They are considered the same difficulty as 10s
+They are in the same server first race as 10s

[Talen]

That one aspect, the other aspect is the higher personal skill and performance requirement in 25s.

An aspect that doesn't generally exists.

This is why you see guilds shoot up in progress when they go from 25 to 10 with the same skill distribution in their group. It's just easier and faster to clear 10 mans for a whole variety of reasons.

No, its not. When you are in a 25 and kick 15 players because they are holding you back, no matter whether this is done by kicking them or having you little clique leave and forma new guild, the skill level of your own group is going to rise> You are then faced with a group with a higher skill, facing a challenge they already know the mechanics of and which is liekly to be betetr geared than a 10 man group.

What you have done is assume that the groupw ill just break up and then reform along a similair skillset. That is a ridiculous suppostion. When the 25 breaks up, it will often be because a group has already formed around the "best" players. And in a progression minded group, it wopn't take m,uch to convince thsoe players to get rid of those holding them back. You may not get the 10 best, but you probably will get 10 of the 12 best.

Your entire hypothesies that 25s break up into 2 groups of rouighly equal skill, and manage to end up at a skill level roughly equal to the original, and that as a result 25s must have a greater challenge is heavily, deeply flawed.

When 25s break up into 10s for progression, yes...they tend to surge forward. This is because they skew the system to give them an easier challenge relative to everyone else. Not because 10s are inherently easier.

You have not explained why now people go to 10 mans because they like 10 mans, and when people went to 25 mans they went because they were forced by gear.

Players go for the rewards and incentives. Gear, titles, achievements, mounts, tabard, pets...they're all important to some. Gear is a particularly strong draw.
If you put better gear somewhere, players will go for it. Its why 25s were so popular in LK. Thats where you went for the gear. But it skewed the system. There were issues.

Equalising the gear and rewards made 10s viable again. It mean you could play with who you wanted to. Now you can choose between formats, measure and balance their pros and cons, and decide which format is better for you. Most players like 10s so they go 10s; why do thy like 10s? Convenience. Ease of joining. More groups because of the lower logistical issues. And more.

There's no big secret why 10s are more popular and this question you ask now has been answered many, many times in the past.

If I was to rejoin the game

Rejoin the game? No wonder your concepts and beliefs don't match what is actually happening.

and wanted the gear as fast as possible, I would go to 10 mans because in the current system that's how you get the gear fastest and easiest. This is why your argument is not self-consistent.

10s are easy to join. They are fun and convenient.They present less of a logistical burden. It is easy to work around no-shows. They are intimate and the right size for a group of friends. They have less downtime, less drama. If you want the fastest, more efficient gearing method though, you'd raid 25s which drops more loot, and has less loot wasted. The downside is that 25s often have much more downtime, even within raids, and a higher logistical burden and often more drama.

It's not a tuning issue. It's a complexity issue. More people, more things going on, will lead to a more complex environment that requires more personal skill and performance.

You have the same environment on 10s, the same raid mechanics and while there are more people, you make an unwarranted assumption that Blizzard doesn't balance with that in mind.

Of course, Blizzard is not tuning raids that way, and instead what you see is that the equivalently skilled 10 man group will kill far more content far faster and with far fewer wipes -- when they're actually inside the raid instance.

Anecdotal evidence from someone not even playing the game at this time. 10s and 25s - inside the raid - give roughly the same challenge and, leaving aside the logistical and preparation side of things - require roughly the same degree of effort from most players. The raid leaders tend to do more work...most other players do not.

Your "equivalently skilled" 10 man group, from your past descriptions, is going to be a group that has a higher skill level and is better geared than much of its competition, in either 10s or 25s. The problem is you are assuming that 25s break up in to equally skilled groups - they don't.

Last time I checked the peak of wow was in WotLK with 12+mil subscribers. After the changes made to raids in Cataclysm the subscriber numbers just kept going down, so stop with the nonsense. And no, I don't believe in coincidences.

Last I checked, Cataclysm had plenty of reasons for players to leave that weren't related to the raid environment. No end game, boring content, overly difficult/boring dungeons, a poor questing experience on the Alliance side and so on. Much of the raiding experience, in contrast, was favorably received. And while the raid system did have issues, I'd suggest far more players left due to 9 months of DS than the changes to the actual raid model.

I outlined the exact reasons why you don't get to pick the best players, those reasons are not in any way unique to my guild. You're going to need a stronger argument than "I don't think so".

Your reasoning is wrong. If you are going to jump, you're going to bring the players you want with you. You aren't going to split up and have two new guild leaders take turns picking out who they want in their team.

So yes - you DO get to pick the best players.

And you keep dodging the point where a 10 man with equivalent skill distribution had much faster progress in 10 mans, while actually in the instance, than 25 man did.

That's because your 10 man with equivalent skill is actually a 10 man with a higher skill level because you don't seem to understand what usually happen when a progression minded guild breaks up due to "lack of progress".

This misconception of yours undermines much of the argument you are trying to make.

Blizzard devs have stated many plain wrong things. If this is all about "outside of raid" things, why do 10 man guilds once they are inside the raid kill stuff much more quickly?

Because you don't understand what happens when a progression minded guild breaks up.

Why did my guild one-shot the boss we were working on the first raid after downsizing to 10, even though the average skill distribution in our 10 and 25 were the same? Why did we then go on to roflstomp the next 3-4 bosses? If had the luxury of picking our best 10 players, we probably would've one-shot everything there.

Luck? Your 10 man group works better together? Everything just gelled? Or, despite your protestations, your 10 man group ended up better geared with a higher average skil level than your 25 man.

That's why 1/3 of the current 10 man raiders would like to raid 25 man if they could. How do you explain that?

Assuming the numbers are indeed that high then the answer is....they already can. They don't. How do you explain that?

Problem is...25 man guild that downsizes is as good as dead.

My own guild had to downsize several times since cataclysm. That last time was a couple of months back. We had three weeks raiding 10s before we moved back to 25s. Three weeks, but we still got our guild run in and didn't lose much of our progression. I also wouldn't call our server well populated either. It may be atypical, but I wouldn't say "as good as dead" or "a sure path to perma downsize" either.

EJL

[Deleted]

People prefer 10s because it easier and takes less effort and work to find a raid group that suits you and your schedule.
People prefer 10s because its faster to get going and there is less down time due to loot distribution, repalcing no-shows, loot/guild drama and so on.
The hardcore progression minded group likes 10s because its far easier to skew the system to favor the group they are in.

Which of these are actually isues Blizzard should address with a high priority? None of them.



That's an argument I find largely ridiculous.

You know what the easiest path for many of these players would have been? To stay where they were in a 25 man group where someone else did the work. Instead, they decided to act, to move, to go to the effort and bother of setting up a new guild and raid group, giving up their guild perks and starting from scratch in order to face content that provided a very similar challenge in most cases. These groups took on real world effort and often spent real life money to move to 10s. And this wasn't restricted to just the hardcore who might care about small margins of efficiency.

Players moved to 10s and took on the extar work involved in running a guild because it gave most of them content that was similarly as chellenging, gave them equal rewards but offered them something 25s didn't. Are all those who claim that they can't run 25s on their PCs lying? Are all those who claim they simply prefer the feeling of having a bigger imapct mistaken? Does the opinion of those who say they simply like being able to see what happens on screen irrelevant? Those players who simply want to run content with their friends - are they fiends in human guise for not wanting to play with people they don't are about?

The "players play 10s because it offers equal reward for less effort" excuse is overly simplistic and overlooks much of the rationales behind the migration towards 10s. Its snappy, and it makes 25s feel good about themselves because it tells them they are players who are good enough to stay 25s, but ultimately, its an excuse and rationale that does more harm to the cause of saving 25s than good.



Depends. If a few hundred can't raid 25s but thousands can raid 10s then overall whereas before it was a case of a few hundred can raids the 25s they wanted, accompanied by thousands who were dragged into 25s then overall...it hasn't failed.

EJL

What I find surprising is you continue to post on a subject you sometimes appear to know nothing about. Most guilds dont move from 25 to 10 man by choice or "to play with their friends, they moved as a result of the natural break up of member numbers. As Blizzard themselves say "Entropy will cause 25s to break down into 10s without strong counter force." Made worse ofc by falling server populations.

The effort of going from 10 to 25 just isnt worth it if the rewards are the same.

[Radalek]

While not 'strictly' true, this is correct.

We had to temporarily downsize to 2 x 10 mans in firelands, killed H beth (2 groups) in ~ 3 hours of attempts and managed to get enough recruits to go back to 25.

Fortunately we've never been quite in that position again, sure we've had our revolving door of raiders, but we've managed to stay 25 since, and are just now seeing a resurgence in people wanting to raid 25's over 10's.

Usually their reasoning is along the lines of: "I miss the feel of 25 man raiding, I miss the complexity and the elation of downing that hard boss"

These are not my words but typical of the reasons applicants state for wanting to join us.

I'm GM of top 50 guild and we will never have the issue you guys had. Big healthy roster, plenty of applicants. And when I talk to them there's one more thing they state as the reason to want to join 25 man guild. Community. Big healthy community. That feeling when you log any time of the day/night and there's bunch of people online doing something. Size.
With all due respect to the 10 man guilds...they are rarely a community on it's own, 25 man guild is always one. And every time 25 man guild dies a community dies as well and that's hurting the game big time.

---------- Post added 2013-02-09 at 09:51 PM ----------

Assuming the numbers are indeed that high then the answer is....they already can. They don't. How do you explain that?

They can't, where will they go? 95% + of the raiders are working, having a job, kids, or whatever...they don't have time to organize and run 25 man guild even if they are capable of doing that. They want to come online and raid and not worry about other things. They have no where to go. On my realm (Outland EU) they have to chose between my guild or to do 10 man or pay a transfer to somewhere else granted they can find a 25 man guild...paying for alts transfer too or leaving them behind, leaving friends behind and so on. For many that's NOT an option.
All in all people are forced to do 10 man in many, many cases.

[akris15]

With all due respect to the 10 man guilds...they are rarely a community on it's own, 25 man guild is always one. And every time 25 man guild dies a community dies as well and that's hurting the game big time.

To me this is a big reason why servers are dying. Imagine a mall where the small shops in between the anchor stores are 10s and the anchor stores are 25s. Everyone goes to the mall (server) to get a service or merchandise (raiding). Usually the anchor stores (25s) are the most well known offer the biggest selections of goods and services while some the smaller shops (10s) might have a better quality or goods they are not the "front" for the mall (the reason I am using this as an example is most raider knows the big 5 25 mans while, even myself, don't know the top 5 US guilds in 10s). If a mall loses its anchor stores it doesn't have an attraction to attract potential customers therefore the mall slowly forms into a grey mall and even the smaller shops leave because they cant feed off the attraction of the larger stores so they move on also.

[Hakto]

I'm GM of top 50 guild and we will never have the issue you guys had. Big healthy roster, plenty of applicants. And when I talk to them there's one more thing they state as the reason to want to join 25 man guild. Community. Big healthy community. That feeling when you log any time of the day/night and there's bunch of people online doing something. Size.
With all due respect to the 10 man guilds...they are rarely a community on it's own, 25 man guild is always one. And every time 25 man guild dies a community dies as well and that's hurting the game big time.

---------- Post added 2013-02-09 at 09:51 PM ----------



They can't, where will they go? 95% + of the raiders are working, having a job, kids, or whatever...they don't have time to organize and run 25 man guild even if they are capable of doing that. They want to come online and raid and not worry about other things. They have no where to go. On my realm (Outland EU) they have to chose between my guild or to do 10 man or pay a transfer to somewhere else granted they can find a 25 man guild...paying for alts transfer too or leaving them behind, leaving friends behind and so on. For many that's NOT an option.
All in all people are forced to do 10 man in many, many cases.

Well said.

I'm the recruitment officer for my guild, so we both know a little bit about what we're saying.

[Deleted]

An aspect that doesn't generally exists.

Yes it does, and I've given reasons why. Something you have yet to do.

Your entire hypothesies that 25s break up into 2 groups of rouighly equal skill, and manage to end up at a skill level roughly equal to the original, and that as a result 25s must have a greater challenge is heavily, deeply flawed.

What is deeply flawed is your simplistic and naive view of what it is to run and form guilds and raid groups (which is not surprising given your lack of experience in it). But as I stated before, in reality you don't get to just pick your 10 best players. I gave reasons for this too: not every one of them will want to raid 10 mans, some will transfer, some will quit, some won't have the classes you need (when we did this, if we'd picked 10 of our best players we would've had 3 locks and 4 priests and 3 rogues in our 10 man). In reality there's no reason to think your average skill level will raise in any significant way, certainly not significantly enough to explain the massive progress jumps you see when guilds do this.

Also note that nowhere did I say guilds break into 2 groups, again this is a result of your simplistic view of group dynamics.

Equalising the gear and rewards made 10s viable again. It mean you could play with who you wanted to. Now you can choose between formats, measure and balance their pros and cons, and decide which format is better for you. Most players like 10s so they go 10s; why do thy like 10s? Convenience. Ease of joining. More groups because of the lower logistical issues. And more.

You keep repeating this over and over. It has been debunked. Deal with it. People go for the best effort/reward. Now that's 10s due to the lower skill requirement and faster progress. Your argument simply holds no water when you look at what happened in WotLK. If people actually really preferred the convenience, ease of joining, etc. etc. 25 mans would've died in WotLK, but they didn't. Few more ilvl is not going to "force" anyone to do 25s if they really prefer 10s.

The problem is you are assuming that 25s break up in to equally skilled groups - they don't.

No, that's a strawman you've constructed. 25s don't break into equally skilled groups. They break down into one 10 man with whatever combination of players are willing to join and provide a workable class combination -- it's incredibly unlikely that the remaining 10 will all be above average from the 25 roster (for the reasons I've given multiple times).

[Deleted]

Yes it does, and I've given reasons why. Something you have yet to do.



What is deeply flawed is your simplistic and naive view of what it is to run and form guilds and raid groups (which is not surprising given your lack of experience in it). But as I stated before, in reality you don't get to just pick your 10 best players. I gave reasons for this too: not every one of them will want to raid 10 mans, some will transfer, some will quit, some won't have the classes you need (when we did this, if we'd picked 10 of our best players we would've had 3 locks and 4 priests and 3 rogues in our 10 man). In reality there's no reason to think your average skill level will raise in any significant way, certainly not significantly enough to explain the massive progress jumps you see when guilds do this.

Also note that nowhere did I say guilds break into 2 groups, again this is a result of your simplistic view of group dynamics.



You keep repeating this over and over. It has been debunked. Deal with it. People go for the best effort/reward. Now that's 10s due to the lower skill requirement and faster progress. Your argument simply holds no water when you look at what happened in WotLK. If people actually really preferred the convenience, ease of joining, etc. etc. 25 mans would've died in WotLK, but they didn't. Few more ilvl is not going to "force" anyone to do 25s if they really prefer 10s.



No, that's a strawman you've constructed. 25s don't break into equally skilled groups. They break down into one 10 man with whatever combination of players are willing to join and provide a workable class combination -- it's incredibly unlikely that the remaining 10 will all be above average from the 25 roster (for the reasons I've given multiple times).

Martoshi, has it not occured to you that you can have the same skill requirement in ten mans but a lower chance of failure?

[Talen]

They can't, where will they go?

The point is that if there really is that huge body of 25 man raiders out there, all of whom want to raid 25s, then many of the issues affecting 25s would go away. There would be more guilds, there would be more availability of raids at times that suit you, there would be easier recruiting.

So why is this "third of 10 man players" not doing 25s? If the numbers are there to support more 25s on eachs erver - and with this figure, there are - where are they?

95% + of the raiders are working, having a job, kids, or whatever...they don't have time to organize and run 25 man guild even if they are capable of doing that. They want to come online and raid and not worry about other things. They have no where to go. On my realm (Outland EU) they have to chose between my guild or to do 10 man or pay a transfer to somewhere else granted they can find a 25 man guild...paying for alts transfer too or leaving them behind, leaving friends behind and so on. For many that's NOT an option.
All in all people are forced to do 10 man in many, many cases.

What this says to me is simple. Regardless of how many people want to run 25s, there are very few who want to lead them. The arguments you present all tie in with the logistics side of things - players run 10s not because they are easier, but because there are enough 10 mans to ensure they are very likely to find some raid setup somewhere that suits their schedule, amongst other factors. A raid set up that lets them raid when they want to raid, and not to someones elses schedule.

What is deeply flawed is your simplistic and naive view of what it is to run and form guilds and raid groups (which is not surprising given your lack of experience in it). But as I stated before, in reality you don't get to just pick your 10 best players.

Charlie: Hey Bob....this group sucks. Wanna join me and Amy in a new group?
Bob: Sure thing Charlie. Hey...I think Dave and Freddie want to go as well. Hugo would want to leave but with his DPS we don't want him.

Your theory that players cannot pick and choose who they end up raiding with, or that they cannot choose to raid with players to give the group a higher average skill level, is wrong. Should players choose to leave a group, and ask others to join them, they will. Should a GM want to kick the 15 worst players in the group, he can.

I gave reasons for this too: not every one of them will want to raid 10 mans, some will transfer, some will quit, some won't have the classes you need (when we did this, if we'd picked 10 of our best players we would've had 3 locks and 4 priests and 3 rogues in our 10 man). In reality there's no reason to think your average skill level will raise in any significant way, certainly not significantly enough to explain the massive progress jumps you see when guilds do this.

In reality, when you cut off the "bads" you think are holding you and the rest of the group back, your skill will increase. You DO get to choose who stays in the 10 man. And you DO, as a result, get a group with a higher average skill.

Because that's what you go for when you get rid of those "holding you back". A higher skill level. Now, the fact that your 10 best players were "3 locks and 4 priests and 3 rogues" is largely irrelevant...although personally, I'd have cut 2 of those for a couple of tanks as well.

As it is, you seem to keep missing the point. If you have 25 players interested in progression, it won't take much to get 10 of the best to leave, form their own group, and skew the system in tjheir favor. As a result of this, they will roflstomp the 10 man content which they likely outgear to some degree and will outskill unless they have a hugely infalted sense of their own skilllevel.

The 10m man that results from the clique getting fed up and leaving will almost certainly hacve a higher skill level that the 10 man is balanced around. A 10 man group that results WILL be set up so that they will have everything they need to win. You are not talking about a natural breakup, of guild memebrs going their own way. You are talking about a deliberate attempt to skew the system in their favor.

And you can't see that.

You keep repeating this over and over. It has been debunked.

Gee...I guess Blizzard blaming the logistics means they are on the wrong track as well. Somebody better tell them.

People go for the best effort/reward.

If you want to put it that way - we have 10s and 25s with equal effort/reward inside the raids, but 10 having less effort outside the raids.

[quotye] Your argument simply holds no water when you look at what happened in WotLK. If people actually really preferred the convenience, ease of joining, etc. etc. 25 mans would've died in WotLK, but they didn't.[/QUOTE]

I guarantee that if the gear had been equalised, 25s would have died a quick death during LK. You seem to overlook a central reason why the model was changed - players go for the gear.

Few more ilvl is not going to "force" anyone to do 25s if they really prefer 10s.

What part of "Players go for the gear" escapes you?

EJL

[Deleted]

Martoshi, has it not occured to you that you can have the same skill requirement in ten mans but a lower chance of failure?

Has it not occurred to you that this is equivalent to having a higher skill requirement in 25s to make the same progress? Yes, there are more people in a 25 man, so given equal player skill you will wipe more times in 25s to kill the boss (more people who can screw up and cause a wipe). This is why you need higher personal skill and performance in 25s for everyone in the raid.