The 3 things that will make PvE epic again.

[Noctiphobia]

if people go 10man only if its easiest path then they dont really want 10man raiding, they want easy path to what they cant reach currently...

People don't go 10 man because there's no reason to make it harder on yourself for the same rewards. The difficulty difference is obviously much greater, but how many people do you think would run heroic if it dropped same rewards as normal? When the majority of players roll a spec that they enjoy less just because it does a few percent more damage, do you really expect people to intentionally make it more difficult for themselves just to have a bit more of personal impact on the encounter?
The difference between 10 and 14 man is not large enough for people to make it harder on themselves, it's still roughly the same size, just a bit worse. Back when you only had 10 and 25 man options, during the period of 10 mans being harder you still had tons of people doing it, including myself, because the difference between 10 and 25 was huge.
If the difficulty level was the same, you'd see a lot people running it, even if just because of easier logistics.

[epigramx]

Because you can't balance 1 man PVE fights

That's not a refutation of what I was saying. That's just explaining why what I was saying is correct.

Yes: you can't balance 1-mans at all and it's slightly easier to balance it for 2-man and so on.

- - - Updated - - -

same goes for raids or any other content...
wow is and always was reward (mostly gear) driven, to pretend otherwise is beyond stupid...

first of all I didn't personally attack you so try to be civil (this is the Nth time I noticed you acting like that).

that argument makes no sense: you have to prove first people who raid do it for gear as much as in 5mans.

if rewards are easier to get in 5mans because they're easier to form: then they are likely more in that.

[Bznga]

Replying to OPs 3rd point, i dont think theres any over-reliance on 5man content. If anything there could be more small group content simply due to how much easier it is to organize. To run heroics/mythics people need to rely on guilds to organize a group whereas a lot of people can simply gather couple friends and pug the last spots to do some "harder" content for an hour or two.

If blizz wants to reinvent the wheel to make "pve epic again" they could even introduce a one of 6-7man megadungeon that requires either 2 tanks or 2 healers with mechanics that rely on more than just throughput.

[Azharok]

That's not a refutation of what I was saying. That's just explaining why what I was saying is correct.

Yes: you can't balance 1-mans at all and it's slightly easier to balance it for 2-man and so on.

That may be the case, but you can't equate 5man 10man to 1-2 player content.

So I don't understand what you're trying to argue.

10 man is inevitably going to fall into high meta picks because of the size and availability of buffs different classes bring. 20man allows more flexibility once you've covered you're bases, and 5 man is more about synergies between the specs and how they function together.

[epigramx]

Replying to OPs 3rd point, i dont think theres any over-reliance on 5man content. If anything there could be more small group content simply due to how much easier it is to organize. To run heroics/mythics people need to rely on guilds to organize a group whereas a lot of people can simply gather couple friends and pug the last spots to do some "harder" content for an hour or two.

If blizz wants to reinvent the wheel to make "pve epic again" they could even introduce a one of 6-7man megadungeon that requires either 2 tanks or 2 healers with mechanics that rely on more than just throughput.

It's fair that I called it overused because the game is designed in a way to be problematic if the group size is small.

In simple terms there are many diverse raid-wide utilities and bufs that can easily create metas of very few specs.

If they do want to make a better game with small groups they would need to simplify(unify) classes/specs.

- - - Updated - - -

That may be the case, but you can't equate 5man 10man to 1-2 player content.

So I don't understand what you're trying to argue.

10 man is inevitably going to fall into high meta picks because of the size and availability of buffs different classes bring. 20man allows more flexibility once you've covered you're bases, and 5 man is more about synergies between the specs and how they function together.

That's a double standard. If you admit that 20man is better at alleviating "meta'ing"(not entirely) then why is 5man out of that comparison?

The simple fact is that the game has a big variety of raid-wide utilities and bufs that become too "meta-capable" the smaller the group.

[Azharok]

That's a double standard. If you admit that 20man is better at alleviating "meta'ing"(not entirely) then why is 5man out of that comparison?

The simple fact is that the game has a big variety of raid-wide utilities and bufs that become too "meta-capable" the smaller the group.

Because in 5man, you can only bring : 5 people as the name suggests. You can't fit every raidbuff in those 5 slots, so you build for synergy, and spec strengths.

And I still don't understand the point you're making : big variety of raid wide utilities that are too "meta-capable" ? There are two importants utilities that are somewhat required in 5man, CR and Lust. Anything else is irrelevant unless we're talking about bleeding edge keys.

[epigramx]

You can't fit every raidbuff in those 5 slots, so you build for synergy, and spec strengths.

That's a non sequitur: "Yes it's impossible to bring all raid buffs and utilities but it's TOTALLY FINE because ... because ... synergy alright".

Simple fact is because the game has so many raid-wide bufs and utilities: the smaller the group: the more brutal the metas it produces.

It works like: "I have buffs A,B,C and utilities D,E ranked above all the rest -> get at least those 5 specs -> sorry guys most of your specs are out now (they wouldn't be out if the group was like 8 people or more (because your lower-ranked utilities and buffs would be better because even the best utilities and buffs are raid-wide and it's bad to duplicate them))".

[Azharok]

That's a non sequitur: "Yes it's impossible to bring all raid buffs and utilities but it's TOTALLY FINE because ... because ... synergy alright".

Simple fact is because the game has so many raid-wide bufs and utilities: the smaller the group: the more brutal the metas it produces.

It works like: "I have buffs A,B,C and utilities D,E ranked above all the rest -> get at least those 5 specs -> sorry guys most of your specs are out now (they wouldn't be out if the group was like 8 people or more (because your lower-ranked utilities and buffs would be better because even the best utilities and buffs are raid-wide and it's bad to duplicate them))".

I mean it is fine because what use is AP shout for mages and warlocks ? Or Intel for melee dps... So you don't actually need every single raid buff in a 5 man precisely because you can't fit everyone, therefore you play to the groups strengths. I don't see how that produces a more brutal meta.

End of the day, WoW is a number's game, you need to do X amount of damage in Y amount of time, what specs do it best, figure that bit out and bring those. This is of course only applicable to bleeding edge content, if you aint going for RWF and / or R1 titles it's pretty irrelevant what you play. The problem is that players perceive that they NEED to bring meta specs else they can't complete the content. That is simply untrue.

[epigramx]

I mean it is fine because what use is AP shout for mages and warlocks ? Or Intel for melee dps... So you don't actually need every single raid buff

I will go into 'deep analysis' of game design now which can be kinda subjective or at least hard for everyone to grasp, but I believe the true reason of the existence of raid-wide buffs and similar raid-wide utilities is that some classes are handicapped because of the rest of their spells (e.g. their ability to do AOE or single-target damage) so the devs add those raid-wide spec-specific/class-specific/(or at least group of classes-specific) spells to make group-leaders include as many classes as possible.

For that reason it's inevitable to have brutal metas in very small groups for end-game rankings because the end-game people will gravitate to the same 3-4 classes as "best theoretically" and the only way to eliminate that is either a) make bigger groups (like my idea of the OP) or b) make a single-class game (a discussion for another thread).

[Azharok]

I will go into 'deep analysis' of game design now which can be kinda subjective or at least hard for everyone to grasp, but I believe the true reason of the existence of raid-wide buffs and similar raid-wide utilities is that some classes are handicapped because of the rest of their spells (e.g. their ability to do AOE or single-target damage) so the devs add those raid-wide spec-specific/class-specific/(or at least group of classes-specific) spells to make group-leaders include as many classes as possible.

For that reason it's inevitable to have brutal metas in very small groups for end-game rankings because the end-game people will gravitate to the same 3-4 classes as "best theoretically" and the only way to eliminate that is either a) make bigger groups (like my idea of the OP) or b) make a single-class game (a discussion for another thread).

You could've quoted the bit were its irrelevant to be meta unless you're looking for performance.

Making a bigger group won't eliminate the meta, making a single class won't eliminate it either, there will still be X talent is better than Y talent.

The main problem is players think they need a protwar rather than a brm to complete their +10, or that they need a boomy rather than an SV hunter for Razza NM. For the vast majority of players, as long as they press their buttons in the right order it should be enough to complete the content they are trying to do.

[Merin]

Go play classic man, leave people the fuck alone with this weird horseshit nostalgia, it gets so fucking old.

If you designed modern WoW like this I'd be back on XIV the same day your patch hit.

[epigramx]

irrelevant to be meta unless you're looking for performance.

That'd be off topic in this thread because I said those things in relation to hard modes and not easy games.

- - - Updated - - -

weird horseshit nostalgia

It has nothing to do with nostalgia. I implied when 25man co-existed with 10man: it sucked which is why I suggested exclusive maps for 10man.

[SpaghettiMonk]

You could've quoted the bit were its irrelevant to be meta unless you're looking for performance.

Making a bigger group won't eliminate the meta, making a single class won't eliminate it either, there will still be X talent is better than Y talent.

The main problem is players think they need a protwar rather than a brm to complete their +10, or that they need a boomy rather than an SV hunter for Razza NM. For the vast majority of players, as long as they press their buttons in the right order it should be enough to complete the content they are trying to do.

This isn’t true. When one class is better than another, you progress further if you play the better class. Particularly if you’re talking about something like a tank in m+ - tank survivability can vary pretty widely, particularly in the lower levels when the group regularly fails at mechanics. Playing the stronger class makes it easier.

This point is blindingly obvious, but lots of condescending high level players like to pretend that it’s false.

[Surfd]

missing 1 buff is not "gimping yourself"
going from 100% to 95% is not a gimp
lmao

Making an intentional decision to do less damage than you could be doing by deliberately skipping a buff you could be bringing to bring someone who contributes nothing beyond their own personal output to the group is, pretty much by definition, gimping your group.

Also, you are forgetting that this isn't a case of "you do 5% less damage". This is a case of "The group does 5% less damage". 5% less damage x 10 people can add up to a significant amount of "lost" potential over any fight that lasts a moderate amount of time. 5% less damage across the group could be the difference between skipping a phase or hitting an enrage timer, or simply finishing the fight a couple minutes earlier.

[Swnem]

A 10 man raid would consist of:

At least 1 demon hunter
At least 1 Monk
At least 1 Mage
At least 1 druid
At least 1 Warrior
At least 1 Warlock
At least 1 Priest
At least 1 Enhancement shaman
At least 1 Evoker

That is 9 slots just off valuable buffs that every raid is going to want otherwise they're handicapping themselves. That leaves one slot open for someone who isn't meta, UNLESS you're class stacking another one of those buffs like PI off priest or stampeding roar/natures vigil off druid. This would be the worst raiding has been in a long time.

If you look at the top teams of M+ they are all running different comps. This will not happen in raid because of the raid buffs and raid utility that these classes bring, you will be locked into the same comp every time whereas in M+ you can actually have comp variety.

There are fixes to this issue.

One is to spread the buffs to more specs, the other is to have profession scrolls like we used to have that are slightly worse.

Of course, there is also the option to outright remove them.

[Shaetha]

ff14 works fine with 8 man raids

FFXIV isn't tuned so difficult it ever matters.

[Biomega]

There are fixes to this issue.

One is to spread the buffs to more specs, the other is to have profession scrolls like we used to have that are slightly worse.

Of course, there is also the option to outright remove them.

Some issues with that. For one, there's a REASON they introduced those buffs - they want to enforce class/spec diversity. Why? Because clearly without it, there'd be a stacking problem. And what do you think would make stacking problems more pronounced: a 20-man group or a 10-man group? The smaller your group the fewer slots you have to give away or just go "eh we'll take whatever" for. A tightly tuned 10-man would be all the more strict about who you take if you want to be competitive. That's the LAST thing Blizzard wants, considering people crying that they're not let into groups is one of THE most prominent complaints people have. And it gets worse and worse the smaller the group size.

Unless you go full homogeneity (and that's obviously neither feasible nor good design) there'll be disparities, and the fewer slots you have to give away for a group the more discerning you tend to be about who fills them.

[Azharok]

This isn’t true. When one class is better than another, you progress further if you play the better class. Particularly if you’re talking about something like a tank in m+ - tank survivability can vary pretty widely, particularly in the lower levels when the group regularly fails at mechanics. Playing the stronger class makes it easier.

This point is blindingly obvious, but lots of condescending high level players like to pretend that it’s false.

There's a difference between "required" and "desirable". Stating point blank that a BRM can't tank past +10 is false, stating that only pwar can tank 20s and up is also false. While a competent pwar will have an easier time in keys than a BRM, the difference isn't as wide as people make it out to be.

I play pwar (since vanilla, I mainly tank on warriors) and have leveled up a SV hunter (which is perceived as bottom tier by the playerbase), in most of the keys I've ran with the hunter I'm a regularly top dps, even though I'm running with "meta" dps in the group. I should be bottom dps if the other players in the group were as comptent as me. Granted this is in the 10-15 range, and it's anecdotal at best.

Of course you progress further playing meta, but most players do not play to a level remotely close to where playing the right or wrong class has any bearing on the outcome. To claim otherwise is disingenuous.

[epigramx]

There are fixes to this issue.

One is to spread the buffs to more specs, the other is to have profession scrolls like we used to have that are slightly worse.

Of course, there is also the option to outright remove them.

That's not enough. There is still meta based on the core spells themselves (e.g. "better AOE for these specific ads in that specific boss").

In fact the core game design reason they have raid-wide bufs in the first place appears to be so the group leaders are forced to bring more of the players who appear handicapped on their core spells.

[Swnem]

Some issues with that. For one, there's a REASON they introduced those buffs - they want to enforce class/spec diversity. Why? Because clearly without it, there'd be a stacking problem. And what do you think would make stacking problems more pronounced: a 20-man group or a 10-man group? The smaller your group the fewer slots you have to give away or just go "eh we'll take whatever" for. A tightly tuned 10-man would be all the more strict about who you take if you want to be competitive. That's the LAST thing Blizzard wants, considering people crying that they're not let into groups is one of THE most prominent complaints people have. And it gets worse and worse the smaller the group size.

Unless you go full homogeneity (and that's obviously neither feasible nor good design) there'll be disparities, and the fewer slots you have to give away for a group the more discerning you tend to be about who fills them.

Stacking is only a problem for world first raiders though. It's a minuscule problem.