The 3 things that will make PvE epic again.

[Biomega]

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

That's just not true.

"Meta discrimination" is a function of how easy it is to enforce. Just look at M+ to see it in action: because any M+ group will instantly have fifty DPS apply, it's trivially easy to only ever pick the best ones. No matter if they're best by 1% or .1%.

The same would happen in 10-man - the higher tank demands would mean that the number of DPS applying to a group increased in direct proportion, which means you are more easily able to only take the best DPS from the meta. Which means everyone else gets left in the dust.

This is NOT a "RWF-only problem" by any stretch.

[epigramx]

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

I started this thread almost exclusively for hard modes so it would be off topic to go there.

Also not only the top 10 guilds care about being optimal.

Some are optimal at lower ranks just as a hobby.

- - - Updated - - -

That's just not true.

"Meta discrimination" is a function of how easy it is to enforce. Just look at M+ to see it in action: because any M+ group will instantly have fifty DPS apply, it's trivially easy to only ever pick the best ones. No matter if they're best by 1% or .1%.

The same would happen in 10-man - the higher tank demands would mean that the number of DPS applying to a group increased in direct proportion, which means you are more easily able to only take the best DPS from the meta. Which means everyone else gets left in the dust.

This is NOT a "RWF-only problem" by any stretch.

When people use that nonsense ("only in world first it matters!"), I like to go to the other extreme entirely and show them that even the most casual guild in the world may be affected a lot.
For example: the most casual guild in the world may pretend they don't care but they do celebrate if they raise in realm rank or they do care if they wipe a lot because of a slacker.

[Swnem]

That's just not true.

"Meta discrimination" is a function of how easy it is to enforce. Just look at M+ to see it in action: because any M+ group will instantly have fifty DPS apply, it's trivially easy to only ever pick the best ones. No matter if they're best by 1% or .1%.

The same would happen in 10-man - the higher tank demands would mean that the number of DPS applying to a group increased in direct proportion, which means you are more easily able to only take the best DPS from the meta. Which means everyone else gets left in the dust.

This is NOT a "RWF-only problem" by any stretch.

Again, that is an elitism issue.
As long as the content is designed to be cleared by any comp there are no problems. If you wish to stack classes cause of 1% more damage, you are free to do so.

[Biomega]

Again, that is an elitism issue.
As long as the content is designed to be cleared by any comp there are no problems. If you wish to stack classes cause of 1% more damage, you are free to do so.

You're misunderstanding. It's not about "wishing to stack classes", it's about it being TRIVIALLY EASY TO DO SO.

You think people are taking only meta classes to M+ because they think they need the +1%? No. They're doing it because there is basically zero cost to NOT doing it.

If someone comes to you and goes "would you rather have $100 or $99?" you'd be an idiot not to take the $100. Even if it's just 1% more.

That's my point - people are doing it because they very easily can, and they might as well. And this only gets easier as you tighten group size.

[epigramx]

elitism

Apart from the fact you are practically off topic because the thread is revolving around hard modes, it's not even correct as an argument for the wider game either.

Some people enjoy optimizing without being "elitists"; even casual guilds hate wiping; if they say they don't they're lying.

- - - Updated - - -

You're misunderstanding. It's not about "wishing to stack classes", it's about it being TRIVIALLY EASY TO DO SO.

You think people are taking only meta classes to M+ because they think they need the +1%? No. They're doing it because there is basically zero cost to NOT doing it.

If someone comes to you and goes "would you rather have $100 or $99?" you'd be an idiot not to take the $100. Even if it's just 1% more.

That's my point - people are doing it because they very easily can, and they might as well. And this only gets easier as you tighten group size.

According to some people there are only "elitist jerks" and "casual fun people" in this game.

There are no "casual fun people" when they keep wiping and figure out bufs were missing.

They will either optimize against those problems or just quit the game entirely.

[Lordofbelbol]

Apart from the fact you are practically off topic because the thread is revolving around hard modes, it's not even correct as an argument for the wider game either.

Some people enjoy optimizing without being "elitists"; even casual guilds hate wiping; if they say they don't they're lying.

- - - Updated - - -


According to some people there are only "elitist jerks" and "casual fun people" in this game.

There are no "casual fun people" when they keep wiping and figure out bufs were missing.

They will either optimize against those problems or just quit the game entirely.

Kudos for the way you are describing that group of people
not everyone who minmax is elitist jerk, mmo need to understand this

[epigramx]

Kudos for the way you are describing that group of people
not everyone who minmax is elitist jerk, mmo need to understand this

I mean I was almost never in a super hard core guild (only for a week or a month back in wotlk), but I always wanted to be optimal because I found it fun.

I think most casual raiding guilds have such people; those 3-4 people that always do better; they don't care to "hard core" but they optimize.

[Azharok]

Some people enjoy optimizing without being "elitists"; even casual guilds hate wiping; if they say they don't they're lying.

That's just admitting that you'd rather leave $1 on the table, which is perfectly fine, but most people would take the $100.

It is not required to stack any of the classes to complete any of the content. It is not required to have the optimal comp to complete at +20. However given equal skill and ilvl, it would be much easier to clear raids and keys with the optimal comp.

Some people would rather have it easier than others I guess.

[epigramx]

Some people would rather have it easier than others I guess.

For me that argument is in reverse. The easy way out for me is to not care and just play whatever randomly seemed good to me based only on aesthetics or lore and other such extremely subjective things.

It's not easy to constantly research and constantly simulate and constantly think deeply about those things just because the end result has better bufs and utilities.

[Azharok]

For me that argument is in reverse. The easy way out for me is to not care and just play whatever randomly seemed good to me based only on aesthetics or lore and other such extremely subjective things.

It's not easy to constantly research and constantly simulate and constantly think deeply about those things just because the end result has better bufs and utilities.

Which means we circle back to my original point which was more or less : the meta only matters in bleeding edge content. You are free to play the spec of your choice, other players are free to invite who they want to their group.

[epigramx]

the meta only matters in bleeding edge content

a meme that never made sense. even the most casual guild in the world cares to not wipe; I don't care if they claim they don't; they celebrate whenever they raise in realm rank.

also not everyone is an extremist elitist jerk when they want to be optimal in gaming.

[Azharok]

also not everyone is an extremist elitist jerk when they want to be optimal in gaming.

It's not a meme.

Either you care about being optimal or you don't. There is no in between. Playing a sub-optimal spec optimally is still being sub-optimal.

There is nothing wrong with choosing to play a non meta spec, ultimately you pay for your sub, play what you want no one cares.

Like I said, I don't play "meta specs", I play what I like, and if it happens to be meta, so be it.

The most casuals guilds aren't wiping because of what the players play, they are wiping because their players aren't great. The raid roster could be all meta specs they'd still wipe the same amount.

[Nite92]

1. Create unique maps that are exclusive to 10man groups; that will make epic hard mode raids again for them; you can't mix them up with tiny and dominated-by-metas 5man or big and hard-to-form 20man because it would contaminate the hard mode race as it was with 25 vs 10.

2. Drop all notion of vertical progression on hard modes; nobody truly cares if someone geared better but they actually care about who is the better skilled; it's painful to play just to gear and it's not fun for almost anyone on mythic raiding or mythic+ higher tiers.

3. Stop overusing 5man so much; it has its place because it's small but for the same reason it's the most heavily affected by metas of a handful of specs because it has the least room for more specs; you really have to offer hard modes between 5 and 20.

That is a troll or?
1.) Larger group sizes are ALWAYS better. 10man mythic would be unbalanced as shit, and you couldn't even design cool stuff for specific class utility, cause not everyone has every class.
2.) Yeah, making WoW horizontal progression is certainly a good idea. It's just coincidence, that so many people are doing keys beyond 15s compared to SL season 1.
3.) You have a non 5-man hardmode. It is mythic. Do you really think having multiple hardmodes of different group sizes is a good idea? It would be awful for a 24-26 man roster to have sprinkled in 10/15 man challenges. Having it flex for casual content and 20man for competitive content is perfectly fine.

[epigramx]

Larger group sizes are ALWAYS better.

then why do you support tiny 5man being overused so much. the game has an extreme variety of raid-wide bufs and raid-wide utilities so it creates extreme metas of a few specs if 5man is taken seriously for hard modes.
10man wouldn't eliminate the problem but it's a middle ground between the extremity of 5 and the big alleviation of 20; now people are forced only in the 2 extremes for hard mode; 20man guilds won't have an issue.

[Azharok]

then why do you support tiny 5man being overused so much. the game has an extreme variety of raid-wide bufs and raid-wide utilities so it creates extreme metas of a few specs if 5man is taken seriously for hard modes.
10man wouldn't eliminate the problem but it's a middle ground between the extremity of 5 and the big alleviation of 20; now people are forced only in the 2 extremes for hard mode; 20man guilds won't have an issue.

5 man for dungeons is a lot easier to do than organising 10-30 players for a raid, that's the short answer.

It's pretty simple and quick to get a group going to run an M+ or two in the same time it would take you to form a raid. In order to raid people have to commit to a schedule. I've been playing WoW for close to 18 years now, I've been a guild-master and a raid leader, you never start on time.

I also still don't see how 5 man are meta driven given that certains buffs or utilities are of no use to certains classes (Arcane intellect, Battle shout amongst others).

When looking at raid formats we've already established that it would be desirable to have one of each buff, so 10 man raiding is solved, which leaves "flex" up to 30 where you'd want one of each buff and then just invite anyone who meets the criteria you've established. And then when it comes to Mythic raiding, well you'd want the best people for the job considering how hard mythic is relative to the other difficulty modes. But I don't think the CE crowd is complaining about the meta.

I feel like we're going in circles with this thread.

[Arai]

Because they're different forms of content. That was the Kara experiment - turns out, it works a lot better as a dungeon than a raid.

Also, I didn't say 10-man wasn't possible in parallel with 20-man, every now and then. Just that it's not a viable replacement, because it has too many design constraints.


And there's a reason for that. It's easier to make challenging 5-man content and 20-man content than it is 10-man content. It's no surprise that there'd be an awkward middle; that's fairly common. Too big for a dungeon, too small for a raid, no real place in between that is sustainable. In PvE, that is.

Or what are you suggesting that is meaningfully distinct from dungeons OR raids in some way? Is there some kind of unique design element you're proposing that makes 10-man work?

Almost no boss requires a specific class in Mythic raid. Its all about tuning and that can and is adjusted already after Race to World First. Besides that they can easily reimplement the scrolls for buffs. Your arguments are poor to say the least. 10m was popular back in the day and should be reintroduced. 20m is stuck in the past with all its constraints and roster issues. Many people quit raiding with the introduction of only 20m mythic back in WoD. It was a terrible choice and cost a lot of players. Heroic is too easy content, people want harder mythic content for smaller groups that isnt a sweaty time run aka M+. Not hard to understand. You sound like the usual scared 20m Mythic guild that knows 75% of people will hop off and go to 10m if it releases because its simply superior. Nobody want 40m back cause its a hassle. Same with 20m. Its garbage and locks a bigger part of the game behind roster and other arbitrary barriers period.
I cleared 7/8 HC around new years and do my weekly 20 key only now. Soon I will stop cause there is no point as I don't enjoy M+ anyways. I wish there was a 10m Mythic option fully crossrealm from the beginning but there isn't. Blizzards choice but i won't resub until next patch. And then ill quit again after 1-2 months with the same issues as before.

- - - Updated - - -

You're misunderstanding. It's not about "wishing to stack classes", it's about it being TRIVIALLY EASY TO DO SO.

You think people are taking only meta classes to M+ because they think they need the +1%? No. They're doing it because there is basically zero cost to NOT doing it.

If someone comes to you and goes "would you rather have $100 or $99?" you'd be an idiot not to take the $100. Even if it's just 1% more.

That's my point - people are doing it because they very easily can, and they might as well. And this only gets easier as you tighten group size.

This is a bad argument as M+ dungeons are mainly about direct performance as in DPS/HPS and utility like pushbacks, interrupts, stuns, survivability. Raids are mainly about playing mechanics correctly and playing your roration well during that time. If that sums up you get the kill unless we talk about prenerf World First Bosses which we can all agree are stupidly tuned for 40-60 people in the World. Keys are also done in 30-40 min AND restricted by a key. That isn't the case for mythic raids. Everybody can open them at any time.

- - - Updated - - -

That is a troll or?
1.) Larger group sizes are ALWAYS better. 10man mythic would be unbalanced as shit, and you couldn't even design cool stuff for specific class utility, cause not everyone has every class.
2.) Yeah, making WoW horizontal progression is certainly a good idea. It's just coincidence, that so many people are doing keys beyond 15s compared to SL season 1.
3.) You have a non 5-man hardmode. It is mythic. Do you really think having multiple hardmodes of different group sizes is a good idea? It would be awful for a 24-26 man roster to have sprinkled in 10/15 man challenges. Having it flex for casual content and 20man for competitive content is perfectly fine.

Because current Mythic Raid design is so unique and based on cool specific class utility? Facepalm. This is the biggest irony. They said exactly this back in WoD to justify their killing of the majority of their raiding guilds. And what did we get? The occasional DK Death Grip. Wow so unique and fun. Besides performance barely anything has to change. Blizzard is simply too lazy. They can easily create raids that are doable in 10m and similar to its current design.

[Nite92]

then why do you support tiny 5man being overused so much. the game has an extreme variety of raid-wide bufs and raid-wide utilities so it creates extreme metas of a few specs if 5man is taken seriously for hard modes.
10man wouldn't eliminate the problem but it's a middle ground between the extremity of 5 and the big alleviation of 20; now people are forced only in the 2 extremes for hard mode; 20man guilds won't have an issue.

Because organizing 5mans can be done much more on the fly than organizing 10 mans.
I just think 10 man HC did not bring much to the game.

- - - Updated - - -

Because current Mythic Raid design is so unique and based on cool specific class utility? Facepalm. This is the biggest irony. They said exactly this back in WoD to justify their killing of the majority of their raiding guilds. And what did we get? The occasional DK Death Grip. Wow so unique and fun. Besides performance barely anything has to change. Blizzard is simply too lazy. They can easily create raids that are doable in 10m and similar to its current design.

I think it is just right. It is currently not necessary, but dathea and sennarth are made significantly easier by having certain classes. Raszageth does not "require" (as in having a mob to MC) certain classes, but if you don't bring a dk and 2 evokers, you are having a much harder time than it has to be.


Also, Blizzard locked in their design, with classes having unique buffs. I like it, because I think, it should always be better to get your first mage in raid, than a 3rd warlock. With this design, raid difficulty would depend so much more on the classes you have. And in 20man, Blizzard can just assume you have everything.

[epigramx]

5 man for dungeons is a lot easier to do than organising 10-30

that's a biased argument. you ignored all the advantages of 20man which is better balance and more epic feeling and more organizational complexity when that's desired.
10man would have part of those 20man advantages in a better portion than 5 because 5 is the most damaged by its small size in terms of those.

- - - Updated - - -

Because organizing 5mans can be done much more on the fly than organizing 10 mans.

Same with the above reply, you completely ignored all the advantages of 20man when you think of those things because you wanted to construct an argument that pretends "10man is only bad".

Don't you see that part of the advantages of 20man over 5man are also carried over to 10man to a certain extend so it's a middle ground of advantages/disadvantages of 20man and of 5man?

[Nite92]

that's a biased argument. you ignored all the advantages of 20man which is better balance and more epic feeling and more organizational complexity when that's desired.
10man would have part of those 20man advantages in a better portion than 5 because 5 is the most damaged by its small size in terms of those.

- - - Updated - - -


Same with the above reply, you completely ignored all the advantages of 20man when you think of those things because you wanted to construct an argument that pretends "10man is only bad".

Don't you see that part of the advantages of 20man over 5man are also carried over to 10man to a certain extend so it's a middle ground of advantages/disadvantages of 20man and of 5man?

Of course it is biased. I gave you my opinion based on my experiences. Unless you have objective data backing your claims, you are doing the same.

Also, I am not just ignoring things. I even agree that only 20 man would be VERY bad for the game. But I think that 5mans fills this role of smaller grouped contet. A problem already appears by just adding these 5mans. How do you balance weekly lockout 20mans vs spamable 5mans. Adding another option would make it tough to be neither obsolete itself nor make one of the other options obsolete.

10-man competitive content has plenty of positive things, but I still think, it would be an overall worse game if your 10man mode was implemented.

[Azharok]

that's a biased argument. you ignored all the advantages of 20man which is better balance and more epic feeling and more organizational complexity when that's desired.
10man would have part of those 20man advantages in a better portion than 5 because 5 is the most damaged by its small size in terms of those.

- - - Updated - - -


Same with the above reply, you completely ignored all the advantages of 20man when you think of those things because you wanted to construct an argument that pretends "10man is only bad".

Don't you see that part of the advantages of 20man over 5man are also carried over to 10man to a certain extend so it's a middle ground of advantages/disadvantages of 20man and of 5man?

All I'm reading here are opinions and not actual arguments.