Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ...
2
10
11
12
  1. #221
    Quote Originally Posted by Relapses View Post
    When a 20M raid group has 14 mandatory slots that kinda is, by definition, a raid size issue. The question is how Blizzard goes about fixing it: I think if they're going to insist on giving so many classes unique raid utility then the logical next step is to bump up the raid size. The other way to solve it would be to either a.) homogenize classes and remove the unique utility (ie, the MoP approach) or b.) allow a consumable scroll to take the place of some of the utility (the BfA approach). In any case, I do not believe the current raid buff paradigm is sustainable.
    It will just move the goal post of what the meta is. So buffs aren't an issue so maybe you can bring in a few more raid cooldowns, people spreadsheet it out, debate, and then you determine X amount of externals and raid wide CDs is what is best. Or these 4 classes do X% more damage then the others so just bring more of those. Are required buffs brought from classes adding to the problem? Sure, but that sounds like something that needs to be worked on the class side and not raid size.

  2. #222
    Quote Originally Posted by Low Hanging Fruit View Post
    It will just move the goal post of what the meta is. So buffs aren't an issue so maybe you can bring in a few more raid cooldowns, people spreadsheet it out, debate, and then you determine X amount of externals and raid wide CDs is what is best. Or these 4 classes do X% more damage then the others so just bring more of those. Are required buffs brought from classes adding to the problem? Sure, but that sounds like something that needs to be worked on the class side and not raid size.
    ...what I'm saying since I guess you missed it is that before we even talk about class balance we need to figure out how to handle a raid buff paradigm which has 14 mandatory slots.

  3. #223
    Its very hard for alot of semi hardcore/casual guilds to find exactly 20 ppl. 20 ppl that always shows up in time. Thats like, almost never the case for us. Some day there is this guy thats 20min late, some day another one. Some day we are 15, some day we are 22.

    Its just so frustrating to get EXACTLY 20 ppl. Make it flex like 15-20 ppl, who cares if its a little easier or a little harder when there is 200 guilds thats already killed the boss. No one gonna care if you kill it or not, people just wanna raid, not wait/disband. And no, HC is a complete joke in difficulty.

  4. #224
    Quote Originally Posted by Relapses View Post
    This graphic Max created shows the problem with the current buff paradigm:



    It's why I've suggested moving from 20 to 25 players for Mythic.
    I don't see any graph if you meant to upload something or link it.

  5. #225
    Quote Originally Posted by PenguinChan View Post
    I don't see any graph if you meant to upload something or link it.
    Maybe try this or this?

    Suffice to say it shows in a 20M raid group there are currently at minimum 14 mandatory slots.

  6. #226
    Quote Originally Posted by Relapses View Post
    Maybe try this or this?

    Suffice to say it shows in a 20M raid group there are currently at minimum 14 mandatory slots.
    On one hand I think this is a good thing, as it promotes variety in the classes being used. On the other, having scrolls for lesser-but-similar buffs when you don't have those classes available will let you open up the roster somewhat. On the flipside however, it forces players to use classes they may not enjoy just for the sake of the raid's performance. Not that this concept is anything new for Mythic (It could be Legiondaries RNG drops again) but definitely not at that level of requirements.

  7. #227
    Quote Originally Posted by PenguinChan View Post
    On one hand I think this is a good thing, as it promotes variety in the classes being used. On the other, having scrolls for lesser-but-similar buffs when you don't have those classes available will let you open up the roster somewhat. On the flipside however, it forces players to use classes they may not enjoy just for the sake of the raid's performance. Not that this concept is anything new for Mythic (It could be Legiondaries RNG drops again) but definitely not at that level of requirements.
    It really boils down to Blizzard's design perspective. With them doubling down and adding a new raid cooldown for Hunters I'd say short term it doesn't look like homogenization is the direction they're taking the game. I personally think having more unique playstyles across multiple classes is a generally good thing though I do understand the frustration this causes once the discussion shifts to smaller group content. (We needn't look further than the current 5M meta for evidence of the endgame here.)

    If they're going to continue down this path then a compromise needs to happen somewhere. Either they need to make raid buffs redundant across multiple specs (a la MoP), they need to increase raid sizes or they need to bring back scrolls. This current paradigm will probably last through the end of this expansion but I'm almost positive we'll see some type of departure announced at BlizzCon for 11.0.

  8. #228
    Quote Originally Posted by Relapses View Post
    Maybe try this or this?

    Suffice to say it shows in a 20M raid group there are currently at minimum 14 mandatory slots.
    Tbh that graph does require a bit of nuance. Without going too much into it, stating you must have 2 paladins is a bit of a stretch. You can swap auras and still have okay uptime on ret aura because you definitely won't need devo aura on the pull of a fight (and at other points). It does require a bit more management etc, but I don't think it mandates an entire raid slot. Especially when there are difficult choices to be made. In this graph it kind of looks as if 'mandatoy' is interlinked with the concept of an ideal raid composition. However when you have to make choices between high performing specs with the perfect dps profiles for a tier, or a 2nd paladin, you should consider the 1st option for the best raid performance.

    Similar arguments can be made against ench shaman although theirs is more complicated. Their raidbuffs relies on specific specs interacting very well with it. If, for whatever reason, they don't synergize well or these specs are not brought to the raid, their buff loses a lot of value. The value they bring might swing down hard during an anti melee tier, unlike DH. I'm not convinced that their position is ''minimum mandatory''.

    Raid buff/utility discussions cannot really be dumbed down to a graph in my opinion. It's open to a lot of interpretational problems and it's mostly theoretical. In practical raiding theory does not always allign with your best interest.

  9. #229
    Quote Originally Posted by Donkeywing View Post
    Tbh that graph does require a bit of nuance. Without going too much into it, stating you must have 2 paladins is a bit of a stretch. You can swap auras and still have okay uptime on ret aura because you definitely won't need devo aura on the pull of a fight (and at other points). It does require a bit more management etc, but I don't think it mandates an entire raid slot. Especially when there are difficult choices to be made. In this graph it kind of looks as if 'mandatoy' is interlinked with the concept of an ideal raid composition. However when you have to make choices between high performing specs with the perfect dps profiles for a tier, or a 2nd paladin, you should consider the 1st option for the best raid performance.

    Similar arguments can be made against ench shaman although theirs is more complicated. Their raidbuffs relies on specific specs interacting very well with it. If, for whatever reason, they don't synergize well or these specs are not brought to the raid, their buff loses a lot of value. The value they bring might swing down hard during an anti melee tier, unlike DH. I'm not convinced that their position is ''minimum mandatory''.

    Raid buff/utility discussions cannot really be dumbed down to a graph in my opinion. It's open to a lot of interpretational problems and it's mostly theoretical. In practical raiding theory does not always allign with your best interest.
    Right -- the importance of optimizing your raid group will vary from group to group but the reason these slots are seen as mandatory is fairly universal. Encounters are made or broken on small percentage points so if you're struggling at a 1% breakpoint and all you need to do is bring a single class in to fill that gap then there's no world where you don't try to go for that. As an example: My guild struggled on Teroz back in Vault because we had mostly casters but no DH. On our second week of progression (2 night guild), we brought in a DH and went from frustrating enrage wipes to killing the boss in fewer than 10 pulls.
    Last edited by Relapses; 2023-09-29 at 07:04 PM.

  10. #230
    Quote Originally Posted by Donkeywing View Post
    In this graph it kind of looks as if 'mandatoy' is interlinked with the concept of an ideal raid composition.
    It kind of is, because the higher you go in difficulty the more those two terms converge.

    The lower the difficulty, the less alignment between ideal and mandatory - anything can beat a normal-mode raid, for example.

    That's why very often the default for these kinds of discussions is, in fact, the absolute highest level of progression difficulty, because that's where you see the most discrimination result in actual difference. And you well might find that not running the ideal buff comp does, in fact, mean that a fight is impossible because you can't meet certain number thresholds etc.

    Now, you're not wrong in pointing this out as a problem because outside of maybe 60 people in the world this scenario really doesn't happen much. And while that's true on face value, there's also another factor in play and that's skill - because as you go on in time and content self-nerfs through progression and gear (and also gets external nerfs a lot of the time) you have to keep in mind that the skill curve is inversely working against it. I.e. while progression does get easier over time, the people who reach that point in progression at a later point in time also aren't as good at the game (on average) than people who reach it sooner. So it's still hard for them, and there's still value in optimization, even if group comp and things like it aren't the only way to optimize at that point.

    What this means in practice is that while it may well not be required for a mid-tier mythic guild, say, to run an ideal comp, doing so absolutely rewards them with performance gains. Often quite substantial ones, and for quite a low relative cost. Sure they could all just get better instead and then they wouldn't need to adjust their comp, but the reality is simply that adjusting their comp might be far easier to do than just having everyone get better (or get better gear). So why wouldn't they do it if it's such a good deal in terms of cost vs. benefit.

    That's what really determines "meta discrimination" more than anything else: it's so damn easy to do. So even if the benefits aren't enormous, as long as the cost is low enough people will do it. The analogy I often use is someone offering you to pick between getting $999 and getting $1,000. Sure you can say um the difference is only $1 what does that matter, but if there's basically no downside you'd be an idiot not to take the $1,000 even if it's just $1 more. That's exactly what's behind people slaving to the M+ meta, especially for DPS - sure you don't need god comp to finish a +20 key and you might even only get 1% more DPS or whatever out of it without proper coordination, but if you list your key and there's fifty DPS waiting to be picked why wouldn't you pick the meta specs (all other things being equal)? Your cost is practically none, so even a small benefit is just... still a benefit. At no cost, you'd be an idiot not to go for it, small or not.

    And it's the same for guilds. If they were to just shift to 10m mythic raiding there would absolutely arise specific metas, and the cost of recruiting the right setup is often so low (relative to the time and long-term commitment) that there's little reason not to do it. Even if it's not a huge advantage, just a noticeable one.

  11. #231
    Quote Originally Posted by Relapses View Post
    It really boils down to Blizzard's design perspective. With them doubling down and adding a new raid cooldown for Hunters I'd say short term it doesn't look like homogenization is the direction they're taking the game. I personally think having more unique playstyles across multiple classes is a generally good thing though I do understand the frustration this causes once the discussion shifts to smaller group content. (We needn't look further than the current 5M meta for evidence of the endgame here.)

    If they're going to continue down this path then a compromise needs to happen somewhere. Either they need to make raid buffs redundant across multiple specs (a la MoP), they need to increase raid sizes or they need to bring back scrolls. This current paradigm will probably last through the end of this expansion but I'm almost positive we'll see some type of departure announced at BlizzCon for 11.0.
    IMO they should up dungeons to be 6-man and have the 6th be AugVoker and more if they keep adding in support roles. Rather them offload more of the utility driven stuff to THAT role to open up other classes to be used as well. Not gonna happen, obviously, but I wish they'd make dungeons more engaging in such a way. Not just high-level Mythic+, mind you.

    Redundant buffs is convenient but ultimately less engaging and does beg the question of 'why do they exist' y'know? Old WoW buffs worked better because of their direct and noticeable impact, but newer buffs tend to be noticed on meters more than actual game-enabling benefits. AugVoker withstanding, of course. 25 Mythic would be interesting to watch. I don't think they'll do that though, requiring another 5 skilled enough players is that much more of a pain-point for newer Mythic guilds, let alone current ones. I could be wrong though! I get why they removed 'drums' level of buffs so that you'd just bring the classes which have that buff instead. Maybe making player (de)buffs a lot more powerful, that way it feels better to have that specific class in the raid vs a less efficient scroll that only is partially as good.

  12. #232
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    It kind of is, because the higher you go in difficulty the more those two terms converge.

    The lower the difficulty, the less alignment between ideal and mandatory - anything can beat a normal-mode raid, for example.

    That's why very often the default for these kinds of discussions is, in fact, the absolute highest level of progression difficulty, because that's where you see the most discrimination result in actual difference. And you well might find that not running the ideal buff comp does, in fact, mean that a fight is impossible because you can't meet certain number thresholds etc.
    Converging is a good term, but only up untill a point. The issue I have has to do with the lower powered buffs/utility that are clearly weaker than the average, or buffs that rely on others or upon the context of a fight/tier. In that regard the graphic takes some major theoretical liberties and without anything to go on the convergence doesn't look 100% accurate, which is why it seems more of an idealistic raid comp to me. Ideally you would want them, but not at all cost.

    If the context or class balance makes you want to take other classes (higher output/superior dps profile/anti-melee tier), then I think some of the weaker utility listed will fall quite easily, even at the high end of raiding. At the very least their status as mandatory is debatable in changing circumstances. Obviously this doesn't apply to strong buffs/utility classes such as DH. The list doesn't differentiate.
    Last edited by Donkeywing; 2023-10-01 at 02:30 AM.

  13. #233
    Quote Originally Posted by Donkeywing View Post
    Ideally you would want them, but not at all cost.
    I agree that you don't want them at any cost, and that is absolutely a factor especially at the low end where getting a good player of non-meta class A is often better than getting a worse player of meta class B - but for the purpose of a neutral analysis that sets all else to be equal, the cost is absolutely worth paying for those buffs in almost all circumstances. The way these buffs scale is simply too much of a total gain. Exceptions do exist, but they usually involve a combination of 1. fight mechanics that devalue certain buffs; and 2. fight mechanics that overvalue certain utilities/damage profiles. But even then you're more likely to adjust the free slots than the buff slots. We haven't really seen extreme class stacking in quite a while.

    These are not minor utility abilities we're talking about. These are significant, often global buffs. It's not a matter of, idk, going "hey it'd be cool to have one more Death Grip here" - it's things like flat, automatic damage modifiers for everyone at all times. That's a massive absolute gain because of the global scaling.

  14. #234
    Old God Soon-TM's Avatar
    5+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Netherstorm
    Posts
    10,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Low Hanging Fruit View Post
    This is not a raid size issue. It is a class balance one.
    It is actually both. The harder the game becomes, the more meta slaving you end up with, since that extra 2% DPS/HPS/mitigation offered by class A but not by class B could very well mean the difference between a boss kill and a 1% wipe. And that's without taking class utility into account, because even if class A and class B provided exactly the same output, but class A has strong defensives and e.g. battle res, unlike class B, what do you think the outcome is going to look like?

    Conversely, if you can clear the raid at the highest difficulty even with clearly suboptimal comps (without tearing your hair off, that is), meta slaving will never be as prevalent, and will remain confined at the usual tryhards - but of course, that wouldn't be esport material, would it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Low Hanging Fruit View Post
    Getting class balance just reasonable
    Doesn't seem to be Blizz's strong suit, not now, not ever.
    Quote Originally Posted by trimble View Post
    WoD was the expansion that was targeted at non raiders.

  15. #235
    There's basically no incentive to mythic raiding unless you can clear the raid quickly. Like a m+ player can spam 16's to get 447 gear/fill their vault, and just do heroic until they get their trinket(s) and never step foot in the raid again all tier long and be ~2 ilvl behind someone full clearing mythic.

    It's crazy to me when I see M+ players complain that raiders get catered too when it feels like everything they do now is catered towards m+ players outside of just literally giving them mythic ilvl loot from end of dungeon (ie: like 447 dropping from a +25). I am pretty sure next tier not only is the catalyst available week 1, but I think you can upgrade your vault loot to be end boss ilvl (489?).
    Last edited by shyguybman; 2023-10-03 at 10:11 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •