You bias shines through with this comment. The mechnaincs are so straight forward that your comments are embarrassing. The fight in 10 and 25 man basically rely on 1 kiter in the first phase and last phase staying alive and doing their job right. Tuning the DPS, the healing, and phase 2 to need only 1 reliable interrupt per platform are all straight forward. A larger percentage needing to stay alive is nothing new to 10 man.TheYanger said:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
World of Warcraft |OT3|
- Thread starter charlequin
- Start date
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
The threat reduction is the only meaningful thing they do (although Arcane's images do decently since they benefit from Mana Adept and Arcane Power), but that is also inaccurate. They give you a 90,000,000 reduction in threat while active but it isn't like you stop generating threat while active.Bisnic said:
Angry Grimace said:
I know about that, but still is pretty useful when i want to use that double Deep Freeze(with Cold snap) in heroics. Two 90k crits in a row 5 sec after a fight begin would be bad news for me.
And by the time the images are gone, unless the tank is doing a terrible job, i won't be suddently at 200% threat.DeathNote said:
Rubbish. Of course the fight is basically the same, that was my whole point. It's a 25 man fight that people tore their hair out over in 10 mans BECAUSE it's too complex for 10s. You need to bring extra tanks or run through all sorts of hoops to get the constructs properly placed, as opposed to just using 3 tanks on 25, and the platforms are balanced like ass clearly for P2. The threat of electrocutes are nil (Sure, they are harder during P2, but that's just another aspect of P2 being totally shit for 10s, whereas there's 0 danger from them outside of it on 10, unlike 25), and more importantly, like all 10 man fights, the dps requirements are a joke, where the dps is the ONLY appreciable change on heroic in the first place.
If the fight were designed with 10 mans in mind it would have 2 platforms, probably no P1 constructs or something, or they'd be super weak and designed to be kited by any class, (like they are on 10 man), totally different dps emphasis as far as phases, etc.
At some point it's just clear, you can ALWAYS have more complex encounters with more possible variables at play (more raiders), otherwise raids might as well be solo endeavors. Yes, this also means it's true that 1000 player encounters would be more complex than 25 player, or could be anyway, but I don't think it's out of line to defend a raid size that already exists, and has been the standard for 5 years, rather than to try and get it moved back up to 40 or something.
wonderdung
Member
TheYanger said:
(I'm a couple days behind, sorry.)
I'm all for real debate on this, don't feel bad about being too aggressive.
I think, all things considered, a more fair system would be to allow 3 raid members to progress on the legendary quest simultaneously in a 25 man raid at the same rate as 1 raid member in a 10 man raid. I am saying in 25 man up to 3 distinct sets of embers should drop rather than 1 set that contains 3x as many, obviously with restrictions involved so that they cannot be looted to the same person. I would have absolutely no problem with this system.
I've not seen any evidence of the legendary progressing more quickly on heroic. Based on wowhead comments it seems that ~25 shards (the 1000 step) drop per boss regardless of heroic or nonheroic kills. We found no difference in the amount of embers dropped either.
I have no idea who is suggesting removing 25 man raids?
10 man raids are supposed to be real raids and the same difficulty as 25, but obviously Blizzard fails at this in one way or the other. Some fights were too hard on 10 last tier, all of them are too easy this tier. A lot of fights still require some magical class combo that's harder to come by in 10 man. (Like people thinking heroic conclave was unkillable on 10 without a rogue for a while last tier.) 25 mans don't have to worry about that. Whereas movement/spread fights are always going to be easier on 10 than on 25.
Blizzard corrects this as they can... they obviously are pretty bad at balancing stuff right out of the gate. Come to think of it I've never actually seen them make a fight harder though.
Anyway when it comes to the legendary, yeah, I understand that 25 mans have more people and should have access to more legendaries. I think that the current system is just ridiculous because it does treat 10 raids as if they're not real raids... which is inconsistent with what Blizz is aiming for this expansion. All I want out of it (besides a more interesting quest chain) is for the first set of 25 man legendaries to be finished around the same time as the first set of 10 legendaries. Obviously it's too late for this to happen now... I just want to find a way to make Blizzard understand that they screwed it up so they can make better decisions next time.
I guess last I'll just point out that Paragon people who raid 25 and are telling everyone that 10 is way easier than 25 in Firelands also said that it's ridiculous that 25 man raids get legendaries 3x faster. So "Paragon says it so it must be true" isn't really an argument one way or another, but I guess what I mean is that not every 25 man guild sees it as a threat to their existence for 10 man raids to get fair treatment.
Edit:
One last edit just to say personally I'd rather have 25 be the only legitimate raid size, but that's not how Cata works. My guild has adapted and we're pretty happy with our more efficient, more close-knit 10 man group clearing content that's mostly the same, but I more or less agree that it was always a bad idea to legitimize 10 man raids and I'd rather be dealing with other problems.
Every design decision they made with Cata from gear starvation to reforging to merging raid sizes was done so that they could put together content with less work. I'm not really thrilled with that direction in general and I think it's caused a lot of the things people don't like about Cata... but I think we're stuck with it until WoW goes away.
Mister Zimbu
Member
Saying 10 mans aren't real raids is simply a ridiculous notion. I'm sorry.
The difficulty is roughly the same. Sure, in this tier 25 mans are harder than the 10 man encounters. Are you forgetting that in the previous tier most fights in 10 man, both normal and heroic, were significantly harder than their 25 man counterparts?
The difficulty is roughly the same. Sure, in this tier 25 mans are harder than the 10 man encounters. Are you forgetting that in the previous tier most fights in 10 man, both normal and heroic, were significantly harder than their 25 man counterparts?
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
10 vs. 25 is an extremely pointless debate since they make both raid sizes. Whether the game's level of difficulty in current content is too high for some guilds is an actual debatable topic.
Sorry, but no, It wasn't too complex for 10's. You had a DPS do a simple kite strategy in phase 1..TheYanger said:
10 mans mostly wiped on phase 3, and that's the same damn tank strat as 25 man. Both relied on 1 tank doing it right at getting healed.
In other words, once you get to phase 3, which is easy to do in both, it doesn't matter how many people are in the raid. At level 95 it could be one kiter and 1 DK.
CarbonatedFalcon
Member
djm said:
No. That's how it works now, but proportionally you get the same amount. It still probably benefits 25-man in the end since you have a higher likelihood of seeing specific drops.
How it used to work was you had 10-man loot and 25-man loot. 25-man loot was about a tier ahead. 10-man heroic loot was equivalent to regular 25-man loot, and 25-heroic loot was the best in the game. You had 3 distinct levels of power with one level overlapping between 10s and 25s.
CarbonatedFalcon
Member
Alex said:
That would actually be pretty awesome if they could make it work. But there would be some bitching at least early on in a raid when everyone needs stuff - though that theoretically would be settled by a DKP/EPGP system.
Mister Zimbu said:
Also not true. In the previous tier like 3 fights were harder on 10, the ones that break down with lower numbers as I noted. Again, supporting my argument. The fights that were 'simple' worked fine on both and were all easier on 10. 10 man guilds love to act like battered wives or some kind of UNDERDOG, when the reality is the vast majority are just bad. All of the people who got tired of carrying 15 bads in bc/wrath, and then made their little 10 man raids and still find content hard because..SHOCK, these people are not the best in the world either. It's comforting to claim 10 mans were harder, but aside from Nef, Sinestra pre-fix (healer double orb DID sound pretty poorly conceived), and pre-fix Twin dragons, the fights were always easier. The reasons tens always lag behind is because the best players in the world ALL raid 25 mans. 10s are a failed experiment when put on equal terms. The vast majority of 10 man raiders have never had any desire to truly be hardcore, if they were they wouldn't be raiding 10s. The wrath model was correct, and I would argue loot could be three tiered instead of 4 tiered or equal tiered:
10 man
10 Heroic/25 normal (+6 ilevels)
25 heroic (+12 ilevels)
something like that. Tune the 10 normals to be easy like ALL normal modes are right now, tune 25 normals/10 heroics to be challenging on the level of say, T5/T6 content. Not complete faceroll but not gamebreakingly hard. Then tune 25 heroics to be Sunwell level stuff, or like T11. DIFFICULT. Those match the audiences. I've never met someone who raided 10 mans and cared that much about doing the hardest content and pushing themselves, and the ranking sites seem to back that assertion up pretty well.
Alex said:
How would that be remotely fair?
In other words, 10 mans would get to cherry pick their loot, while 25s would deal with the same RNG they do now? Yes, 25 drops more loot and you're less likely to get completely shafted, but it doesn't mean you're going to get enough of what you want in quantities you want, while on 10 doubling/tripling the possible choices while still only TAKING what you want from part of it, is actually increasing your total useful loot gain by several factors.
I know for instance my buddies in Vigil killed Rag last night and got 2 of his caster shaman helm. So now any time it drops in the future, it's completely wasted. first kill. a 10 man would then simply...not choose it fi it drops, and negate the waste of the drop forever more, until their needs were so slim that they HAD to choose loot they didn't want. that sounds totally fair. (sarcasm). While loot on 10 mans sucks, it's not like 25s just guaranteed shower you with every item you'd ever want. we killed heroic ascendant council every week hoping for one of the two items anyone in the guild needed would drop. They never did, even after 3 months of that retarded boss. On 10, you'd have long since gotten all of them you needed and it wouldn't matter. Quantity demanded is an important factor, 10 doesn't have nearly as much of it.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
Everything you are saying is elitist nonsense. Your entire theory of fun in Warcraft is centered around other people not having fun.TheYanger said:
I absolutely believe you don't think its an elitist attitude but it is.
How is it centered around people not having fun? Most of the people in 10 mans either don't do heroics, or do horribly at them and complain about how hard they are. Most of the 'Raiding is so fun and easy teehee' wrathkiddies would LOVE to have 10 mans be easier like they were in wrath (compared to 25s. I realize both were easier in wrath). This serves BOTH audiences, the current model serves neither, as balance can never be achieved. Fights are either gimped on 25 for the sake of 10, or too complex on 10 for the sake of 25. Both suffer.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
Because your only interest is certain people not being able to do things. It has nothing to do with anything you're actually doing, just preventing other people from doing things, and your argument against 10 mans is pretty poorly reasoned because the only mechanics that don't translate reasonably are terrible shitty mechanics like Naxx 60 four horsemen, which it wouldn't surprise me at all that you probably thought was an awesome mechanic.TheYanger said:
keeblerdrow
Member
Just keep flying from site to site. You think it sucks now? Just wait. It's considerably worse at max, because the only progress is slow in coming and it is a bad profession of time wasting that has little substantive rewards for too much effort.
Alex
Member
I have to agree, it was a fun conversation early on, now we're back to the same ol' ultra defensive rage mode that you see on any other MMO forum. Everyone will have their own opinion,but the more I see of the opposing, as a former bleeding edge player especially, the more I want to see this legacy status quo finished off for good. It's the exact same arguements and smarm from when we went down from 40 to 25, of course they'll say that it isn't true, but it so is.
That aside, on a lighter (?) note, I hated the Four Horsemen so much. Basically killed my guild in classic. If you're pro on that encounter you need to be wacked with a frying pan! God that was the worst.
Angry Grimace said:
How can you be so dense? Nobody would argue 4h was an 'awful' mechanic. It was awesome. And even if you dislike it, there ARE mechanics, that will always cease to work as intended with less people. Even just simple stuff like spreading out, can be an interesting mechanic on one difficulty and a non-factor on the other. Look at HLK, the coordination and stuns required for valks completely change the positioning of the encounter and coordination required. It's literally a different fight. There are LOTS of fights like that.
I don't give a flying fuck who can or can't do things. If someone wants to fight the 'harder' versions of fights, they can play the harder difficulties as well. But the good versions of the fights being gimped for the sake of those who aren't able to really do it or care to do it in the first place? that's crap.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
I don't know what's more ridiculous, that you think a mechanic that required 8 T3 geared warrior tanks was a good mechanic, or that in your mind, this whole argument is not elitist and totally makes sense. Saying "I don't care who can do the content" is inherently garbage elitist nonsense and even worse, your entire theory is just centered around baseless speculation that the encounters on your preferred mode would be better in some vague way if the other mode didn't exist, even though that doesn't make a lick of sense, and has absolutely no basis in anything other than the fact that sometimes 1 mode is harder than the other.TheYanger said:
Then again, it was pretty obvious who I was arguing with when after you name dropped some guy you know in some apparently elite guild and made sure to mention about how you cleared Heroic whoever just so you could stealth brag. Nobody cares that your guild is good and nobody thinks removing 10 man anything is a good ideal; that's literally a conspiracy theory.
keeblerdrow
Member
Those BoA caster epics are going to take you forever to get. I've sunk more hours into Archaeology than I care to admit to and so far I haven't seen 1 level 85 epic out of the thing. I've seen quite a bit of other stuff: mounts, companions and more useless blues than I thought were in the game, but the only wearable epic item I've gotten out of it so far is that level 51 caster dress.
Archaeology is simply not worth it. It is far too much busy work and far too low of chances of it ever paying off.
Archaeology is simply not worth it. It is far too much busy work and far too low of chances of it ever paying off.
It took me hundreds of night elf digsites to get the caster BOA lvl 85 trinket for my healers alts. One of the only epic item i got out of this profession. The huge amount of night elf digsites in Kalimdor made it less of a pain in the ass to get than, say the troll 2h sword or any Tolvir stuff(which i never got except a tolvir ring).
Is it a good trinket? Sure.
Would i do this again if i got hacked and someone deleted it? Hell no.
Is it a good trinket? Sure.
Would i do this again if i got hacked and someone deleted it? Hell no.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
It's not even that good imoBisnic said:
CarbonatedFalcon
Member
Angry Grimace said:
Pretty sure it was BiS for some classes during T11 from what some people I played with were telling me at the time. I'm not sure though.
Angry Grimace said:
Well, sure its probably not worth it to farm right now since you can easily get a 359 one from justice points and a 365 one from the fireland dailies, but before 4.2 it was pretty decent since 359 trinkets weren't that easy to get quickly unless your alts raid or saved valor points for a while rather than buying a T11 chest/gloves/pants. My healer alt is alright with that trinket and the one from the Tol Barad vendor.
Nice int and free 4200 mana every minute. I'd rather keep using it than buying the 365 one from fireland dailies with my holy paladin to be honest.
cubicle47b
Member
Angry Grimace said:
Yeah, it is. It's 321 int and 350 mp5 if used on cooldown. Ridiculously good even now.
cubicle47b
Member
The 359 vendor trinket and the 365 dailies trinket are both extremely mediocre. Tyrande's favorite Doll is the best all-around healing trinket until Shard of Woe (which destroys everything) and still better than the 378 rep trinket.
Baelroc down, got Lord Rhy to phase 2 on the first pull but we didn't go over phase 2 since we didn't expect that so we ended up grouping too late lol. After wards some mediocre pulls, but we've been getting each boss on the second week every time. Plus it doesn't help that two of our regulars were out.
While we're talking about trinkets. How does the dps agil trinket from firelands rep do compared to Fluid Death / Ricket's Magnetic Fireball? I'll probably toss this question to EJ or WoW forums though since I haven't seen any agil dps on here.
Also, no mail drops tonight. :'(
Also, whenever someone in a BA says at the start, "Mount run guys?" I've found it always spells out disaster.
While we're talking about trinkets. How does the dps agil trinket from firelands rep do compared to Fluid Death / Ricket's Magnetic Fireball? I'll probably toss this question to EJ or WoW forums though since I haven't seen any agil dps on here.
Also, no mail drops tonight. :'(
Also, whenever someone in a BA says at the start, "Mount run guys?" I've found it always spells out disaster.
wonderdung
Member
TheYanger said:
I think the fights that were hard in 10 last tier were hard because they were broken as hell. Random raid gibbing on Maloriak red phase stands out. Nef wasn't really that hard, but maybe we got to it after a round of nerfs. In my raid it was obvious that we weren't downing Nef because we were baddies, not because of some 10 man imbalance or the fight was too complicated.
Conclave and V&T were the ones that were rough for us because they were trivialized by having a rogue and we didn't for a long time.
Interfectum
Member
Real Party ID now live, will remain free: http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/3300853
Smart move, Blizzard.
Smart move, Blizzard.
FieryBalrog
Member
Ha. Yea, really, charging for that was not going to be a good idea when subs are hemorrhaging.Interfectum said:
RPGCrazied
Member
Saved some from dailies, managed to buy this:
Maimgor's Bite -
Pretty nice for someone that doesn't raid.
Maimgor's Bite -
Pretty nice for someone that doesn't raid.
Massive change coming to tanking soon, threat all but eliminated... i never tanked much myself so I'm not sure what repercussions there are for this. thoughts?
http://www.mmo-champion.com/content/2416-Dev-Watercooler-Threat-Level-Midnight
http://www.mmo-champion.com/content/2416-Dev-Watercooler-Threat-Level-Midnight
The only thing I don't like is this line:Painraze said:
Blood DK is probably the least fun spec in the game right now but considering they're not at the point where they have exact changes they want to put into the game it's pointless to discuss.
I am excited about not having to yell at DPS during Majordomo though!
Painraze said:
Having never tanked in all my years of WoW, and never having really paid attention to the whole threat issue, since as a Hunter I can FD and wipe it all, what does this mean in layman's terms? Simply less time spent taunting the targets and instead more time focusing on mitigating damage?
CarbonatedFalcon
Member
Painraze said:
I think overall it's a good change in philosophy. You still get in trouble for doing the wrong thing, but are less likely to get in trouble just for doing your job properly (from the DPS perspective.)
Sure, we'll probably lose out on some (interesting?) boss mechanics from now one, like targets that become untauntable - they'll be overly simplified at least. But you could definitely make the argument that such mechanics weren't really fun in the first place - just stressful on all sides of the equation.
What they're going to do is probably the best solution, but I can't help but feel that it's a little brute force. More homogenization to make things easier/better for players.
Alucrid said:
Probably the best way to phrase it would be:
Even if there is a gear disparity - if you're doing what you're supposed to be doing (DPS!) on the target that your supposed to be attacking, and the tank is doing what he is supposed to be doing, then you won't even need to use threat-dumps (and this is a boon for DKs and Warriors which didn't have any to begin with.) Only if you screw up (attacking wrong target) or the tank screws up (doesn't pick up targets) will one or both of you have to resort to threat cooldowns (FD or multi-target taunt).
Even simpler - Aggro matters (who is attacking who), threat won't (how much someone attacks a mob.)
CarbonatedFalcon said:
So what does this mean for a fight like Shannox? It's not tauntable, and now, if your tank on Shannox goes down it's a wipe since he can't regain all the threat he had generated. Does that mean that even if he dies he can get right back to tanking Shannox no problem?
CarbonatedFalcon said:
Ok, so pretty much as long as you attack a target, and he attacks a target, then it'll always go for the tank. I guess this would make bear AoE tanking easier too then since a swipe would work well enough to keep aggro on the mob.
Alucrid said:
Means nothing for shannox. You dno't need to get back to your previous threat, just above the dps, and dps threat isn't changing. This is a fine change. Threat has almost always meant nothing for good players in appropriate situations, but undergeared/overgeared tanks with overgeared dps has always been obnoxious. Even being well geared now you have to intentionally abuse vengeance to have decent 5 man threat because you take too little damage (This was an issue in BC and vanilla even without vengeance, you had to strip tank gear for dps gear to get enough rage intake to effectively use abilities as you outgeared heroics).
Good change. Threat is meaningless anyway, but the fringe cases where it is are just annoying. Fights that they want aggro management to matter they'll just put in threat drops or something, it's not really that different. There hasn't been anything that needed it beyond that since Bloodboil 4.5 years ago anyway.
It always pissed me off that my geared mage could get in trouble for threat because the dungeon finder decided to put me with a fresh lvl 85 tank. I can't even use Deep Freeze in the first secs of a fight on a stun immune target without him coming after me since the spell hits so hard. If this change can fix that, i'll be glad.
Of course, i already see people complaining how Blizzard is making the game even more "casual" with this.
Of course, i already see people complaining how Blizzard is making the game even more "casual" with this.