Support NeoGAF

[C.Dark.DN]

The biggest problem is that I think Blizzard didn't consider the underlying implications of the "problem" they were solving or the underlying implications of the "solution."

The idea, at least from what we've heard, was that they didn't like the idea that people felt "compelled" to run both 10 and 25m. But just combining the two lockouts was a Draconian solution because for the solution to make any sense you have to accept the premise that people had TOO MUCH to do; the problem is that I think the reality is that people probably didn't feel like there was too much raiding and mostly enjoyed being able to do both. The ultimate theory that you were somehow compelled to do both really lacked logical sense when you considered that 10m gear was about 1/2 a tier behind what you were pulling in 10m. The only part of that which made any sense in my opinion was badge farming, but that's an easy solution: don't give out valor points for the same boss on a different lockout of the same boss.

You guys are forgetting that people wanted 10 man guilds to matter in progression. Making 10 man or 25 man guilds have a lower item level next expansion will not fly at this point. There's too many established 10 mans.

If you kept the iLevel the same in both, but removed the linked lock out, it'd be the first time in history you could kill a raid boss twice for the same iLevel. That's not going to happen.

The only thing that makes sense and that keeps everyone (10 man, 25 man, people who want more to do, people who can't find normal difficulty pugs) happy is a new introductory difficulty. Forcing people to pug the lower difficulty on their server only is outdated with cross realm technology and bad when you consider low populations. Allowing people to completely pug it on their server, which they are, is good to network with your realm. They chose 25 man because it makes more sense. 17 DPS per 2 tanks instead of 5.

 

[Angry Grimace]

You guys are forgetting that people wanted 10 man guilds to matter in progression. Making 10 man or 25 man guilds have a lower item level next expansion will not fly at this point. There's too many established 10 mans.

If you kept the iLevel the same in both, but removed the linked lock out, it'd be the first time in history you could kill a raid boss twice for the same iLevel. That's not going to happen.

The only thing that makes sense and that keeps everyone (10 man, 25 man, people who want more to do, people who can't find normal difficulty pugs) happy is a new introductory difficulty. Forcing people to pug the lower difficulty on their server only is outdated with cross realm technology and bad when you consider low populations. Allowing people to completely pug it on their server, which they are, is good to network with your realm. They chose 25 man because it makes more sense. 17 DPS per 2 tanks instead of 5.

Who wanted 10 man to matter in progression? It still doesn't matter now. It's not like those guilds broke up or kept playing because of the gear level. They just bitched fruitlessly. The reality is, I think more players appreciated having two lockouts than were meritlessly bitchy about the fact that 10 mans deservedly gave out lesser loot.

 

[C.Dark.DN]

Who wanted 10 man to matter in progression? It still doesn't matter now.

"I don't raid in a 10 man guild so it doesn't matter."
There's ~370 US guilds that have done at least 6/7H in 25 man mode.
There's about ~1,000 who have done at least 6/7H in 10 man mode.
"All of you 10 man people, equal in number, don't get the some iLevel anymore."
"Fuck off"

 

[Alex]

They should probably just knock it to a universal 15 or something, 25 man numbers are really sad and just keep getting worse and worse.

 

[bunbun777]

From one of the blue posts:


Q. How will loot be distributed?

A. Automatic rolls and the Need Before Greed loot rules will apply in Raid Finder raids, just as they do in Dungeon Finder instances. Also, while Dungeon Finder raids aren’t locked, you are only eligible for loot from a boss once per week. This means that if you were present for the defeat of a boss, whether you receive loot or not, then you will automatically pass on loot that drops during later attempts on that boss during the same week.


Seems kinda harsh.

 

[Angry Grimace]

"I don't raid in a 10 man guild so it doesn't matter."
There's ~370 US guilds that have done at least 6/7H in 25 man mode.
There's about ~1,000 who have done at least 6/7H in 10 man mode.
"All of you 10 man people, equal in number, don't get the some iLevel anymore."
"Fuck off"

The number 1000 (in guilds that have done 6/7H in 10 man mode) isn't necessarily the most significant number.

It's just a greedy argument to say that we should keep a system which clearly has a ton of flaws just because we want better loot.

From one of the blue posts:


Q. How will loot be distributed?

A. Automatic rolls and the Need Before Greed loot rules will apply in Raid Finder raids, just as they do in Dungeon Finder instances. Also, while Dungeon Finder raids aren’t locked, you are only eligible for loot from a boss once per week. This means that if you were present for the defeat of a boss, whether you receive loot or not, then you will automatically pass on loot that drops during later attempts on that boss during the same week.


Seems kinda harsh.

I don't get what's wrong with it.

 

[Mairu]

"I don't raid in a 10 man guild so it doesn't matter."
There's ~370 US guilds that have done at least 6/7H in 25 man mode.
There's about ~1,000 who have done at least 6/7H in 10 man mode.
"All of you 10 man people, equal in number, don't get the some iLevel anymore."
"Fuck off"

You're telling me you prefer having 10 and 25 man be on the same lockout instead of having twice as much available to raid, even with the tiny amount of content that they've released in cataclysm?

 

[ShadyMilkman]

You're telling me you prefer having 10 and 25 man be on the same lockout instead of having twice as much available to raid, even with the tiny amount of content that they've released in cataclysm?

I can see that being cool, but holy shit I would have been so stressed if I had two lockouts available for me.

I didn't play in Wrath, but isn't that how it used to be?

 

[Bisnic]

How does honor gained works in AV? This one guy had 43k total damage and defended and attacked no base and got 510, while me who did over 600k and capped 2 towers got 219.

Was that all because of honorable kills while he stood around doing nothing? Can it make such a difference? Cause i pretty much ran to the horde base to get the 2 towers fast since no one else did and i didnt encounter any horde players. I was pretty much at the bottom of the honor gained list. Even if we probably won because of me.

edit : Nah... cant be honorable kills... some guy in the next AV had around 45 honorable kills like me, and he got around 500 honor while i got around 200 again. Man, i need to know what's up with that.

 

[C.Dark.DN]

You're telling me you prefer having 10 and 25 man be on the same lockout instead of having twice as much available to raid, even with the tiny amount of content that they've released in cataclysm?

I'm saying you guys aren't thinking about it the right way.

4.3 is WOTLK+Cat with the added benefits of being able to choose between 10 and 25 as your main and not having problems finding pugs on many servers.

The issue for the people willing/wanting to do two iLevel raids a week like they did in WRATH is the fear LFR will be stupidly easily. I see a proposed solution to remove LFR in 5.0 and make 10man's iLevel lower than 25man again. That's dumb. It hurts people who have 10 man guilds and that can't find a pug.

I would suggest something like: LFR(dumbass mode)<10man=25man(server only, easier than normal, requires individual accountability, no heroic?, no legendary?)<10man=25man(normal/heroic). But, I would have LFR share a per boss lockout with the second iLevel tier.

 

[C.Dark.DN]

How does honor gained works in AV? This one guy had 43k total damage and defended and attacked no base and got 510, while me who did over 600k and capped 2 towers got 219.

Was that all because of honorable kills while he stood around doing nothing? Can it make such a difference? Cause i pretty much ran to the horde base to get the 2 towers fast since no one else did and i didnt encounter any horde players. I was pretty much at the bottom of the honor gained list. Even if we probably won because of me.

edit : Nah... cant be honorable kills... some guy in the next AV had around 45 honorable kills like me, and he got around 500 honor while i got around 200 again. Man, i need to know what's up with that.

Pretty sure it shows you how much they got from the daily win.

 

[Angry Grimace]

I'm saying you guys aren't thinking about it the right way.

4.3 is WOTLK+Cat with the added benefits of being able to choose between 10 and 25 as your main and not having problems finding pugs on many servers.

The issue for the people willing/wanting to do two iLevel raids a week like they did in WRATH is the fear LFR will be stupidly easily. I see a proposed solution to remove LFR in 5.0 and make 10man's iLevel lower than 25man again. That's dumb. It hurts people who have 10 man guilds and that can't find a pug.

I would suggest something like: LFR(dumbass mode)<10man=25man(server only, easier than normal, requires individual accountability, no heroic?, no legendary?)<10man=25man(normal/heroic). But, I would have LFR share a per boss lockout with the second iLevel tier.

I have no idea what you're proposing, but your primary argument is loot, which I don't think makes sense.

 

[C.Dark.DN]

I have no idea what you're proposing, but your primary argument is loot, which I don't think makes sense.

What's so hard to understand?

-10 man guilds are not going to want their iLevel to suddenly be lower than 25 man and vice versa.
-A large enough percentage like 10 mans over 25.
-They aren't going to allow you to do 10 and 25 man and get the same iLevel from both.
-LFR is going to benefit a lot of people who can't find pugs.
-If you're worried about LFR being stupid easy and want a legitimate lower iLevel raid to do each week, the best solution is to add a server only middle iLevel tier that shares a lockout with LFR.

Edit: The whole game is about getting loot with your peers, so, yeah, that's pretty important to consider.

 

[Angry Grimace]

What's so hard to understand?

-10 man guilds are not going to want their iLevel to suddenly be lower than 25 man and vice versa.
-A large enough percentage like 10 mans over 25.
-They aren't going to allow you to do 10 and 25 man and get the same iLevel from both.
-LFR is going to benefit a lot of people who can't find pugs.
-If you're worried about LFR being stupid easy and want a legitimate lower iLevel raid to do each week, the best solution is to add a server only middle iLevel tier that shares a lockout with LFR.

Edit: The whole game is about getting loot with your peers, so, yeah, that's pretty important to consider.

That's an extremely narrow way of looking at the mechanics of World of Warcraft; saying, "I don't like having my ilvl being lower than someone else's" is just the converse of the hyper-elitist argument that you should never be allowed to do acquire anything at all unless you're in a big Top 100 guild.

 

[C.Dark.DN]

That's an extremely narrow way of looking at the mechanics of World of Warcraft

You're being worse than TheYanger right now.

 

[Angry Grimace]

You're being worse than TheYanger right now.

Yeah, okay, but that has no rhetorical value.

I'm just telling you that your argument seems to be centered around the idea that 10 man guilds will not like having lower item levels. Well, my response to that is so what? What does that have to do with the underlying point? It's just the casual side of the "got mine fuck you" argument.

It's not like I thought it was bullshit when it was that way before because it was easier. It's working at cross purposes to push an online world and guilds that hard, and then say you can just hit a button and get placed into a random group. The fact is, it doesn't make sense to me to argue not that the old system didn't work, but that people like loot too much to be willing to go back to the old working system, so let's develop a new system where all of the effort and control that's necessary to pull off raiding is gone.

 

[TheYanger]

Yeah, okay, but that has no rhetorical value.

I'm just telling you that your argument seems to be centered around the idea that 10 man guilds will not like having lower item levels. Well, my response to that is so what? What does that have to do with the underlying point? It's just the casual side of the "got mine fuck you" argument.

It's not like I thought it was bullshit when it was that way before because it was easier. It's working at cross purposes to push an online world and guilds that hard, and then say you can just hit a button and get placed into a random group. The fact is, it doesn't make sense to me to argue not that the old system didn't work, but that people like loot too much to be willing to go back to the old working system, so let's develop a new system where all of the effort and control that's necessary to pull off raiding is gone.

Which has been my point all along, I feel design suffers by TRYING to make them equal, which is rarely (almost never) a realistic goal in the end, it was superior to just admit that they were easier, design them as such, and put them in as a seperate level of content for those that want that.

 

[Alucrid]

The number 1000 (in guilds that have done 6/7H in 10 man mode) isn't necessarily the most significant number.

It's just a greedy argument to say that we should keep a system which clearly has a ton of flaws just because we want better loot.

I don't get what's wrong with it.

Same. Although I doubt I'll ever be using the raid finder aside from my alts.

 

[CarbonatedFalcon]

I think part of the problem is that Blizzard "does it live" and experiments with the living game sometimes with patches (opposed to expansions.) There is the PTR, but that's more for tuning and QA than design feedback. I know it's probably not viable, but if they had extensive betas for patches, or just some space where they could experiment in the public view before going live, I think the game would be better off. Rather than having radical new changes in systems every other patch.


And sure, there were probably more 10-man guilds in Wrath than 25-man guilds, but I know for a fact that merging lockouts + loot killed off a large portion of 25-man guilds. I couldn't give you exact numbers (obviously), but it's probably north of 30%. That's pretty damn significant. What we don't know is whether this was intended or not - Blizzard has never come out and said it. This wouldn't be so bad if they had kept to their word and provided more loot/person per boss in 25s. There wouldn't be as much to criticize then. Absolutely equal footing? Probably a change for the worse.



It's just weird to see what appears to be self-destructive behavior - changing systems in ways (that may not be well thought out) where there are benefits, but significant consequences as well.

 

[Angry Grimace]

I think part of the problem is that Blizzard "does it live" and experiments with the living game sometimes with patches (opposed to expansions.) There is the PTR, but that's more for tuning and QA than design feedback. I know it's probably not viable, but if they had extensive betas for patches, or just some space where they could experiment in the public view before going live, I think the game would be better off. Rather than having radical new changes in systems every other patch.


And sure, there were probably more 10-man guilds in Wrath than 25-man guilds, but I know for a fact that merging lockouts + loot killed off a large portion of 25-man guilds. I couldn't give you exact numbers (obviously), but it's probably north of 30%. That's pretty damn significant. What we don't know is whether this was intended or not - Blizzard has never come out and said it. This wouldn't be so bad if they had kept to their word and provided more loot/person per boss in 25s. There wouldn't be as much to criticize then. Absolutely equal footing? Probably a change for the worse.



It's just weird to see what appears to be self-destructive behavior - changing systems in ways (that may not be well thought out) where there are benefits, but significant consequences as well.

In all fairness, I think dwindling sub numbers killed 25m guilds as many, if not more than 10m loot really did.

I must say that I do find it funny that people who bitched about Wrath of the Lich King so much realizing how much it was doing right and how silly the arguments were against it were now that they have a system that doesn't work nearly as well (but on paper sounded better).

 

[CarbonatedFalcon]

In all fairness, I think dwindling sub numbers killed 25m guilds as many, if not more than 10m loot really did.

I don't know - it was a decision made by a lot of people going into Cataclysm, not so much during. Or people tried to make it work for a bit, but decided it wasn't worth it.

Dwindling numbers could be associated with many things though, one of which would be shared lockouts (no shared lockouts = possibly more to do = less likely to get bored/quit). Content being stale after 6-7 months probably didn't help either.


And I just wanted to point out (or reiterate) that even if LFR isn't full of wipefests, it's ripe for other abuses (unless the cooldown is 3,5,10, or 24 hours or something else high) that wouldn't happen in an organized, on-server group.

Even with a very long cooldown, bad things are bound to happen if it's just per character.

 

[etiolate]

People don't actually like raids. People like interesting dungeons and they like big dungeons. People like big or epic battles, and they like the sense of reward you get for doing these things. Some people like loot, but nobody likes what raiding does with loot.

You just need good dungeons with good bosses and some neat items. You don't need to make it a trial of patience and you don't need to lock people out. You don't need to make people redo the same thing over and over so they can get the gear to go on to the next raid and then do that endlessly. You don't need to make it so you need X amount of players doing such and such role, and then repeating the same dance moves over and over. Raiding has taken something gamers love and filled it with needless bullshit. DKP turns a game into a job. The whole thing is anti-fun.

 

[Alucrid]

People don't actually like raids. People like interesting dungeons and they like big dungeons. People like big or epic battles, and they like the sense of reward you get for doing these things. Some people like loot, but nobody likes what raiding does with loot.

You just need good dungeons with good bosses and some neat items. You don't need to make it a trial of patience and you don't need to lock people out. You don't need to make people redo the same thing over and over so they can get the gear to go on to the next raid and then do that endlessly. You don't need to make it so you need X amount of players doing such and such role, and then repeating the same dance moves over and over. Raiding has taking something gamers love and filled it with bullshit. DKP turns a game into a job. The whole thing is anti-fun.

If you think it's anti-fun now you probably would've hung yourself playing through MC and BWL.

I actually thought that was a lot of fun though, raiding with 39 other people was something unlike anything else.

 

[FLEABttn]

You guys are forgetting that people wanted 10 man guilds to matter in progression. Making 10 man or 25 man guilds have a lower item level next expansion will not fly at this point. There's too many established 10 mans.

And it was, as you could 10 man your way through every boss and get upgraded gear. Hence progression.

10 and 25 man did not need to yield equivalent gear. Not many were asking for equivalent gear progression. And those that were could be as easily ignored as those asking for 40 man raids only.

Frankly, having 10 man gear being ilvls below 25 man gear is infinitely better than what Cataclysm has now. Which is terrible.

 

[C.Dark.DN]

"I don't like having my ilvl being lower than someone else's" is just the converse of the hyper-elitist argument that you should never be allowed to do acquire anything at all unless you're in a big Top 100 guild.

I'm just telling you that your argument seems to be centered around the idea that 10 man guilds will not like having lower item levels. Well, my response to that is so what? What does that have to do with the underlying point? It's just the casual side of the "got mine fuck you" argument.

Paragon tells us it took them 500+ attempts to down 25man H Rag and 32 in 10, ignoring the practice trasnfered over and that they chose their top 10 players.

~3,800 people in the "world" have downed 25 man H Rag while ~22k have only downed 6/7H.
~2,390 people have downed 10 man H Rag while ~31k have 6/7H.

The most elite are 25, but the majority are 10.

I fully beleive if H 10 man rag was such a walk in the park compared, more people would have downed it than 25. There's about ~10k more people working for it.

Either way the bulk of the raiding user base is 10 man now, and you don't just say "your 10 man guild is obsolete progression-wise unless you do 25 man content".

People prefer 10 and 25 for x reasons and spend months working together. They are both entitled to the best gear in the game. People care about gear. That's why we kill the bosses over and over and over for months.

Work harder to address balance issues, not tell one group to shove off.

 

[TheYanger]

Paragon tells us it took them 500+ attempts to down 25man H Rag and 32 in 10, ignoring the practice trasnfered over and that they chose their top 10 players.

~3,800 people in the "world" have downed 25 man H Rag while ~22k have only downed 6/7H.
~2,390 people have downed 10 man H Rag while ~31k have 6/7H.

The most elite are 25, but the majority are 10.

I fully beleive if H 10 man rag was such a walk in the park compared, more people would have downed it than 25. There's about ~10k more people working for it.

Either way the bulk of the raiding user base is 10 man now, and you don't just say "your 10 man guild is obsolete progression-wise unless you do 25 man content".

People prefer 10 and 25 for x reasons and spend months working together. They are both entitled to the best gear in the game. People care about gear. That's why we kill the bosses over and over and over for months.

Work harder to address balance issues, not tell one group to shove off.

All that you're saying is that 10 man players are worse than 25 man players on average, which...congratufuckinglations, that's the whole point. There is an audience for 10 mans, but it's the players who don't give a shit about doing difficult content by and large, because the people that actually want that are raiding 25s. It WORKED when 10 was just easier, people who were 10 man exclusive raiders weren't clamoring for extra challenge at all during wrath, they were fucking fine with it.

 

[C.Dark.DN]

All that you're saying is that 10 man players are worse than 25 man players on average, which...congratufuckinglations, that's the whole point. There is an audience for 10 mans, but it's the players who don't give a shit about doing difficult content by and large, because the people that actually want that are raiding 25s. It WORKED when 10 was just easier, people who were 10 man exclusive raiders weren't clamoring for extra challenge at all during wrath, they were fucking fine with it.

Serious 10 man guilds are under a year old and their kill percentages out of the multi-million user base are hella close to 25man. Saying these people don't care is absurd.

Almost six months ago we announced that Cataclysm raids were being redesigned to make both raid sizes the same difficulty, drop the same quality of loot, and exist in the same lockout. This evolution in raid philosophy is built on the belief that the size of your raiding group should be a choice based solely on what's more fun and enjoyable for you, and that you should not have to complete the same raiding content twice in a week to maximize your character's progression. These systems are the culmination of a great deal of design and player feedback from the last few years.

They didn't care after BC. People wanted 10 man versions of the raids that were easier.

But blizzard realized people who enjoyed 10 man guilds in WOTLK wanted to have the choice between 10 and 25 for legitimate progression.

You and Grimace are ignoring that and only focusing on "they are contradicting themselves with doing two versions of the raid to maximize".

They are doing LFR beacuse: 1. People asked for it, 2. People have a hard time pugging 10 and 25 mans on release because they are harder than 10 mans of WOTLK.

The issue of wanting more content is not something you should piss on 10 man guilds about or people who want LFR. The people that need LFR and have fun progressing in challeneging 10 man out number 25 man.

 

[wonderdung]

I'm raiding 10 and I definitely want them to kill it for next expansion. We'd just go back to 25 like we were in Wrath, and our raids would be a lot more interesting.

There was nothing wrong with the Wrath system except that people felt obligated to do 10s for the rare pieces that were still decent for 25 raids. Doing 10 + 10H + 25 + 25H all in one week was way too much. Now that heroic and reg share a lockout it wouldn't be as bad.

They definitely need to go back to 25H being the only progression raid that matters. Until they do they'll probably just keep putting kludge on top of kludge like they're doing with LFR.

 

[Hero]

10 man raids are for the most part harder than the 25 man equivalents. Someone dying in a 10 man boss fight is huge.

I do feel 40/25 man raids were more epic but that was at a point in my life where I could invest significant amount of time in the game and deal with typical guild bullshit. I much prefer 10 mans now because I can easily put together a successful raid.

 

[Angry Grimace]

10 man raids are for the most part harder than the 25 man equivalents. Someone dying in a 10 man boss fight is huge.

I do feel 40/25 man raids were more epic but that was at a point in my life where I could invest significant amount of time in the game and deal with typical guild bullshit. I much prefer 10 mans now because I can easily put together a successful raid.

This isn't true and it was not even debatable in Wrath.

 

[Subliminal]

25 mans require less co-ordination, you dont have to be as picky with the numbers, There can be DPS who are carried..

 

[Alex]

25 has some leniency on certain things (loot, buffs, but it's more time consuming to form and manage, of course) but as for actual challenge it's fairly luck of the draw between the two and the time period. There's no other real answer to that and trying to exact one just leaves people feeling like they're being talked down to.

 

[Hero]

This isn't true and it was not even debatable in Wrath.

Do you even know what you're talking about? In 25 man mode you will most likely have class representation to cover every single possible buff including Battle Rez / Soulstone and anything else that you might need to pull out in an emergency. This is going beyond the underlining point than in a 10 man group people have to be on average, much better than a player in a 25 man group because they don't have to pull nearly as much weight. 1 healer dying in 10 man is most likely a wipe, 1 healer dying in a 25 man means the other healers have to work a little harder.

Even if you somehow disagree with this belief, Blizzard has flat out acknowledged that 10 man raiding is harder than 25 man raiding.

 

[Mairu]

10 man raids are for the most part harder than the 25 man equivalents. Someone dying in a 10 man boss fight is huge.

This is totally wrong.

I do feel 40/25 man raids were more epic but that was at a point in my life where I could invest significant amount of time in the game and deal with typical guild bullshit. I much prefer 10 mans now because I can easily put together a successful raid.

Yes, you're getting it!

I've gone through 7/7 H in 25 and 6/7 H in 10 and you're totally wrong if you think that 10 man is harder than 25.

 

[TheYanger]

25 mans require less co-ordination, you dont have to be as picky with the numbers, There can be DPS who are carried..

Typical 10 man drivel, unless you're being sarcastic. 10 mans are more buff dependent, IE if you can't build a good comp your group will suck, but that should be a fucking given when you're trying to progress at a high end, comp matters just as much on 25 man (the buffs are less of an issue typically, but if a moonkin is good on 10 man, guess what? 5 moonkins are just as good on 25 man. It's a lot more of an issue to put together STACKS of the same class than to just have a single of some random class that happens to be good).
As far as dps carrying...just fucking no. Now it doesn't matter as much, but let's look at how things were:
Original H Baleroc on 25 man if you used 5 tanks + healers (Which was the norm, either 3 heals 2 tanks or 4 heals 1 tank) required 30182 dps from each of 20 dpsers to beat the berserk, which was unrealistic especially in that gear, so instead you had to kite him around for like 45 seconds POST berserk while losing people and still tanking crystals (since failing to do that auto-wipes you). Compared to the 10 man version which required an ASTOUNDING like 27k dps, not even counting the tank who does about 15k on either raid size (a drop in the bucket for 25 man, but significant on 10). It doesn't even compare. Majordomo was the same way, Bethtilac was the same way, Alysrazor was the same way.

Rag? You need similarly like 20% more dps per person in P3 on 25 man, always did. If you're building your group intelligently and getting the buffs you need, 10 man is ALWAYS easier, because you don't magically do more dps on 25 man purely because it's 25 man, as long as you've got appropriate buffs you do the same dps you would otherwise. This is why I mentioned previously when this came up, even something as simple as Shannox, you had to hit Face Rage a full 40% HARDER on 25 man to break it, which isn't something you magically do by virtue of being in a larger raid, it's actually just more difficult. The ONLY fights that were ever harder on 10 were fights that mechanically don't work well (Nefarian,Conclave, original kite-strat Magmaw, possibly sinestra though I may count tht as a bug), or fights that were actually just bugged (V&T, Sinestra potentially, I consider her a design oversight but it was an easy fix for Blizz and didn't change the actual fight).
Everything else was ALWAYS harder on 25.

 

[Subliminal]

Typical 10 man drivel, unless you're being sarcastic. 10 mans are more buff dependent, IE if you can't build a good comp your group will suck, but that should be a fucking given when you're trying to progress at a high end, comp matters just as much on 25 man (the buffs are less of an issue typically, but if a moonkin is good on 10 man, guess what? 5 moonkins are just as good on 25 man. It's a lot more of an issue to put together STACKS of the same class than to just have a single of some random class that happens to be good).
As far as dps carrying...just fucking no. Now it doesn't matter as much, but let's look at how things were:
Original H Baleroc on 25 man if you used 5 tanks + healers (Which was the norm, either 3 heals 2 tanks or 4 heals 1 tank) required 30182 dps from each of 20 dpsers to beat the berserk, which was unrealistic especially in that gear, so instead you had to kite him around for like 45 seconds POST berserk while losing people and still tanking crystals (since failing to do that auto-wipes you). Compared to the 10 man version which required an ASTOUNDING like 27k dps, not even counting the tank who does about 15k on either raid size (a drop in the bucket for 25 man, but significant on 10). It doesn't even compare. Majordomo was the same way, Bethtilac was the same way, Alysrazor was the same way.

Rag? You need similarly like 20% more dps per person in P3 on 25 man, always did. If you're building your group intelligently and getting the buffs you need, 10 man is ALWAYS easier, because you don't magically do more dps on 25 man purely because it's 25 man, as long as you've got appropriate buffs you do the same dps you would otherwise. This is why I mentioned previously when this came up, even something as simple as Shannox, you had to hit Face Rage a full 40% HARDER on 25 man to break it, which isn't something you magically do by virtue of being in a larger raid, it's actually just more difficult. The ONLY fights that were ever harder on 10 were fights that mechanically don't work well (Nefarian,Conclave, original kite-strat Magmaw, possibly sinestra though I may count tht as a bug), or fights that were actually just bugged (V&T, Sinestra potentially, I consider her a design oversight but it was an easy fix for Blizz and didn't change the actual fight).
Everything else was ALWAYS harder on 25.

"Typical elitist 25 man drivel"

 

[Alex]

Oh lord here we go.

 

[Bisnic]

Oh lord here we go again.

Fixed for accuracy.

 

[Mairu]

"Typical elitist 25 man drivel"

As blatant as TheYanger can be with his biases there's a difference in reciting actual differences in putting together a 25 man and a 10 man raid and just giving the typical "10 man must be harder because each individual contribution is more important"

 

[wonderdung]

We do the 10 vs 25 difficulty thing every 5 pages now I think.

(It's just one of the reasons they need to kill 10 as a valid tier.)

 

[Hero]

This is totally wrong.

Yes, you're getting it!

I've gone through 7/7 H in 25 and 6/7 H in 10 and you're totally wrong if you think that 10 man is harder than 25.

Easily putting together a raid at a random point in time is not the same as the difficulty of the encounters. Or are you really that dense?

You are entitled to your incorrect opinion just like Angry Grimace is but the fact of the game is that Blizzard is aware that there is a difficulty imbalance between 10 and 25 man raiding in Cataclysm which is why we've seen so much class homogenization this expansion because class composition is a factor in 10 man and not 25 man. Why do you think the LFR tool in the next patch is for 25 man only and not 10?

This is a quote from Ghostcrawler directly

Having said all of that, there are some encounters that still need adjustment. Heroic 10-player modes can often be the hardest to balance, because those groups just don't have access to the sheer number of tools in one group that the larger raids have. You've probably seen some hotfixes go out recently and we might make more adjustments in 4.1. We'll continue to monitor progress and make adjustments when we feel the time is right.

They have gotten better since but there is still a discrepancy between the two.

 

[Mairu]

You've probably seen some hotfixes go out recently and we might make more adjustments in 4.1.

Thanks for the out of date quote! Current tier content is easier on 10 man than 25 man, but you're welcome to go back even further to prove your point

 

[CarbonatedFalcon]

I'd just like to point out that any imbalances in difficulty between 10s and 25s could be rectified if they weren't attempting to balance them around the same gear set/iLevel.

Other intrinsic differences aside.

 

[Alucrid]

I guess since I'm on 10 man Heroic firelands I have to back up the 10 mna side?

 

[C.Dark.DN]

I'd just like to point out that any imbalances in difficulty between 10s and 25s could be rectified if they weren't attempting to balance them around the same gear set/iLevel.

Other intrinsic differences aside.

The only thing changing the set you balance one around does is hide the imbalances. It also makes one stupid easy for the people doing the higher item level one, like you guys want.

 

[Miletius]

I'm all for getting rid of either 10 or 25 man if it'll kill the "10 versus 25 which is harder discussions". A lot of the arguments on both sides comes down to subjectivity -- which is harder -- getting a good comp together (10 man) or doing more dps per person (25 man). Getting the group to spread out with limited room (25 man) or getting the right resources to spread out to handle mechanics with limited resources (10 man).

You aren't going to convince either side that you are "right," so you might as well drop it and agree to disagree. It bring the discussion here down to the level of the official WoW boards or MMO Champ forums.

I do think Blizzard needs to do something to help 25 man guilds though, because honestly there are fewer and fewer of them as each tier goes by. Maybe this was their plan all along though. I'm just looking at my server on Guildox and there are 12 guilds listed as exclusively progressing in 25 man. Out of those I know there is 1 for sure that's not raiding anymore. A couple more haven't registered a kill in around a month, which means they probably aren't progressing/raiding any more, at least in 25 man. Another one is 6/7(H) so I discounted them from the 'not killed anything in a month' tally. I'm on a top 20 server by population according to Realm stats tracking.

I can see 25 man being dead by end of Cata and them just continuing on with 10 man exclusively. I mean, why design legacy content that only a fraction of the fraction of raiders that are part population will ever see. I'd be super sad if that happened, but I'd understand.

 

[CarbonatedFalcon]

It's just weird because Blizzard has been slowly killing 25-mans by their actions (or inaction), even if they don't come out and say it. We don't know what Blizzard is thinking though, so whether it's intended or not is hard to say.

I think that's where some of the hostility comes from. Without protections like better loot, more loot per person, etc., there is less incentive for many people to do 25-mans, which require more in terms of organization and logistics, even if some of the player-base would do them no matter what.

Dealing with the extra layer of logistics (meta-game, in this case) should be rewarded. Right now, it isn't.

Spoiler

And if someone would be so kind to PM regarding a Scroll of Resurrection, I'll get back to you tonight. PTR is okay, but lacking addons, among other things make it hard to swallow.

 

[RPGCrazied]

Not liking how they are doing raid finder. You can only roll on something from a boss, once a week, whether you get something or not? Don't like that. Also, the drops won't even be the versions from the normal 25, its like something totally different. Then whats the point of this? Don't like how its just the Dragon Soul raid and nothing else.

 

[C.Dark.DN]

Not liking how they are doing raid finder. You can only roll on something from a boss, once a week, whether you get something or not? Don't like that. Also, the drops won't even be the versions from the normal 25, its like something totally different. Then whats the point of this? Don't like how its just the Dragon Soul raid and nothing else.

I haven't thought about loot much. A guaranteed drop per boss per week is a lot of front end grinding to be done to maximize real raid progression.

But it's going to be annoying if you keep seeing stuff you want drop when you're locked out of the loot.

The RNG gods are gonna troll hard.

 

[CarbonatedFalcon]

What people are going to do is roll in with their full 25 or so, and just smash through the instance at least for the stopgap tier pieces so you can gear as many people as quickly as possible. It's going to be required raiding for anyone who wants to min-max, at least until they're on to heroic modes.