10- & 25-Player Raid Loot Changes – Patch 5.2

General Discussion
Prev 1 73 74 75 84 Next
I remember the blues from Blizzard at some point saying * 10mans are most the hardcore version of raiding*

When in blizzcon they were asked this question 1-2 years ago; Funny how Korea has received so well the Ilevel increased for 25man if 10mans are supposed to be the most hardcore...

Probably was bull!@#$..

And again, its not about 25man being special snowflakes just because of our ego. You are not doing the same effort as 25man. why should you get the same rewards ? Its killing my format.
I know I said some of this before, but I really doubt that even added conveniences likes flasks and food or perks would save 25 mans. Giving better quality loot exclusively to one format or another would guarantee an influx to one format or another. I realize that 25 man raiders would like to see it in their direction, but those of you who ask for this, imagine what would happen to 25 man raiding if suddenly Blizzard announced that 10 man would have a higher ilvl.

I think the best thing Blizzard could do to save 25 man raiding is to allow dual lockouts. I know I have suggested this before, but I have a new system now and a new reasoning, so please read. When you first enter a raid for the week, you are asked if you want to do the raid for VP or loot. If you select VP, you only get VP and are ineligible for loot in that format (10 or 25 man). The amount of loot that drops off the boss is scaled for number of players that chose loot (there will be some min/maxers who will be able to arrange things so that the group might gear up slightly faster depending on the number of min/maxers in the group, but Blizzard can tune it so that it is only a slight increase fairly easily).

I think this would create an interesting paradigm, 10 man guilds merging with 25 mans guilds and several 10 man guilds merging together to form larger guilds, helping both formats. First, it would create a larger social environment which some of you have said that you wanted. Second, for the 10 man raiders, it would allow those people who want to raid more a chance to raid more (currently in my 10 man I have about 5-6 who run alt runs on the weekend, but would love to run with their main more), and it would also allow 25 man raiders to occasionally fill in if a 10 man raider is missing. Third, for the 25 man raider, it allow 25 mans to keep a roster of 35 people without much drama (a 10 man plus a 25 man). The 10 man could be an independent group for loot but also provide backups to the 25 man in case people are not present. It would also allow people/officers who thought they could do better to run a 10 man for loot instead of just breaking off and killing the 25 man.

I think one thing that made WotLK so successful was that people could raid as much as they wanted or did not want. You could gear up decently just running 25 mans or get slightly better gear by doing 10s and 25 mans. With the extra raid just providing VP, raiders would not feel forced to raid both formats, but they could if they wanted. I know many people who would rather raid with friends to VP cap than do dailies, run heroics, etc. And while it might cut down on the people who are out in the world, I believe the effect would be minimal. Also, the larger guild sizes would make the mmo experience more of an experience. I might also suggest adding a few new vanity items to the JP vendor for those people who want to quest, run dungeons, and raid both formats.

Suggestion for looting :
10 mans : 1-6 players -> 1 piece of loot
7-10 players -> 2 pieces of loot

25 mans : 1- 8 players -> 1 piece of loot
9 - 12 players -> 2 pieces of loot
13 - 16 players -> 3 pieces of loot
17 - 22 players -> 4 pieces of loot
22 - 25 players -> 6 pieces of loot

This would give the greatest ratio of loot to a 22 loot players raid with 3 VP raiders. I was going to give 25 players who chose loot 7 pieces but that might discourage 25 mans too much from taking backups. Again those numbers could be tweaked as much as you want Blizzard depending on what gearing curves you want.

Another positive to this solution is that it would allow exclusive 25 man and exclusive 10 man guilds to still exist if they wanted, but would create a new hybrid type of guild which would create a larger guild community which many people long for. You might ask if people would raid just for VP and I can tell I know of quite a few who would.
Anyone else notice how the ones arguing in favour of keeping things equal are being painted as the bad guys as opposed to those who are demanding special privileges and treatment just because that's how it used to be? The parallels are fascinating of you did.


I would propose that people who are in favor of keeping things "equal" are delusional to think that things were "equal" in the first place.

There have been several well-articulated posts about exactly why things are NOT equal, and they revolve around the logistical issues that are presented to 25m guilds which 10m guilds largely circumvent.

The idea that equal risk yields equal reward is fine and not offensive to anyone. Your routine insistence that 25m guilds are just whining and not actually doing extra work to get those raids off the ground is what's actually offensive to us and why not everyone responds to you in the peaceful ego-free manner that you think they should.

We don't want to infringe on your territory. We also don't want you to infringe upon our territory. If you want equal rewards then you put up with ALL the burdens that we do, otherwise you have no claim to equal rewards.

I'm sorry that makes you upset or makes you feel like you're a 2nd class citizen, but the fact of the matter is that there should be tradeoffs. 10m groups are easier to assemble and maintain, therefore there HAS to be a tradeoff otherwise we're all going to be in the 10m format out of necessity whether we want to do 10, 25, or 40m content. THAT is the whole problem - namely that the convenience of 10m, coupled with everything else being mostly-equitable, has removed any semblance of choice for most players.

If you want easier access then you can't lay claim to equal rewards because you are NOT putting the same effort into the game. Running a guild entails things outside of the raid instances so it's only telling part of the story to continue hammering at a point as if the only "risk" that matters is the risk on the other side of the instance portal.

Besides, it's pretty obvious that Blizzard doesn't think "everyone runs 10m content" is a healthy future for the game. That, alone, should get people like you to start being constructive as to what is a fair middle-ground as opposed to arguing through hyperbole and passive-aggressive insults. You don't want 10m to die out, and that's a valid concern, but being so blase as to not understand that we feel the exact same way about 25m and that we're not some group of egomaniacal psychopaths is...

something I'd expect from Washington D.C., not something I'd expect from an obviously-intelligent person who should be attempting to guide the developers to a win-win situation. We're all friends here because we all care about the long-term health of a game we enjoy. Losing people over these "format wars" is not an acceptable solution for any of us. We had quite a lot of subscription loss in Cata. Let's do something productive to not only stem the bleeding but draw up something that's good for the long-term for ALL of us.

Let's find that win-win solution so that NEITHER format dies. How about that?
01/31/2013 09:44 AMPosted by Bactide
Anyone else notice how the ones arguing in favour of keeping things equal are being painted as the bad guys as opposed to those who are demanding special privileges and treatment just because that's how it used to be? The parallels are fascinating of you did.


Let's find that win-win solution so that NEITHER format dies. How about that?


There is no win-win solution without killing one or both and then defining what the resultant format should look like.
01/31/2013 10:19 AMPosted by Malchome
There is no win-win solution without killing one or both and then defining what the resultant format should look like.


I disagree. There is a large enough population that would run both formats if they had the option. This is what kept both formats going in wrath (they were inclusive instead of exclusive). The problem is not making it feel mandatory while at the same time being rewarding.
I disagree. There is a large enough population that would run both formats if they had the option. This is what kept both formats going in wrath (they were inclusive instead of exclusive). The problem is not making it feel mandatory while at the same time being rewarding.


Yes, but at the time, there was extra incentives to run the bigger format as well; its not the seperate lockouts only that will revive this.
Yes, but at the time, there was extra incentives to run the bigger format as well; its not the separate lockouts only that will revive this.


You are right, there were extra incentives for doing it, which means you will lose a few people who did both during wrath, but I think you will still find more people willing to both than you think with dual lockouts. They could just even do different color mounts for the metas and I think that would motivate people to do both.
You are right, there were extra incentives for doing it, which means you will lose a few people who did both during wrath, but I think you will still find more people willing to both than you think with dual lockouts. They could just even do different color mounts for the metas and I think that would motivate people to do both.


No offense here, but why would you throught the hassle of getting 25 players together if you can get the exact same rewards with 10 players ? Even if you have dual lock outs, u will have a few pugs here and there, but that wont stop the problem that 25man guild are driven near extinction at the moment.
01/31/2013 11:25 AMPosted by Narph
No offense here, but why would you throught the hassle of getting 25 players together if you can get the exact same rewards with 10 players ?

Because that's what you like to do - raid 25s. (p.s. that's the same line you give others when you want higher item level loot and they respond they want things to be equal)
01/31/2013 11:29 AMPosted by Dysheki
Because that's what you like to do - raid 25s. (p.s. that's the same line you give others when you want higher item level loot and they respond they want things to be equal)


Equal is a very subejective term ;

You think getting the same rewards for running a 10man guild than me getting those rewards as well for running a 25man guild is fair ?

It isnt, and I do not agree it is equal atm.
I'm sorry that makes you upset or makes you feel like you're a 2nd class citizen, but the fact of the matter is that there should be tradeoffs. 10m groups are easier to assemble and maintain, therefore there HAS to be a tradeoff otherwise we're all going to be in the 10m format out of necessity whether we want to do 10, 25, or 40m content. THAT is the whole problem - namely that the convenience of 10m, coupled with everything else being mostly-equitable, has removed any semblance of choice for most players.

If you want easier access then you can't lay claim to equal rewards because you are NOT putting the same effort into the game. Running a guild entails things outside of the raid instances so it's only telling part of the story to continue hammering at a point as if the only "risk" that matters is the risk on the other side of the instance portal.


Yes, but equal doesn't have just one variable. Equal doesn't mean, 25 mans need something just because they are harder to organize.

Equal needs to come back to the decision that I, and many others made, which was really premised on content pentration. Equal to me, isn't ponying up and making a 25 man raid to maybe kill half the hardmodes in a tier, when I could have killed them all in my 10 man.

Running a 25 man guild to me, means that a tradeoff exists between organizational difficutly, and raid difficulty. And, basically, for me to run a 25 man guild on Duskwood, I'm not going to have any interest in it whatsoever until I'm basically guaranteed the same level of content pentration I acheive now, but brining 15 more of Duskwood's finest.

So Heroic Rag, can basically never happen again in a 25 man format. Because I'll gladly play 10 H to kill him for the 40th time, over never having a chance at taking him down because we have 15 derps with us.
No offense here, but why would you throught the hassle of getting 25 players together if you can get the exact same rewards with 10 players ?

Because that's what you like to do - raid 25s. (p.s. that's the same line you give others when you want higher item level loot and they respond they want things to be equal)


I can tell you Narph doesn't want higher level loot for the sake of equality, he wants it to provide an exceptionally strong incentive for players to want to raid 25 man over 10 man, thereby reducing the level of effort it is in running a 25 man guild. It's equality of a different sort, by making things equal in terms of organization, but making them disequal in terms of rewards.

However, If 25 man raiding becomes superior (not equal) by any terms as others have subjectively suggested, then 25 man raiding will likely become the more popular format again. Without something that basically forces people to choose 25 man raiding, few players choose it.
Yes, but equal doesn't have just one variable. Equal doesn't mean, 25 mans need something just because they are harder to organize.

Equal needs to come back to the decision that I, and many others made, which was really premised on content pentration. Equal to me, isn't ponying up and making a 25 man raid to maybe kill half the hardmodes in a tier, when I could have killed them all in my 10 man.

Running a 25 man guild to me, means that a tradeoff exists between organizational difficutly, and raid difficulty. And, basically, for me to run a 25 man guild on Duskwood, I'm not going to have any interest in it whatsoever until I'm basically guaranteed the same level of content pentration I acheive now, but brining 15 more of Duskwood's finest.

So Heroic Rag, can basically never happen again in a 25 man format. Because I'll gladly play 10 H to kill him for the 40th time, over never having a chance at taking him down because we have 15 derps with us


Which is one reason I would love to see the difficulty of normal 25 man dropped to compensate for the organizational difficulties. This would encourage more 25 man casual guilds which I think is the big problem. There are plenty of hardcore 25 man guilds out there, but casual 25 mans have practically disappeared. By the way, I am not condoning turning 25 man normal into LFR, but maybe instead of needing 80k per person to down a boss you only need 60k or 70k per person to down the boss.
Instead of making Thunderforged gear a random chance to drop off a boss, make each boss drop a "Thunder King Token" that can be used to upgrade gear to Thunderforged quality once enough are turned in.

10-man could drop 1 token per boss, 25-man could drop 2 tokens per boss. This still allows players to upgrade gear gradually while they are stuck on a boss but have all available loot, and allows 25-man raids to do so faster than 10, without punishing either group through an RNG system.


The math doesn't add up. A slight exaggeration but shows my point: If you give 3 people a single pie and 20 people two total pies, the 20 people should be less hungry because they got twice as much food. You would need to keep the pies per person relatively the same.

However, if you only require groups of 3 for the same reward PER PERSON that larger groups get, the incentive to go in smaller groups is too large to ignore. If Blizzard wants to keep both formats, then unequal rewards MUST be made to keep the balance.

I think my only question is, if this incentive falls flat like many predict because it doesn't grant enough incentive, do you have steps 2 and 3 to do it right? My first two idea which have already been offered are
1. Allow players from other realms to join a 25 man raid on another server.
2. Make a 'firestone-like' item that can be used to upgrade all gear. That item/stone would change the base upgradability from 0/2 to 1/3 (first upgrade free!). Include all tier gear in this.
Which is one reason I would love to see the difficulty of normal 25 man dropped to compensate for the organizational difficulties. This would encourage more 25 man casual guilds which I think is the big problem. There are plenty of hardcore 25 man guilds out there, but casual 25 mans have practically disappeared. By the way, I am not condoning turning 25 man normal into LFR, but maybe instead of needing 80k per person to down a boss you only need 60k or 70k per person to down the boss.


I can't generally disagree with a reduction in 25 man difficulty to offset the organizational challenges.
I can tell you Narph doesn't want higher level loot for the sake of equality, he wants it to provide an exceptionally strong incentive for players to want to raid 25 man over 10 man, thereby reducing the level of effort it is in running a 25 man guild. It's equality of a different sort, by making things equal in terms of organization, but making them disequal in terms of rewards.


Id say you are half right, i dont want equality, it isnt equal, and just in your example, you are saying you could not achiev what you do in 10man in 25man context because on your server there is not enough good players;

And I dont blame you, for the past 2 years, standing and making sure 25man guilds survive has been a constant struggle, which is why we need those incentive before this mode that I like, but not only that, that is actually very healthy for the GAME OVERALL based on the numbers between Woltk and Cata, dies.
I can't believe I created a word, disequal, when a fully functioning word for the same thing already exists.
The key to reviving 25 mans is not to do so by killing 10 mans. I think 10 man heroic and 25 man heroics are in the right place regarding relative difficulty and loot.

The thing that needs to be done is to increase the 25 man normal popularity to counter the logistics of running a 25 man guild.

Here's what I propose---

1) Keep difficulties of 10H and 25H as it is right now and bump TF gear drop % on both (same % on both 10 and 25 man heroic formats)
2) Increase difficulty of 10 normals from what it is currently.
3) Reduce difficulty of 25 man normal dramatically and increase TF drop in 25 N compared to 10N.

So,

25H == 10H >>>> 25 N >>>>> 10 N

w.r.t. difficulty and TF drop percentage.

The advantage of this scheme is that, hardcore high end guilds wont be affected since most of them clear normals in a couple of weeks (max) and head straight over to heroics. They can work on their heroic progression in either format without feeling gimped in either format. So there wont be any 10H vs 25H QQs (same TF loot %)

The advantage of making 25N way easier than 10N is it offsets the logistic pain of running 25 mans. So, more people will take up leadership roles to run 25man normal in an effort to progress and get gear.
1) Keep difficulties of 10H and 25H as it is right now and bump TF gear drop % on both (same % on both 10 and 25 man heroic formats)
2) Increase difficulty of 10 normals from what it is currently.
3) Reduce difficulty of 25 man normal dramatically and increase TF drop in 25 N compared to 10N.

So,

25H == 10H >>>> 25 N >>>>> 10 N


Uh, if you do 2 and 3, doesn't that lead to this:

25H = 10H >> 10N >> 25N.

'Cause currently, it's this:

25H =10H >> 25N = 10N.

The advantage of this scheme is that, hardcore high end guilds wont be affected since most of them clear normals in a couple of weeks (max) and head straight over to heroics. They can work on their heroic progression in either format without feeling gimped in either format. So there wont be any 10H vs 25H QQs (same TF loot %)

The advantage of making 25N way easier than 10N is it offsets the logistic pain of running 25 mans. So, more people will take up leadership roles to run 25man normal in an effort to progress and get gear.


The glaring problem with a system like that as a whole is that 25H becomes a brick wall because the leap from Normal to Heroic is too large. Casual guilds might form, but then due to the ease of 25N they would probably complete it but then have nowhere else to go.

The glaring problem with a system like that as a whole is that 25H becomes a brick wall because the leap from Normal to Heroic is too large. Casual guilds might form, but then due to the ease of 25N they would probably complete it but then have nowhere else to go.


This is why they need to pick 1 raid size and be done.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum