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

(Locked)

90 Worgen Druid
17805
01/30/2013 11:43 AMPosted by Indyana
When the devs balanced around 25's it was expected that you had at least one of every class in one role or another.

If I were still raiding 25s I wouldn't want this assumption. So if your one player of one class is all you have and they can't make it . . . do you just say, "oh well, sorry guys we can't raid tonight. but it's okay though because if we were able to raid it would have been fun, but instead we'll go level some alts or something." I would much rather have the option for someone else from a different class to perform the role and not just a spellstealing mage.

And it's not the same for tanks/healers. I could go guardian and tank, a monk could go brewmaster, warrior prot (with the assumption they have a shield), dk go blood. It wouldn't be optimal, but it's definitely an option because of reforging and dual specs rather than just calling the raid for the night and annoying 24 people (plus the bench) because of 1 person.

You're asking for logistical pains in the same breath you're asking for logistical help. I don't get it.
90 Draenei Priest
17345
01/24/2013 12:35 PMPosted by Subrosian
Remove 10-man Heroic mode.


NO!

10 Man Raiders who CHOOSE that content because it is what they like should not be punished by not having the opportunity to move into Heroic Encounters unless they move to 25 mans.

Something like this would literally force larger raid sizes on those who have no interest in them. Equalizing item levels didn't force 25 Man Raiders to downsize. They chose the logistically easier path.
90 Pandaren Shaman
8455
01/30/2013 11:52 AMPosted by Dysheki
When the devs balanced around 25's it was expected that you had at least one of every class in one role or another.

If I were still raiding 25s I wouldn't want this assumption. So if your one player of one class is all you have and they can't make it . . . do you just say, "oh well, sorry guys we can't raid tonight. but it's okay though because if we were able to raid it would have been fun, but instead we'll go level some alts or something." I would much rather have the option for someone else from a different class to perform the role and not just a spellstealing mage.

And it's not the same for tanks/healers. I could go guardian and tank, a monk could go brewmaster, warrior prot (with the assumption they have a shield), dk go blood. It wouldn't be optimal, but it's definitely an option because of reforging and dual specs rather than just calling the raid for the night and annoying 24 people (plus the bench) because of 1 person.

You're asking for logistical pains in the same breath you're asking for logistical help. I don't get it.


The logistical issues are different than putting together a good raid team. It's impossible in this small space to explain why Raid leaders had fewer issues keeping their raids going in Vanilla and TBC compared to today and it's not all just pop issues.

I don't remember ever calling a Gruul's night because we didn't have a Mage Tank. If our regular Mage was MIA we had two others who were expected to have a Tank set ready (and this was during an x-pac when Magi sucked and were somewhat harder to find). Same thing for Priests to MC for Razzuvious.
90 Undead Priest
14805
01/30/2013 12:04 PMPosted by Indyana
I don't remember ever calling a Gruul's night because we didn't have a Mage Tank. If our regular Mage was MIA we had two others who were expected to have a Tank set ready (and this was during an x-pac when Magi sucked and were somewhat harder to find). Same thing for Priests to MC for Razzuvious.


I'm right along with this. I never recall having to call a raid ever because not having a single mage/lock. There was one time when our main lock wasn't on for illidan and we just used a pvp alt of someone to fill the spot. We could have used an extra healer and a normal tank on it, but that kind of unique strat stuff was enjoyable to me.
90 Draenei Priest
17345
10 Man Raiders who CHOOSE that content because it is what they like should not be punished by not having the opportunity to move into Heroic Encounters unless they move to 25 mans.

Something like this would literally force larger raid sizes on those who have no interest in them. Equalizing item levels didn't force 25 Man Raiders to downsize. They chose the logistically easier path.


And you dont see a problem with that ? You choose a easier path, logistically speaking, and you dont want any downside to your choice ? Are you 12 ?


No, I am not 12.

No, I did not choose to take the logistically easier route after having built a 25 man team. I did larger raids when they were the only thing available. 40 Mans, 20 Mans, 25 Mans, 10 Mans. I chose 10 man because I don't like large raid sizes. They don't feel like a team to me, personally. They feel like a lump of people who get together while making half of them stand on the sidelines used, abused, and changed out like yesterday's underwear for that .02% more whatever.

I don't like large raids. I don't want to do large raids. Prettier shiny's will only get me to do large raids when they are no longer relevant content and no one cares about them anymore and they can be done with smaller groups just for the mounts, meta's, ect.

I chose 10 mans because I like 10 mans. I have raided in every size this game has brought out. There are just as many of "me" as there are of "you" who only chose 10's because 25's were too hard.

The difficulty was never an issue for me...the feeling while in the "team" was.

We all have our reasons for doing what we do in game. Those of us who honestly prefer 10 mans should not have to be punished because we don't want your larger groups.

I never said I didn't want a "downside" to my choice. I really could care less if 25's get better loot, more mounts, more vanity items, more gold, better shiny's. I WOULD, however, care if my "downside" meant I could only see half the content.

I, personally, may never see HM content. I may see only a portion. I may see all. But there are many, many much more competitive players than I out there who run 10 man content because they enjoy 10 man content for it's own sake having nothing to do with having downsized from 25's.

For those of you who honestly do enjoy 25's and who only run 10's because there is not a great enough reward in 25's I honestly hope they can come up with a better idea to pump life back into your preferred raid size. Honestly I don't think a slightly better chance to get a rare item would do it for me, but I never liked large raids to begin with.

Removing half of the content for those of us who prefer smaller raids because we prefer smaller raids is also not the answer. Taking away my "carrot" so you can have the only "carrot" isn't a good solution. Making your "carrot" larger is.
90 Undead Priest
14805
The guy who said remove 10s is not the brightest, so don't worry about his argument.

None of us actually arguing here are calling for 10s being removed on heroic.
Edited by Telepathy on 1/30/2013 1:08 PM PST
90 Night Elf Warrior
10970
The guy who said remove 10s is not the brightest, so don't worry about his argument.

None of us actually arguing here are calling for 10s being removed on heroic.


I am not for the deletion of the 10s heroic.. if they like that content, then so be it; but I really dont see how blizzard can view those 2 leagues (10 and 25man) as one.

I dont think anyone else sees those 2 races as 1 race anyway.
96 Human Warrior
8215
The guy who said remove 10s is not the brightest, so don't worry about his argument.

None of us actually arguing here are calling for 10s being removed on heroic.


I am not for the deletion of the 10s heroic.. if they like that content, then so be it; but I really dont see how blizzard can view those 2 leagues (10 and 25man) as one.

I dont think anyone else sees those 2 races as 1 race anyway.


The problem is the ranking sites seem them as one so the only information the player-base has for said race is as they being the same. For all of Cata and now MoP Blizzard has refused to track 10 and 25 man kills separately in such a way as to be able to report the kill and the size of the raid for the API information to be available to WoWProgress, GuildOX and other such sites. Some tried to fake it by looking at individual achievement timestamps on characters in a guild but it was very volatile and not accurate.

The boss kills need to be trackable at the guild level if the kill occurred with in a guild raid run. But even then they should definitely remove 10s and either only have 25s or some other size greater than the number of classes.
90 Gnome Warlock
1740
01/30/2013 06:26 AMPosted by Indyana
You love hyperbole. "Ruining game access"??


Currently I have access to the hardest raid content available in game. Your suggestion to make access to that content 25m only would make access to that content impossible unless I; or others that aren't on servers like Illidan, Proudmoore, and other dense population/deep skill pool servers; were willing to pay out more than $50 (multiplied by alts) to those servers.

If you wouldn't refer to making a change that cuts off a sizable chunk of the participating playerbase from participating simply due to server they are on "ruining access", what would you call it?

01/30/2013 06:26 AMPosted by Indyana
So your saying that 2 10 man Guilds couldn't merge to make a 25?


Not if they want to kill more than 1 boss a tier, no. I don't know how deep the skill pool of reliable raiders is on your server, but it's about as deep as a tea spoon on mine because of what I've been telling you; raiders seeking progression move to servers where progression is happening.

01/30/2013 08:12 AMPosted by Hyjinx
Ego isn't the basis for the proposition that 25s should have access to better loot.


That's the entire argument, actually. "We deserve better loot because we don't feel special running 25's anymore when others can do the same thing running 10's". It would take a while, and it would be hidden by comments like "But we don't get prestige if we run 25m over 10m", but I can draw up at least a dozen quotes stating that the only reason 25m should be the only progression format is ego driven by 25m players.

01/30/2013 09:56 AMPosted by Indyana
Don't you see that having some random Buff any class can get isn't the same as using a unique class skill in an encounter?


I can say why it's better than cancelling a raid because your paladin didn't show up and there weren't any others around capable of handling the mechanics. I don't know about you, but losing entire progression nights due to no shows tends to irk me, and expecting all 25m players to have fully raid/heroic raid geared alts of every other class "just in case" to avoid that problem isn't realistic (unless you get paid to play, but hardly anyone outside of the top 10 guilds does so that's moot).

01/30/2013 11:43 AMPosted by Indyana
It's hard to argue with newer MMO players (and I'm not saying you fall into that camp) because they don't grasp why GC would say flying mounts make the game worse (as an example).


Oh it's easy to know why he said it. The term is nostalgia or, more colloquially, "rose coloured glasses". He has a lot of those moments on twitter, not realising that a lot of the people who say things like "Yeah, it was awesome calling a progression run because Fred didn't show up." were likely complaining when it actually did happen.
90 Pandaren Shaman
8455
.......

Removing half of the content for those of us who prefer smaller raids because we prefer smaller raids is also not the answer. Taking away my "carrot" so you can have the only "carrot" isn't a good solution. Making your "carrot" larger is.


You're answering an outlier post in this thread. Everything you posted lines up with a number of us are discussing. You're a perfect example of the kind of player I was talking about who would be fine with a change to the Korean model. I think you fall into the majority of the WOW player base in fact.

It's doubtful I would be joining or looking for a 25 man Guild in that context but I think the game would be better off as a whole.
90 Gnome Warlock
1740
01/30/2013 10:41 AMPosted by Malchome
And yet you don't care how the changes need for your, as a raider, ego effects 8 Million + players when the raid community is in the 450-600 thousand or .45 or .6 Million range.


No, I don't care if a minority group within the 75k that raid 25's are upset that they aren't as special a snowflake as they think they should be anymore. There's no rational reason for going backwards at this point, and things being cited as "wasn't that so awesome?!" are things that the 25m community begged Blizzard to change when it was actually an issue, rather than as something being remembered through the haze of nostalgia.

Edit: In before "You're worse than we are because you aren't caving to our expectation that you get a lesser level of content to appease our sense of self importance".

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.
Edited by Bomdanil on 1/30/2013 2:59 PM PST
90 Pandaren Shaman
8455
You love hyperbole. "Ruining game access"??


Currently I have access to the hardest raid content available in game. Your suggestion to make access to that content 25m only would make access to that content impossible unless I; or others that aren't on servers like Illidan, Proudmoore, and other dense population/deep skill pool servers; were willing to pay out more than $50 (multiplied by alts) to those servers.

If you wouldn't refer to making a change that cuts off a sizable chunk of the participating playerbase from participating simply due to server they are on "ruining access", what would you call it?
........

Not if they want to kill more than 1 boss a tier, no. I don't know how deep the skill pool of reliable raiders is on your server, but it's about as deep as a tea spoon on mine because of what I've been telling you; raiders seeking progression move to servers where progression is happening.


I'd call it the tough life of a player on a low pop server who refuses to transfer. If you're on a low pop server a lot of the game is cut off to you or limited. Without a large pool of progression Raiders the AH usually has a limited supply of high end crafted items as one example.

I agree that it's something Blizz should address but since you sound like someone who's very conscious of their e-status the fact that you refuse to transfer where the action is seems a little head scratching.

It also doesn't make sense that you're Guild if merged with another 10 man on your server would suddenly be unable to down Bosses. If you're successfully progressing as a 10 man Guild (hopefully you are or this discussion has been meaningless) and you join up with a fellow 10 man of similar progression you'd suddenly find the content harder or are you concerned about filling Raid slots?

It seems that if there was a new top tier like in Korea a new uber 25 that you created would attract other progression centric players like yourself from weaker Guilds on your server. Are you trying to tell us that your main's server is so small that a good 25 man Guild couldn't poach enough players from weaker 10 man Guilds to be successful?

01/30/2013 08:12 AMPosted by Hyjinx
Ego isn't the basis for the proposition that 25s should have access to better loot.


That's the entire argument, actually. "We deserve better loot because we don't feel special running 25's anymore when others can do the same thing running 10's". It would take a while, and it would be hidden by comments like "But we don't get prestige if we run 25m over 10m", but I can draw up at least a dozen quotes stating that the only reason 25m should be the only progression format is ego driven by 25m players.


Of course it is. No one is saying otherwise. Once you start chasing e-fame in games it's all ego driven. The prestige of running a successful 25 man progression Guild was what kept those types in the game. We're getting into game psychology now but there's was something that worked when to see content you needed to be in a progression Guild.

I know it's a controversial stance in the new feel good, see it all at your own pace world of warcraft that we have now but the eco system in TBC worked. Even with the drastic changes in Wrath it still worked. I'd say it's not working anymore.

01/30/2013 09:56 AMPosted by Indyana
Don't you see that having some random Buff any class can get isn't the same as using a unique class skill in an encounter?


I can say why it's better than cancelling a raid because your paladin didn't show up and there weren't any others around capable of handling the mechanics. I don't know about you, but losing entire progression nights due to no shows tends to irk me, and expecting all 25m players to have fully raid/heroic raid geared alts of every other class "just in case" to avoid that problem isn't realistic (unless you get paid to play, but hardly anyone outside of the top 10 guilds does so that's moot).


Again...I don't remember ever calling a Raid because someone wasn't around. I've seen raids called because of general apathy starting in Cata but not because we were missing a Mage, Lock or another "required" class for a particular encounter. And no we didn't expect all 25 players to have fully raid geared alts of ever class (hyperbole again).

There are always "lifers" in a 25 man Guild who just play a lot. One of them could always be counted on to fill the role for the night.....and it was usually a blast because they'd be sweating the whole time. You remember fun right? Part of the meta game was having the right team of players.

01/30/2013 11:43 AMPosted by Indyana
It's hard to argue with newer MMO players (and I'm not saying you fall into that camp) because they don't grasp why GC would say flying mounts make the game worse (as an example).


Oh it's easy to know why he said it. The term is nostalgia or, more colloquially, "rose coloured glasses". He has a lot of those moments on twitter, not realising that a lot of the people who say things like "Yeah, it was awesome calling a progression run because Fred didn't show up." were likely complaining when it actually did happen.


No he's speaking as a dev. It is more engaging (and annoying) to have to ride everywhere on the ground and it also makes for a better game. Maybe you just hate RPG's. Losing many of the old school RPG elements for QoL changes just made the game easier but it also made it less of a world and more of a Disney ride.

It's amazing that anyone played this game let alone allowed it to grow to the monster it became. So many annoying things preventing players like you from having their real fun.
Edited by Indyana on 1/30/2013 3:03 PM PST
90 Troll Druid
14580
01/30/2013 02:42 PMPosted by Bomdanil
There's no rational reason for going backwards at this point,

You mean to help 25man guilds from dying off is an "irrational" reason?

Clever, it's like your explicitly ignoring the goal of this entire thread, to make your argument seem "rational."
90 Orc Shaman
13750
01/30/2013 12:56 PMPosted by Malorey
No, I did not choose to take the logistically easier route after having built a 25 man team. I did larger raids when they were the only thing available. 40 Mans, 20 Mans, 25 Mans, 10 Mans. I chose 10 man because I don't like large raid sizes. They don't feel like a team to me, personally. They feel like a lump of people who get together while making half of them stand on the sidelines used, abused, and changed out like yesterday's underwear for that .02% more whatever.


Sounds more like you're describing bleeding edge 25 man progression rather than 25s as a whole.

Half on the sidelines? Most 25s I know of keep a roster of 30-33. To keep half your roster on the sidelines you'd need a group of 50. Nobody keeps a 25 roster of 50 players. Do you speak in hyperbole intentionally to delude yourself, or what?

That's the entire argument, actually. "We deserve better loot because we don't feel special running 25's anymore when others can do the same thing running 10's". It would take a while, and it would be hidden by comments like "But we don't get prestige if we run 25m over 10m", but I can draw up at least a dozen quotes stating that the only reason 25m should be the only progression format is ego driven by 25m players.


At least you didn't try to tell me 10s is any less egotistical. And no, it's "25s needs better loot because that's the only way we know both 10s and 25s were successful." Now, I freely admit that there might be a better solution, but we kind of need something soon. If this were Cataclysm, perhaps experimental solutions would have been better received. But it isn't Cataclysm. All Blizzard has done so far is a quarter-assed version of 25s having better loot, and all of us seem to agree that will do zilch. Full-assed version or nothing, please and thanks.

Answer me this: Why is it ok for people like me who like larger raid groups to watch my format die? If you could prove to me 10s would die if 25s had better loot, then I'd be against the change. However, all the evidence we have points to the exact opposite.
No. Please no. LFR is a way to see content, not get geared.


Interesting, please explain how you get straight to normal difficulty without doing some LFR after heroics.
100 Tauren Druid
19555
01/30/2013 06:37 PMPosted by Cerethor
Interesting, please explain how you get straight to normal difficulty without doing some LFR after heroics


Normal MSV doesn't need gear above 5 man heroic gear. Assuming you're fully gemmed and enchanted you can clear the entire raid in 5 man gear. Thats how the raiding guilds did it the first week prior to LFR coming out.
90 Orc Shaman
13750
01/30/2013 06:37 PMPosted by Cerethor
No. Please no. LFR is a way to see content, not get geared.


Interesting, please explain how you get straight to normal difficulty without doing some LFR after heroics.


Well, my guild cleared MSV the week it released, and LFR wasn't available yet.

So.. I guess you do it by not having the illusion that you need LFR gear and actually understanding how to play your class?
96 Human Warrior
8215
01/30/2013 02:42 PMPosted by Bomdanil
And yet you don't care how the changes need for your, as a raider, ego effects 8 Million + players when the raid community is in the 450-600 thousand or .45 or .6 Million range.


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.


1 - In tBC and early Wrath I was for the separate but equal path of raiding like we have now. Then we had it and I saw how it destroyed the raiding community more than the 40man -> 25man changes caused.

2 - I am more advocating QoL improvements and better data metrics about boss kills and what group size killed them at the guild level than the current iLvl insanity adding more RNG to an already RNG system is just doubling down on stupid.

3 - I don't think 10s and 25s are maintainable, and really think Blizzard should just pull the band-aid off all at once and kill both raid sizes for some other number, x >10 and x < 40, in all honesty 25 is the sweet spot which was found and decided upon in tBC it allows for a large enough guild for a sense of community but small enough to still be reasonably manageable.

4 - If there is 1 raid size then hopefully they would finally be able to design boss mechanics like Ulduar which had the best difficulty progression they have ever had.
This topic is locked.

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)
Submit Cancel

Reported!

[Close]