Solution to 10m vs. 25m Dilemma

90 Worgen Druid
9520
Everyone is debating whether this new "Thunderforged" gear is going to solve the 10 vs. 25 problem.

Bring back VP upgrades and let 25m bosses drop 2x the VP that 10m bosses do. Also, make the extra 25m VP not count against the VP cap so players that raid 25m can effectively get double the VP just by clearing raid bosses.


The problem with the Thunderforged solution is that it does nothing to address the underlying issue of 25m, the logistical challenge of getting 25 people organized. Speaking as a 25m raid leader, the hours required outside of raid are enormous when you factor in recruiting, strategy discussion, mat farming, handling 2.5x the drama, loot issues and just general personality management.

Plus the issue with 25m raiding right now is at the casual level, *not* the hardcore level. If casual players have limited time, giving them extra VP incentive might just be the push that is needed for them to go get a 25m together since they won't have to spend as much time farming VP.

Wouldn't it be nice to be able to save a few hours as a 25m raider (or be able to get geared faster for the same amount of hours)?

Thoughts?

PP
Reply Quote
90 Night Elf Death Knight
12185
The problem with the "double Valor Point" solution is that it does nothing to address the underlying issue of 25m, the logistical challenge of getting 25 people organized.


I used your own words and swapped the proposed solutions. In short, no, your solution changes nothing. So long as they try to award the participants for the efforts made by the organizers, there is no incentive for them to even attempt leading 25-mans.

The problem isn't 10's/25's being granted equally powerful items.
The problem isn't 10's/25's being numerically more/less difficult than the other.
The problem is that those organizing 25's have a considerably more daunting task in front of them and until Blizzard can figure out a means by which to reward them, and them alone, the only options are:

1) You leave the system as is and allow 25-mans to suffer (not good for anybody involved)

OR

2) You implement a means by which 2-3 people are expressly rewarded, preferably with something which allows them to slack in other areas of character upkeep (i.e. an additional valor bonus, extra food when cooking, extra flasks, etc.) that way spending the extra time organizing doesn't physically add onto their already heavy load.

I myself can think of like five ways to implement this, but knowing Blizzard they'll choose an extreme as they always do.
Edited by Fyersing on 2/3/2013 9:29 PM PST
Reply Quote
90 Tauren Warrior
9435
Fyersing, while I agree with your sentiment in general, I think your #2 has some severe downsides, namely, the possibility of fracturing the already weak 25 man scene. You're giving an incentive for players to leave 25 groups (and taking as many people as they can) to form their own. Established guilds probably won't suffer, but new guilds may.

The organization is an intractable problem, no one knows how to solve it until they start trying to solve it, and we need blizz to start trying to solve it via tooling/API's for others to create tooling.

Why can't players opt in to outside communication channels? Blizz has their email, why can't the RL send out a mail through Wow that is also emailed to everyone? Or allow raid leaders to pay a little extra for the ability to text people via skype/jabber/SMS (anonymously)?

And these are probably bad ideas (the abuse of it is why they don't do it), but if we're going to talk about solving the real problem, tooling is the solution imo. You can never make it an easy problem, but you can make it easier.
Edited by Rvalue on 2/3/2013 9:45 PM PST
Reply Quote
90 Human Warlock
12535
To quote myself from another thread:

Blizzard themselves acknowledge that the challenges in keeping a 25m guild running are administrative. Having spent 5 tiers as a 25m raider and 2.5 tiers as a 10m raider (and been GM/RL of both), it is far easier to be a peon in the crowd on 25m. Why should the peons reap the rewards of their leadership's additional work?

If Blizzard really wants to see more 25m guilds, they need to do something to make it easier to run one and/or make it easier to transition from 10m to 25m. I've done so, and it's brutal. They need to do something that helps guild leadership teams. Loot shouldn't have anything to do with it, and I'm rather disappointed Blizzard took this road.

Loot isn't the issue, Blizzard, administrative overhead is!
Reply Quote
90 Night Elf Death Knight
12185
02/03/2013 09:44 PMPosted by Rvalue
Fyersing, while I agree with your sentiment in general, I think your #2 has some severe downsides, namely, the possibility of fracturing the already weak 25 man scene. You're giving an incentive for players to leave 25 groups (and taking as many people as they can) to form their own. Established guilds probably won't suffer, but new guilds may.


While this is definitely true, I feel like if they went through the leaps and strides to implement something like this it wouldn't be far-fetched to expect that they'd spend a fraction of that time implementing limitations so as to dissuade people from trying to exploit this.

So to elaborate, assume the following systems need to be implemented and/or expanded upon:

#1 -- Raid Format: At the onset of every other raid-week guilds will select which raiding format (10's or 25's) they intend to utilize for the next two weeks. This selection is locked for a duration of 14-days and cannot be altered during that period.

    Note: This allows for each guild to register as either "10" or "25" for the purposes of dulling out rewards. It also solves the issues at the higher-levels of progression whereby 10's can circumvent their intended loot progression by carrying 15 substitutes/non-guildmates through 25's and lay claim to all the loot. My own solution to the issue of "alt-weaving" in higher-end 25's is largely unrelated to this so I won't mention it.


#2 -- Guild Groups: A guild group will be absolutely necessary to actually receive whichever compensatory reward is promised by Blizzard.

    Note: The requisite of being in guild group may also be a means by which other rewards, specifically thile introduce in the future, could be implemented with the intent of encouraging participation in guild-based raiding across all formats (both 10's and 25's).


#3 -- Temporarily-Permanent Ranks: At the onset of each raid-week the guild leader could assign the special ranking of "organizer" to up to 3 players. This rank would persist, unable to be re-assigned, for a duration of 7-days and would be exclusive to guilds which were locked in as "25-mans". These people would be the only players eligible to receive the compensatory reward in any given week.

    Note: Though it would be important to note that none are eligible if the group doesn't qualify as a "Guild Group". I'm open to alternatives to this, but it seems fair enough.


I feel like thile three notions go further to tackle the issue of administrative overhead more thiroughly than any "tools" they could possibly conceive of.
Edited by Fyersing on 2/3/2013 10:42 PM PST
Reply Quote
90 Orc Death Knight
13615
@Fyersing:

How do any of your solutions "tackle the issue of administrative overhead?" How did they make it easier to run a 25 man raid guild?

Answer: they didn't. In fact, they *increased* the admin because guilds would have to register as a 10 or 25 (a trivial step, but still an increase), and more importantly, the addition of "organizers" creates a huge admin issue, because now guilds will have to cycle their designated "organizers" to spread loot evenly.

There isn't any way for Blizz to solve the admin discrepancy between 25m and 10m raid guilds. That's because the issues aren't really gameplay issues.
Edited by Grumchuck on 2/4/2013 12:50 AM PST
Reply Quote
90 Night Elf Death Knight
12185
@Fyersing:

How do any of your solutions "tackle the issue of administrative overhead?" How did they make it easier to run a 25 man raid guild?


There aren't any possible ways to "make it easier to run a 25 man", especially when comparing them to 10-mans, the only semblance of a solution is to properly reward those who put in the extra effort to do so.

Answer: they didn't. In fact, they *increased* the admin because guilds would have to register as a 10 or 25 (a trivial step, but still an increase), and more importantly, the addition of "organizers" creates a huge admin issue, because now guilds will have to cycle their designated "organizers" to spread loot evenly.


1) If clicking a prompted button once every two weeks or so can be listed under "administrative overhead" then, sadly, they might as well just turn off the servers now. That is absolutely hilarious as a argument against the notion I detailed above.

2) The rewards I described were not "loot" in the sense of tangible items, so there would be no even-spreading of them to begin with. They were practical "shortcuts" so that those spending extra time managing more people could, in theory, spend less time maintaining their own character (i.e. more valor from kills, etc.).

Edit: As an aside, just how many people are actually setting aside noticeable amounts of time to maintain your 25-guild? I'm curious because what used to be the best 25-man guild in the worlds guild leader recently (well, fairly recently as it was at the beginning of T14) suggested that before they went to 10-mans he pretty much handled all of the daunting organizing by himself. Alone. Solo.

1 person, managed the best 25-man guild in the world.

There isn't any way for Blizz to solve the admin discrepancy between 25m and 10m raid guilds. That's because the issues aren't really gameplay issues.


That's why they have to reward those who do extra work, the organizers, not the raiders as individuals. In any case this is all simply spit-balling suggestions, anything to prompt Blizzard to some real action instead of multi-hour Twitter sessions talking about how bleak the situation looks.
Edited by Fyersing on 2/4/2013 2:09 AM PST
Reply Quote
90 Tauren Warrior
9435
Grumchuck has the right of it imo, the best you can hope for is to make it easier.
Reply Quote
1 Human Priest
0
1. Players do not want to join a 25 player guild and stick around while you form a solid group. It's much easier and more attractive for good players to join a 10 player group which will be solid sooner. I disagree with the above posts that it's purely organisational and that only the organisers should benefit.

2. Players need an incentive to stay, and not carry out a mutiny when you get stuck on a boss after they figure out that taking the 10 best players and forming a 10 player guild (excluding the raid and guild leader) is more advantageous. It happens to all guilds and it's a vicious cycle of recruitment and mutiny.

With the current direction there will not be any 25 player guilds in a couple of years.
Edited by Crzcrazy on 2/4/2013 3:40 AM PST
Reply Quote
90 Night Elf Death Knight
12185
02/04/2013 03:26 AMPosted by Rvalue
Grumchuck has the right of it imo, the best you can hope for is to make it easier.


The number 25 is fundamentally higher and more complex than the number 10 -- so when compared there is literally no way to make them at all similar. They're left with either ignoring the problem, making the problem worse or revamping the whole thing to attempt to render the problem moot.

GC alluded to this in his twitter post the other day.
Reply Quote
90 Night Elf Death Knight
12185
1. Players do not want to join a 25 player guild and stick around while you form a solid group. It's much easier and more attractive for good players to join a 10 player group which will be solid sooner. I disagree with the above posts that it's purely organisational and that only the organisers should benefit.


It's "much easier" to... login? That is what 90% of the raid does for their group, they login.

2. Players need an incentive to stay, and not carry out a mutiny when you get stuck on a boss after they figure out that taking the 10 best players and forming a 10 player guild (excluding the raid and guild leader) is more advantageous. It happens to all guilds and it's a vicious cycle of recruitment and mutiny.


It's not "more advantageous" from the perspective of volume, you simply get more yields from 25-mans than you do from 10-mans. Is it enough? That's the tough nut to crack, considering people believe the rewards should go to different locales.

But make no mistake, the current incentive for 25-mans is more gear, which also translates to more chances at specific gear. This is compounded by the coming Thunderforged gear which effectively fills the role of "extra, extra-gear".

With the current direction there will not be any 25 player guilds in a couple of years.


The natural tendency of mankind is to strive for efficiency, which currently leaves 25-mans in a bad place. They can force players into 25-mans (by literally re-iterating it as the true endgame with better itemization), thereby alienating countless thousands of players or else they can properly reward those who actually spend the time organizing and maintaining them.

But short of either of those outcomes, yes, they will die. The TL;DR would be something like, they either succeed by being forced upon us or they succeed because Blizzard finally finds an employee at their office who can think critically. Maybe what they need to do is request one of the "world-wide problem solvers" fixes the problem for them, I'm sure it would take Josh Hutcherson's little brother like 11 minutes to fix raiding.
Edited by Fyersing on 2/4/2013 4:16 AM PST
Reply Quote
90 Draenei Death Knight
13815
02/04/2013 07:10 AMPosted by Subrosian
The problem with that system for the US is that some players would feel forced to raid both raid sizes. I would personally be okay with having the loot system, however, as it gives 10s the opportunity to get full BiS, while still making 25s more rewarding (which increases their ability to recruit).


I'd make 25 normal mode bosses 10-20% percent easier - the heyday of casual 25's on my server was during the wrath days when 25 decently competent people could clear Nax and ToC. Then, out of the dozens of 25 man guilds, there were 10 or so that would clear the normal mode content.

Now, the skill and coordination requirements are much higher, for both 10 and 25. Nobody is getting pulled in from trade, there are no successful GDKP runs. Why not make 25 normals less punishing? I would:

- tune fights to require 5 healers, 13 dps, 2 tanks
- switch to LFR loot model so people can join existing runs, get drops from end bosses (kills GDKP, but prevents 10 man guilds from gaming in 25s)
- require real coordination with planning raid cooldowns, so it's not LFR easy
- maintain separate 10/25 heroic lockout

The main reason I personally will not do 25s is because I have set aside 2 nights a week for raiding and have limited time for admin overhead. But if the content in 25 normals were a bit easier, I'm pretty confident I could pull together a fun casual 2-night, 25s team even on my server.

Then a 10 man guild like man has some compelling choices -

- stay small and do only 10s (slower gear in normal modes, stays more intimate)
- step to 25s in normal modes, do 10s in heroic - the original 10 man could work on heroic modes while others are running the 25s
- step to 25s in normal modes, do 25s in heroic - another viable pathway if the 25 group takes off
Reply Quote
90 Night Elf Death Knight
12185
If they just turn 25's into a glorified LFR then what's the point of even keeping it?

No, they need to remain tough. The problem ends up being the organizers thinking to themselves, "why waste 4 extra hours a week for zero extra reward?" and making the raid easier doesn't even address that issue at all.
Reply Quote
90 Draenei Death Knight
13815
02/04/2013 12:41 PMPosted by Fyersing
If they just turn 25's into a glorified LFR then what's the point of even keeping it?


Because 25 man raiding thrived when the content was easier, and died when it got harder - thus 26K US-25 Marrowgar kills, 11K Putricide kills, 4K Halion/LK kills. Hard normal mode content kills guilds.

25 man content can be challenging without being LFR - as I said before, tune it to be doable by 20 solid players
Reply Quote
3 Undead Priest
0
I don't know where this idea that only 2-3 people are responsible for 25s running effectively came from, but it's wrong. For a PUG it might be accurate, but for a long running, successful 25 man guild it's far from true. Paragon is one guild, and very far from the norm; most 25 man guilds need a strong, supportive infrastructure that's entirely different from what's necessary for 10 mans.


But make no mistake, the current incentive for 25-mans is more gear, which also translates to more chances at specific gear. This is compounded by the coming Thunderforged gear which effectively fills the role of "extra, extra-gear".



No, the incentive for 25s is not more gear, the incentive is the far greater enjoyment.


Now, the skill and coordination requirements are much higher, for both 10 and 25. Nobody is getting pulled in from trade, there are no successful GDKP runs.


There are no 25 PUGs and 25 GDKP runs now because of the single lockout, and because MoP is so much less alt-friendly. The people that used to run 10s with their guilds and join 25s from trade are now locked out of those 25s because of the single lockout. Dumbing down 25 mans wouldn't alter the problem of the single lock out and the lack of raid-worthy alts, it would just ruin the enjoyment of 25 man raiding for those still fortunate enough to be able to do it. Sorry, but it's a terrible idea.

It's not the difficulty of the content that's a barrier to 25 man PUGs, there were a good number of servers where PUGs were doing almost full clears of 25H ICC.

In Korea, the system they use is this:

10 and 25 have separate lockouts. You can raid both 10 -and 25 in a week. Gear can be valor upgraded 4 times. 10-mans drop gear that is 0/4 upgraded, 25-mans drop gear that is 2/4 upgraded. 25-man bosses are tuned 10% higher.


The problem with that system for the US is that some players would feel forced to raid both raid sizes. I would personally be okay with having the loot system, however, as it gives 10s the opportunity to get full BiS, while still making 25s more rewarding (which increases their ability to recruit).


I loved having separate lock outs. I did feel as though I had to do both raid sizes, but I also found it helped enormously in minimising burnout, as my 25 and 10 man groups were never stuck on the same boss until we got to Heroic LK and so it was really enjoyable to switch to working on different content on my beloved main instead of just being stuck on a single fight indefinitely. I really felt the loss of that in Cataclysm.


Moving on - the issue of people / logistics... I think Blizzard is planning to solve this in the next phase of the CRZ. If we look at CRZ right now, it's kind of not doing much. If we look at what it coud do... you could see Battlegroups essentially being turned into super-servers. If that happens, the essentially you'll be able to recruit anyone in your battlegroup to your guild. IF that happens, it would eliminate the population problem for building 25s.


I like this idea a lot, I think it would have a really positive impact on 25 man raiding.
Reply Quote
90 Night Elf Death Knight
12185
The issue isn't "difficulty vs reward"
The issue is "risk vs reward"


This, more or less.

Though there is a distinction between "numerical difficulty" and "administrative difficulty", with the latter being the only legitimate cause for debate and is largely what we've been talking about as "being harder" herein.

It's risker / less efficient to join a 25-man raid. This is actually made somewhat *worse* with Thunderforged, as in a 25 you have class duplication, meaning you may not personally receive the Thunderforged weapons / trinkets / etc that drop. It's fairly simple to be the only _______ in a 10-man.


If the group is ideally composed then the notion that 25-mans are "less efficient" is entirely untrue, from an objective mathematical standpoint. A 10-man boss will provide enough loot to potentially upgrade 20% of the raidgroup per kill, whereas a 25-man boss will provide enough loot to potentially upgrade 24% of the raidgroup per kill.

If you were comparing two hypothetical guilds clearing the same content on either format with the same good/bad luck with RNG, this means that as more bosses go down the 25-man guild will naturally be provided with more chances at upgrades than the 10-man guild. The only facets of 25's which can be defended as being "riskier" are those areas pertaining to administration and/or organization.

It is "riskier" to try and find 25 people instead of 10.
It is "riskier" to try and manage 25 people instead of 10.
It is "riskier" to try and enforce co-operation between 25 people than 10.
It is not "riskier" to try and gear in a 25 instead of a 10.

To ask them to balance rewards around groups which have mucked up their composition, for whatever reason, is like asking the government to provide a safety net for companies which hire people indiscriminately without regard for their areas of expertise. You're expected to balance your raid, insofar as is reasonable.

This is why more players do 10-mans now, same reward, far less risk / inefficiency. Blizzard has already confirmed this in multiple blue posts over the past week, based on their extensive research.


I already addressed this. It really only applies to the leadership as the "risk" of being "inefficient" isn't an issue in ideal situations for your typical raider, as I explained using mathematics (an interesting field, this, firmly rooted in objective analysis).

One of two things has to happen: 25s have to be come less riskier -or- the reward for doing 25s has to increase to balance the total risk-reward. We will need to see action on BOTH sides of the equation - which Blizz will continue to do (again, confirmed by blue post) as they view 25-raiding as extremely important to the overall game.


I agree with you, we simply disagree on where the extra reward should be aimed at.

An increase in the power of items isn't going to make people who don't enjoy 25's suddenly start enjoying them, in the same way that a federally-mandated increase in the minimum salary of janitors wouldn't make people who currently do not enjoy being a janitor suddenly start enjoying it. They would tolerate it for the increased reward, but for many it would absolutely cease to be fun and keeping things entertaining is certainly as important, if not more important to the health of the game, than maintaining perfect tradition.
Reply Quote
90 Night Elf Death Knight
12185
02/04/2013 03:23 PMPosted by Siantha
Because 25 man raiding thrived when the content was easier, and died when it got harder -


If I'm not mistaken, they scaled 10's up to comparable difficulty with 25's. Meaning 25's were never "easier" than they are now unless you're counting nerfed content?
Reply Quote
90 Draenei Death Knight
13815
02/04/2013 08:05 PMPosted by Fyersing
f I'm not mistaken, they scaled 10's up to comparable difficulty with 25's. Meaning 25's were never "easier" than they are now unless you're counting nerfed content?


25's used to be significantly easier - full Nax-25 and ToC-25 were pugged on my low/med pop server. Ulduar was not (nor EoE), but it was harder. During that time, people continued to pug Nax-25. ICC-25 was regularly pugged on my server through 6 bosses (well before full nerfs), not coincidentally that is where organized guilds tended to falter. Ony-25 was regularly pugged, as well as all the VoA bosses. The weekly raid also encouraged people to form raid groups and go it at. It was pretty easy to get into a raid on almost any night, again on my low/med pop server of little renown

That is why I think that shared lockouts / loot tables are not the main culprit in the decline of 25s. And it's not just 25's raiding, it's all raiding. Harder normal mode raids = fewer people in organized raiding, with more of a decline in 25s as it is that much harder to maintain a critical mass. LFR is also a drain on the pool of organized raiders
Reply Quote

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]