Patch 5.4 patch notes
Virtual Realms feature revealed
The Proving Grounds are coming
The latest patch 5.4 newsThe pros and cons of raid IDs
by Mike Schramm 
Feb 11th 2009 at 5:00PM
Freya recently posted a plea on the forums: Please, Blizzard, get rid of raid IDs. Raid IDs were put in the game as a way to make sure the best loot in the game didn't flow freely: rather than just running endgame raids over and over (and over), Blizzard put a hold on just how much one player can run them. If you get saved to a raid ID, you're usually out of that raid until things reset on Tuesdays. But there are lots of issues -- at this point, agrees Zarhym, it's too easy to get saved to a raid. It's lame to jump in on a PuG where you do one boss and then the group breaks up for the rest of the week, and it's even lamer to have your raid ID ninja'ed by a few folks who decide they want to disband the group early. The mechanic is important to keep around, though -- if you think it's too easy to get endgame gear now, just think what things would be like if people could run Naxx or OS daily or even hourly.
But the actual saving is an issue, and one that the developers are working on -- they're planning on making it so that you would only be saved to an instanced when it's partially or even completely cleared (though that too would likely spread a little more loot around than wanted -- people would run the instance until the last boss and reset it to do it all over again). We'll have to see how this pans out.
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Virtual selves, Blizzard, Instances, Raiding, NPCs
Reader Comments (Page 3 of 4)
Burcemage Feb 11th 2009 5:43PM
I wonder if there a way too just do ID per Wing instead of all 4 Wing basicly walking into Spider wing killing the first boss saved you ID. then you could leave and just join any other wing when up.
Like saying i only have time too do Spider Wing. I do that then i can go in any other wing too finish the boss and get saved again, i do know this would cause a proble for the last 2 boss, but there must a way too make it that you need too kill all 4 wings too be able too go in that room, im not sure myself just throwing in a thought out
eROKv Feb 11th 2009 5:44PM
the only thing they have to do is add a dialog box before zoning in, warning you that you will be saved to an existing raid ID if you continue.
while there are reasons to go further, none of them are very valid - the status quo works pretty well. its the accidental saving to a cleared ID that totally sucks donkey balls.
Kolonus Feb 11th 2009 5:44PM
Would it be so difficult to employ a tiered saving system? A save ID based on what bosses were downed while you were present in the group?
For the sake of simplicity, let's use Heroic Utgarde Keep, which would have 3 tiers: Kelseth, Skarvald and Dalronn, and Ingvar. Someone with a "2 star" save would not have access to any trash or bosses until after Skarvald and Dalronn.
It would add a little complexity and a new language to LookingForGroup, but might help with losing an entire ID.
I don't know how this would affect something like Violet Hold, but it seems workable.
Candina@WH Feb 11th 2009 5:49PM
Keep Raid IDs.
Change the 10 Man refresh to 4 days.
Keep the 25 refresh at 7 days.
Progression is still Heroic gears for Raidx10, Raidx10 gears for Raidx25.
Heroics refresh daily, Raidx10 refresh every 4 days, Raidx25 refreshes every 7 days.
And Raidx40 NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN...
Auxon Feb 11th 2009 6:04PM
I have a totally different idea.
Increase the damage and stamina of all mobs and bosses by 10% per run within the current lockout periods.
Joey W. Feb 11th 2009 6:18PM
Here is an idea. If you run lets say Heroic Violet Hold and you wipe on the 3rd boss and you come back in the instance. You get to run the entire instance again, including the killing of the first and second boss all over again. You do not however get the loot off them or any emblems. It appears as if this portion of code exists in the heroics so why not put it into the Raids. If you complete a quarter or two and you decide you pug with another group and they do the same quarters then no loot should be available to you.
Dessel Feb 11th 2009 6:23PM
I don't mind getting a raid ID if i have downed a boss, but the accidental OS saves suck.
The saves that make me cringe are the ones where you know x boss' are down so the group should be ok. You join step in the door then stand around waiting ... waiting you fight the boss, wipe 5 people leave so you wait some more. You all know the pattern. When its done you have cleared 5 trash pulls and attempted the boss 7 times wasted 2 hours but still are saved.
If you join a group get to first boss wipe 7 times leave you are not saved. The same should be true if its the 6th boss. If I don't kill a boss don't save me give me a pending ID till I am in for a boss kill. This would also keep the accidental OS saves you would get the pending realize its complete step out and not be saved.
Lackofhonor Feb 11th 2009 6:54PM
either seperate naxx into 4 raids one for each wing. or make the deal with only loot on first kill..
how ever i think the IDs are shit, i just left wow due to my guild clearing every thing in 1 or maximum 2 nights leaving me with the rest of the weak to jump around i dalaran.... removal of IDs would have given me somthing to do sure it might not be fun to clear naxx every day but, jumping around in dalaran for 5-6days sure aint either...
phox Feb 11th 2009 6:53PM
Make it like the LOTRO lock system.
Fletch Feb 11th 2009 6:55PM
I think the issue does need looking at but some sort of restriction needs to be kept as I don't think it would be good for the game if people could just continually run raids for epic loot. Personally, I would like to see it so that you can run with whatever group you want whenever you like, but you can only roll on boss loot once per week (i.e if you had previously killed a boss with another group that week you aren't eligible for any loot from it on subsequent runs). I would like to see this extended to heroics as well. It can be very annoying when a group disbands halfway through and you can't run it again that day because you are saved (especially VH as it seems you only have to walk through the door there and you become saved).
Ishkate Feb 11th 2009 7:21PM
This is one place where the Everquest system worked a little better... each person had their own individual lockouts for each boss. Lockouts for the raid were determined by the raid leader - if an individual has more bosses clear than the raid leader, he/she is unable to zone into the instance while in the raid. Anyone with the same or less lockouts than the raid leader is fine to zone in, but the only bosses that would be present in the instance would be those for which the raid leader wasn't locked out.
Example : you've cleared Spider wing - you join a raid where the leader hasn't cleared anything, you're unable to zone in. You join a raid where the leader has cleared Spider and Horsemen, you'll enter an instance with Spider and Horsemen down.
Accidental or malicious lockouts can't happen, since you're only locked out if you kill something... and on a partial clear you can come back (even with a totally different PUG) as long as the group you return with has compatible lockouts.
Dave Feb 11th 2009 8:04PM
I can't think of many non-abuseable systems that work with both guild schedules, pugs and hardcore guilds, but here's a shot.
#1: You're only saved when you accept loot. Yes, this means that if you're willing to be the guy who runs everyone through Naxx every week you can pass on all the loot in the entire instance every time and tank the thing for 10 guilds in a week if you want. This also means that if you're in a crappy pug that breaks up after 3 bosses, you've got a decent chance to get in another one instead.
#2: Raids are tied to the guild in a way that lets the guild leader keep a raid alive longer than a default timer. Yes, we know the content is easy but people's schedules aren't necessarily easy. It sucks to have that sort of guild that needs 3 full days worth of runs to clear Naxx, only to get blocked on a wing or miss part of a day when the MT has to leave early and end up unable to clear the raid. At the same time, a "guild raid" could be tied to the guild members and leave the PUG'ers out. They don't get saved to your guild raids, you don't run the risk of them hijacking your raid when you don't finish in one day. Again, if a guy wants to pug it up for 10 guilds in a week let 'em. I think most would still prefer to run with a guild than Pugging it up every week, but really are we concerned with the overenthusiastic poopsockers, or the casual player who even if given the option to run Naxx 10 times a week, they'd still opt to do it once or twice as is the case right now...
Rage Feb 12th 2009 10:05AM
Wow, I love Dave’s idea. Run it as many times as you want but you can only loot a boss once! So you log on late your guild started without you and you missed the first wing someone has to go and they want you to step in. Normally you would lose out on that first wing but this way you could just pug that wing another night. And your buddy that had to go early well he can do the same thing!
You can use this to farm drops by passing loot until you get in a raid that drops the item you are looking for. If you had an 80 alt you could just start a fresh raid pass lead and then get back on your main and have them re-invite. Potentially everyone in the raid would pass on at least one boss giving them a reason to run it again to get a second chance at picking up something they want.
Guilds could also use this method to sell loot. You full clear the instance use alt toon A to create new raid invite people that already cleared it. Leave 5-6 slots open for buyers. Guilds did this in BC with T6 but only after they geared all their people first. Now you could do your guild run and then sell loot too! Now that I think about it you could just use the buyer’s fresh raid ID to reset the instance. Have them invite you to raid give you assist invite your clear group and rock out. LOL, now I’m really thinking you could have exclusive raids. Basically you sell a raid to a single person run them thru and they get all the loot to themselves. Sell a clear for 10k potentially you could get a full T7 set on one run that would be more then worth 10k. In a weekend you could easily do 4 full clears.
This gives you a way to farm loot but it isn’t easy. Honestly I think it would be awesome. I much rather run raids all day then farm. You can make decent money off the trash clears too!
Auxon Feb 11th 2009 8:42PM
All of the suggestions given require a great deal of modifications to the existing system and introduce a bunch of new problems.
I'll say it again - increase the difficulty of the raid so that eventually it becomes impossible to finish then you solve the problem.
Increase damage/health of mobs in 10% increments (or so) and you solve the farming issue and introduce challenge, and they could add achievements around it.
Rylka Feb 11th 2009 10:06PM
I would like to simply be warned before I do something that will bind me to a raid ID. Just a pop-up window that I have to click on that tells me that I will be bound to an existing raid ID if I accept this group invite, or if I invite this person to join my group, or if I'm about to walk into an instance door.
Just let me make an informed decision rather than get unpleasantly surprised.
Valar Feb 11th 2009 10:21PM
As someone who's been programming and working in code for a while, if adding variables for storing boss ID's instead of raid Id's is an issue for blizzard than there's something wrong with how they're storing the info in the first place.
In reality, since the raids all reset on the same day, you wouldn't need any kind of unique number (as ID suggests) and rather just an "on, off" (or Boolean) variable that simply stores the fact that that character is locked out of certain content.
If this were the case, then all that would need to be done is a check to see if this variable is on (or true) and prevent that character from rolling on loot. And if blizzard did a good job of separating their code from their data it shouldn't be too difficult.
Since this kind of variable is small (the actual data is only one bit) it wouldn't add a lot of overhead to implement, even for the amount of raids in-game. I will say, however, that the amount of data to store this info is a lot more, relatively speaking, than the amount needed for the current system.
Since I've never raided I don't now how many bosses are generally in a raid, but, even if there were only three per raid, the amount of data per raid would triple. And since most raids, to my knowledge, have 10- and 25-man versions (which I assume are ID'd separately) , this increases the amount of data from 2 per raid, to 6.
So, realistically, if Blizzard doesn't spend a lot of resources to store raid ID's then the amount of additional overhead may be hardly noticeable.
Valar Feb 11th 2009 10:30PM
Of course, I have no idea how they implemented raid ID's so my entire argument might be moot.
Toclafane Feb 12th 2009 4:04AM
I'd love to see something done about this as I love the guild that I'm in, but can't be online on the evenings that they raid Naxx. This leaves me having to try & find a PuG for it - & given the size of Naxx it's massively unlikely that you can find a PuG that will either stay together long enough to clear it, or be geared enough to clear it. Add to this the fact that most PuGs wont touch you with a bargepole if you haven't already cleared it on several attempts & there's a massive limitation to being able to do the instance.
I've managed to find groups for Naxx on 2 occasions in the last few months - the 1st one fell apart after the first boss, meaning that I was screwed as far as the rest of the week was concerned, & the 2nd I had to leave due to it taking too long as people kept afk'ing for 10 mins at a time. The argument that people would get bored too quickly if there weren't raid IDs works in reverse for me - I'm getting bored of running the same heroics over & over, yet I have no way of running Naxx without finding a decent PuG that can stay together for 12 hours or whatever - every week! They may have made the raids easier, but they aren't more accessible. I'm just sad that I shall probably be stuck waiting for more heroics to be added, & until then my main is just going to end up rotting in Dalaran.
Bring back instances like 15-man UBRS I say, those were the days!
Shakaraka Feb 12th 2009 8:20AM
Last night I joined a 25 OS pug, before the raid leader put it on heroic I and several others zoned in and got saved to a cleared 10 man. I would prefer it if there was a warning that came up BEFORE you zoned in saying some thing to the effect...
"WARNING you are about to set your raid ID for this instance. Do you wish to proceed?"
Rantank Feb 12th 2009 8:38AM
Most non-casual players have at least more than one 80 by now as there's been more than enough time to level and gear alts. I have 5 and I only know a handful of people with a single 80. There's not much in the way of progression to soak up farming/raiding time. Even many casuals have their main and their pvp DK fully geared at 80.
Just think for a moment about locking by the boss instead of by the instance. Don't look at it from the ideal that suits you.. look at what would really happen. People trading instances to gear up their alts with uber geared mains steamrolling the instance would become the norm. Guilds would sell loot by the boss all safely in the knowledge they would still be able to run their own fresh instance later. This would cause a flood of epic gear to people who don't raid at that level and possibly even promote the gold buying market so people could afford to pay the guilds for the access to the loot. So there would be massive inflation, people wouldnt be able to sell crafted epics as everyone would wait for the better gear and pay for that instead. Raiders wouldn't need to farm anymore because they could afford to pay for everything from their instance runs. People who buy the gear would be stuck in a cycle of either buying gold or else farming more than they want to, as its their guaranteed loot supply.
Change the current system to that... because of a brief phase where a single instance is puggable? No thanks.