Loot, rationality, and the Sunwell effect

Eliah Hecht's article "25-man gear should not be better than 10-man gear" sparked a lot of great discussion with our readers and, I think, some illuminating poll results as well. The majority of responders believed that giving 10-man and 25-man raids the same loot table would result in a significant drop in popularity for 25-man raiding. Overall, I tend to agree with this, but I also think that Eliah touched on something that speaks to Blizzard's evolving sense of game design, much of which is evident in the transition between late Burning Crusade and Wrath.
I would like to call this the Sunwell effect, or "ingame rationality." To wit: don't incentivize players to behave in a manner contrary to your actual design interests. I believe this played a huge role in the differences between BC and Wrath raiding, and that it underlies why the 25-man loot table has to remain superior to its 10-man counterpart.

My approach to Eliah's article
For the sake of perspective, my main (a Druid tank) has several realm-first kills from Burning Crusade to present and was sitting on Heroic: Glory of the Raider well before patch 3.1 hit. My guild is serious, but I wouldn't necessarily call us hardcore. I didn't drop my professions to level Leatherworking and Jewelcrafting for the absurd stamina bonuses in bear form, nor was I expected to (hey, I like Alchemy). The guild is so chill that we even have someone who has stabbed the raid leader in real life --
ME: You're joking, right?
RL: Nope.
ME: Why the hell would you let him in the guild?
RL: He hasn't stabbed me lately.
-- and the guild is a fun and engaging place to be. Our success in 25-mans aside, our work in 10-mans ranges from the obsessive to the patchy to the wholly disinterested. We have people who did Glory of the Raider, but I'm not among them. Five months into Wrath, I still haven't set foot in a Malygos-10. I started Wrath doing Naxx-10 religiously, but since December my schedule's only permitted me to keep up with one set of raids, so 25-mans were it. I love 10-mans and wish I had more time for them, but I have an obvious interest in the continued attractiveness and stability of 25-man raids, and I'm comfortable admitting this in any discussion concerning 10-man vs. 25-man loot.

Eliah raised a number of points that, to my mind, were entirely accurate concerning the pre-3.1 state of 10-man vs. 25-man raiding. 10-mans did wind up being harder than 25-mans in many respects, and for all I know, that situation may continue through Ulduar. Certainly Sarth-10 3D was harder than its 25-man counterpart, although I don't believe the same can be said of all raid achievements (certainly not Immortal versus Undying).
Where I differ from Eliah is that I believe the problems he describes arise from execution rather than concept; that is, 25-mans were unintentionally easier than 10-mans, but Blizzard's actual intent regarding them -- similar overall difficulty, trending toward greater 25-man difficulty -- was sound.
In the end I think it comes down to the question of whether you want 25-mans in the game. If you do, I don't believe you can justify their existence without a superior loot table, and here's why.
When I look at the issue of whether 10-man and 25-man raids should reward the same loot, every argument I can make either for or against gear equalization proceeds from an unshakeable belief acquired over the course of raiding in Burning Crusade and particularly Sunwell:
People are relentlessly rational.

No, they're not. People are reactive and emotional.
By "rational," I mean that people can reasonably be expected to act in their own interests and in the interests of people and goals they care about. It isn't always about self-interest, nor is it necessarily a bad thing. It nudges players to get their jobs done in a more efficient manner and to search for better solutions to common problems. If Ralph figures out a way to do something, and Bob notices that Ralph's ideas would make things a lot less complicated while resulting in the same outcome, you can realistically expect to see Bob adopting Ralph's methods.
The thought process driving this works to both good and bad ends. It's what pushes raids to take a wide variety of classes in the first place, but it's also what pushed them to deny raid slots to good players in the "wrong" classes or specs. Why take another Paladin healer to Sunwell pre-3.0.2 when you could take a Resto Shaman instead? If you have a Warlock with a stamina set, why have your Warrior tank Sarth 3D when the Warlock's voidwalker is (or rather, was) functionally immune to one-shots?
Makes more sense to take the shammy, right? And wasn't it so much easier just to have the voidwalker tank?
...and doesn't that kind of suck for the Paladin and Warrior concerned?
How this influenced the shift from Burning Crusade to Wrath
The entire story behind the maxim of "Bring the player, not the class" and the overhaul to raid buffs is the story of Blizzard's efforts to change or fix game dynamics to work in favor of individual players instead of class and encounter design. Classes and encounters change all the time, but the person behind a given character usually doesn't.

I'll give you an example. During Sunwell and pre-patch 3.0.2, one of our best DPS, a skilled Mage who could pump out more than 2.2K DPS on Brutallus back when that number really meant something, literally could not come to that fight on his Mage half the time. He brought his Tier 4-geared Resto Shaman instead. Chain Heal, totems, and the extra Bloodlust that his Shaman brought outweighed anything he could do on his Mage. We couldn't give up the AoE healing or the additional Bloodlust, and that forced us to sacrifice one of our best DPS to the demands of Sunwell raid composition.
From an objective standpoint, it was pointless, stupid, and more than a little bit crazy.
From an ingame standpoint, it was entirely rational.
Why you should bring the player, not the class (TM)
The ultimate point of "Bring the player, not the class" is not class homogenization, or dumbing down the game, or any of the legion of insults typically leveled at it. It's about having the game make more sense, about having the rational be objectively rational rather than just contextually so. In other words, you tell your extremely good Mage to come on his Mage, you quit pulling your hair out over whether you have enough Shamans (or Priests, or Rogues, or Warlocks, or...) for an encounter, and your raid leader doesn't have to call the raid for the night if your Druid tank shows up but your Warrior doesn't. I would argue that BtPNtC accomplishes two very important goals:
1. It leaves raids much less vulnerable to the problems posed by class popularity (or lack thereof).
One of the enduring ironies of Sunwell raiding was that the class you needed most (the Shaman) was, at the time, the least-played. If you pulled up the guild recruitment forums at any point while Sunwell was cutting-edge content, you saw legions of thoroughly desperate guilds searching for a population of Tier 6 Shamans that simply did not exist.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, BtPNtC somewhat reduces the problems that inevitably occur when you have too many of one class. I've written previously about running a Naxx-25 PuG where I wound up with 3 Death Knight tanks and 3 Death Knight DPS. Was this ideal? No. But was it doable? Yes.
2. It prevents raid content -- and through it, raiding guilds -- from punishing people who rolled the "wrong" class.
It wasn't at all unusual in BC -- and in some guilds, still isn't -- to get benched for encounters where your class or spec just wasn't ideal for the content. As a Druid tank, for most of BC I simply could not tank Nightbane, Archimonde, Kael'thas, Phase 2 of Reliquary of Souls, or Illidan due to mechanics built into these encounters that made a Druid tank an insane choice at best.
Now, I love my Druid. I think I play the best class in the game, and I have always thought this regardless of how the class has changed. It would take something truly catastrophic for me to switch mains. But it was enormously frustrating that her effectiveness on encounters ebbed and flowed according to the wishes of the encounter design team rather than how well I actually played her.
So what does this have to do with 10-man versus 25-man loot?
It tells me that Blizzard, in the transition to Wrath, spent a lot of time considering how their game design had influenced people to play. They buffed hybrid DPS and tanking specs so that Paladins, Shamans, Priests, and Druids could come to raids as something other than a healbot or a heavily-nerfed form of a pure class. They worked on designing DPS rotations to reward better damage for greater effort (we all remember the macro-spamming BM Hunter and the facerolling Destro Warlock, I trust?). They got rid of encounter mechanics that made classes artificially undesirable.
In short, they transferred the larger share of responsibility for raid composition from themselves to raid leaders, and the larger share of responsibility for "earning" a raid slot to individual players.

And it's my contention that they thought equally long and hard about how to make both 10-man and 25-man raiding attractive when presumably you have the option of doing either, or even both. Blizzard was well aware that their 10-man content, principally in the form of Karazhan, was the most popular raid content they'd ever designed, so in many ways it made sense to divide future raid content into 10-man and 25-man tracks. If so many players got bottlenecked at Kara (and later ZA), unable to proceed to higher content because they just didn't have the guild for it, Blizzard reasoned, isn't that a strong argument in favor of opening all raid content to 10-man raids? And indeed it is. The worst thing about high-end classic and BC raid content was that most players never got to see it.
The overriding problem with that, however, is that given the choice of experiencing the exact same raid content in either a 10-man or 25-man raid, the advantages of the 10-man raid threaten to eclipse the desirability of the 25-man.
Filed under: Items, Analysis / Opinion, Blizzard, Features, Raiding






Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Keyra Apr 24th 2009 11:08AM
"...or the superiority of cake over pie..."
The cake is a lie.
Pie, hands-down, every time.
Now if someone would just come up with a birthday pie...
Yeng Apr 24th 2009 11:22AM
This is true, pie wins over cake. But what about the other options of ice cream cake and cookie cake, I rank those pretty high up there over conventional cake.
Rowan Apr 24th 2009 11:34AM
Awww - taken. Howeever, the cake is a lie. Therefore, pie FTW.
nbcaffeine Apr 24th 2009 11:37AM
Cookie "cake" is really a cookie pie. I think you know it, deep down.
Bob Dewane Apr 24th 2009 11:44AM
You people are kidding, right? No one in their right mind chooses pie over cake. Cake is a far more consistent desert to get when you're out and about. Ordering pie from a strange place is a gamble every time.
Cake FTW!
Maklaca Apr 24th 2009 11:57AM
Ice Cream "cake", hands down, FTW!!
The biggest problem w/ 25 man raids is getting that many people on the same time frame and managing them ("Herding Cats"). I don't see why the "Fight" itself can't have the same "difficulty" for 10 man as it is for 25 man. You would just scale some things to account for the difference in the amount of people. At that point, it would justify the reward gear being the same. True, there would not be as much incentive to put together the 25 man runs without some extra incentive. Maybe that incentive could be things like mounts, or other extras that are BOE like rare profession training scrolls.
Max Apr 24th 2009 12:44PM
If only the cake weren't a lie, I would choose it. However, I am forced to concede to pie. Curse you, Aperture Science!
Kraas Apr 24th 2009 12:55PM
I don't play Portal. Cake > Pie forever.
Osc Apr 24th 2009 11:21AM
Sorry to be off topic, but this was necessary after reading about the stabbing:
[Royal motions to Pagoda]
Royal: He saved my life, you know. Thirty years ago. I was knifed at a bazaar in Calcutta, and he carried me to the hospital on his back.
Ari: Who stabbed you?
[Royal motions to Pagoda again]
Royal: He did. There was a price on my head, and he was a hired assassin. Stuck me in the gut with a shiv.
(from The Royal Tenenbaums :D )
No Heals for You Apr 24th 2009 11:31AM
Stop the qq's about 10 -25 raid loot if you raid 10's be happy with your 10 gear and if you want 25 man gear, shut up and get into a guild that runs them and if not your willing to do then stop crying and enjoy what you got.
...and the trees will all be kept equal by hatchet , axe and saw
Lyraat Apr 24th 2009 11:36AM
Much of the 10-man's QQ'ing stemmed from the simple fact that the content could not be completed in 10-man gear. 10/3D was very difficult in 25-man gear, and was nearly impossible in 10-man gear. Ulduar appears to be much more accessible to 10-mans, though the hard modes may not be. We'll see.
Yeng Apr 24th 2009 11:55AM
If you read the article, its not QQing about 10 man and 25 man gear. It's just going over the rational behind it, and proposing the questions if it should be that way or not. There is a difference between QQ and a discussion/interpretation of a topic. If anything is QQ in this, its your comment.
Noraa Apr 24th 2009 11:35AM
It takes less effort to find 10 decent players than 25. Next subject?
Jon Do Apr 24th 2009 11:43AM
Well, yeah, it does take a few minutes longer to fill the 25-man PUGs.
Jon Do Apr 24th 2009 11:39AM
I read all of this, and scanned parts of this a second time - because for the life of me I can't see the connection of the various points and assertions. Maybe I'm more dense than usual today, but I don't understand why the author didn't just type this and post it:
"The Blizz design team thinks 25-man loot has to be high ilvl than 10-man loot or 25-man raiding will die. 'Nuf said."
Personally, previous raid design, class balance aka "Bring the player not the class" and the rationality of player decisions have little-to-nothing to do with this. Other than the underlying truth that Blizz thinks (probably correctly) that us raiders are loot whores at heart.
Lyraat Apr 24th 2009 12:27PM
Previous raids = 10-man and 25-man have same gear levels, just larger raids: Having people gear up in a 10-man instance for 25-man instances is not ideal because either the raid has 2 10-man teams and drags 5 people along or has 3 10-man teams and sits 5 people. Such decisions make the game less fun, which is not in anyone's best interest.
Class balance: if the 10-man and 25-man gear was the same, Blizzard would have to account for 10-man encounters where classes may be missing. 25-man raids would be trivialized because the gear, originally designed for 10-mans, would be substantially better than the encounters. Or the opposite: 10-mans would be nearly impossible because one from every class would need to be in every raid to cover all buffs, situations, boss mechanics, etc.
Player rationality: This is the basis of the entire article. People will naturally take the easier route.
I'll give you $10 is you get 9 other people together in this room (10 people total) or $10 if you get 24 other people together in this room (25 people total)
OR
I'll give you $10 is you get 9 other people together in this room or $30 if you get 24 other people together in this room.
In the first scenario, the average person would always take the 10-man option because it's easier and pays the same. In the second, it depends. The average person would have to decide if they wanted the quick $10 or the hard-earned $30. Apply this to raids. Gear in 25-mans must be better lest people opt out of them for 10-mans.
It's not so much that we are all loot whores as it is we expect rewards for completing content, rewards that, when we return to the previously-completed content, make the content easier. Nobody would play WoW or any other game if your reward for downing bosses was a handshake and access to the next, and more difficult, boss. Imagine if we never got gear from any raid dungeon. Sunwell in 70's heroic blues? Good luck.
Jon Do Apr 24th 2009 1:56PM
Lyraat, thanks for the reply!
In previous raids there was no 10-man progression path, so it can’t really be used to measure the effect. And ironically, if, “Having people gear up in a 10-man instance for 25-man instances is not ideal” is true, then the current design is a bad design! The 3.0 and 3.1 ilvl progression is, 25-man ilvl 213 gear (with some 226 in some slots), then Ulduar-10 at 219, then Ulduar-25 at 226/232 -- a 25-man to 10-man to 25-man ilvl progression!
I really don’t buy the class balance argument simple because there is no getting around the fact that “Blizzard would have to account for 10-man encounters where classes may be missing” in either case. And it is arguable that they failed at balancing this in 3.0 anyway.
As for player rationality, yes, people will naturally take the easy route. Unfortunately, in the current design, that can take the form of 10-man guilds pugging OS25 and Vault25 for a leg up in their 10-man raiding, or conversely 25-man guilds gearing up in 25-man content, then getting overgeared for their 3D drake and Undying drake in 10-man content.
Thanks for the cohesive arguments, but I remain unconvinced.
albert.freeman Apr 24th 2009 11:55AM
---
It prevents raid content -- and through it, raiding guilds -- from punishing people who rolled the "wrong" class.
---
That is totally wrong. If you don't have the optimum spec, you have a much lower chance of getting into anything. In this respect, nothing has changed since BC.
Apis Apr 24th 2009 5:17PM
"Incentivize"? ... the word you want is "encourage".
Maklaca Apr 24th 2009 6:43PM
in⋅cen⋅ti⋅vize
to give incentives to: The government should incentivize the private sector to create jobs.
Origin:
1965–70, Americanism
Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.
en·cour·age
1. To inspire with hope, courage, or confidence; hearten.
2. To give support to; foster: policies designed to encourage private investment.
3. To stimulate; spur: burning the field to encourage new plant growth.
I'll go w/ incentivize. They are not just encouraging it, they are providing incentive to do so (Better gear).