Also on AOL
- Autos
- Technology
- Lifestyle
- Gaming
- Finance
- Entertainment on AOL
- Lifestyle on AOL
- Sports on AOL
- Travel on AOL
- More on AOL
Featured Galleries
Joystiq
© 2013 AOL Inc. All rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks | AOL A-Z HELP | About Our Ads

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
8-11-2011 @ 6:09PM
razion said...
5 mans -> 10mans -> 15mans
Seems logical.
It would all scale up in sets of fives--I'm certainly a fan of the idea, and I can see how it would be easier to balance the game, if only from a conceptual point of view (group + group + group = 15man raid, although it likely wouldn't end up working like that exactly). This could also help loot distribution be a bit more even.
I'd hope that if they do introduce 15-mans that they would replace 25-mans so they wouldn't have to balance for too many size tiers--the scaling sounds difficult to work with.
Reply
8-11-2011 @ 7:03PM
Boz said...
After raiding in a 25-man environment for years it became difficult to swap to a 10-man of the same encounter. The raids feel (on a relative basis, mind you) empty.
I like the hustle-and-bustle of a very large group, despite the increase in potential delays due to player disconnects and real-life interruptions. I like the chatter, I like the variety, and I also like the flexibility of redundant class representation. But in the end, there's no logic to it: One is special ops and the other is a large assault force.
I get the appeal of both, but socially prefer the larger raid format, and would be saddened if it were mothballed.