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)
11-16-2011 @ 1:32PM
Creid said...
Does anyone else think a 10 man version would be better? Less afk and griefers possibly?
Reply
11-16-2011 @ 2:16PM
gymboy91 said...
The raid composition for a 25-man raid is much more similar to the proportion of people who play the different class roles. You also have a better chance of getting all the raid buffs and utility covered with 25 random people instead of just 10.
I think this is what Blizzard's reasoning was.
11-16-2011 @ 7:18PM
Skyrei said...
You could never run a 10 man version and a 25 man version at the same time. 25 man queues would go to the mooooon. 10 man queues wouldn't be any better...
You would have a similar problem with queues for dungeons.. not enough tanks/healers
10 Man: 25 Man:
2 Tanks 2 Tanks
3 Healers 5 (or 6?) Healers
5 DPS 17/18 DPS
This keeps the queue times lower. Sure you're more likely to run into undesirable people of all shapes and sizes... but you're going to be waiting considerably less.
11-16-2011 @ 7:19PM
Skyrei said...
Oh boo. Guess you cant space things out.
11-16-2011 @ 10:57PM
Crhuble said...
I understand the proportional argument that 25
11-17-2011 @ 12:01AM
Ralkor said...
You are more likely to have at least one semi-competent leader among 25 people than among 10.