The missed opportunity of 20-man raiding
by Matthew Rossi 
Dec 1st 2011 at 8:00PM
We had 20-man raids back in classic WoW -- two of them, in fact, Zul'Gurub and Ruins of Ahn'Qiraj. Neither exists as a 20-man raid any more, so this may seem odd to players who didn't raid then, but these were considered the small raids. People who had just spent hours raiding in Molten Core, Blackwing Lair or AQ40 would put together these runs on the fly to gear their alts or get a shot at off-spec loot, while other guilds that didn't have the numbers for 40-man raids would spend their time raiding these while trying to build up their numbers.
Why the extra quintet?
20-man raiding gave us some of the most interesting mechanics of classic WoW. We're all familiar with the Corrupted Blood mechanic of the Hakkar fight (it's even spawned sociological studies and inspired pre-expansion events), but fights like Buru and Ossirian were also, for their time, engaging and unique attempts at a new kind of raid fight.
The issue came when 40-man raids were scrapped as we entered The Burning Crusade. This was a decision that I supported at the time. Even though it hurt a few guilds, I believed it was overall good for the game. Where I was confused was in how the raid game in The Burning Crusade was set up. On launch, guilds formed 10-man raid teams to work Karazhan for gear in order to start on Gruul's Lair and Magtheridon's Lair, two 25-man raids with fewer encounters (Gruul's has two, Magtheridon has one). As a result, you ended up with either five fewer people than you needed to run three encounters, or five too many. Even keeping in mind that guilds often had two or three alternates per 10-man raid force, the difficulties of stepping up to 25s (the A vs. B team issues, different tanking requirements, a lot more people to keep track of) were compounded by the numbers game.
I really don't know why it was decided to go 10/25 instead of 10/20 when the 20-man raid was an established and successful type of raiding in original WoW.
As of now, most 25-man raid groups have the same number of tanks as 10s do, two dedicated tanks and an off-tank. This means that 25s bring more proportionate DPS than 10s do, and so 10-man DPS requirements can't be the same because there's a lower ratio of DPS to tanks/healers in 10s than 25s.
With less comes more
It would have been a lot easier to scale up raid forces from Kara to the larger raids if Blizzard had just doubled up on people. There would still have been issues with tank balance (do you want to go from two tanks in 10s to four tanks in 25, or is that too many tanks?), but the playerbase could likely have absorbed it more easily than they have the drastic differences in raid composition we see between the two raid sizes now.
There have been other suggestions for how to alter raid sizes. 15-man raiding has been suggested (effectively, tacking on a third 5-man group to 10-man raids, similar to the way Upper Blackrock Spire was run back in the early days of WoW). Other games cap party size at four and expand upward from there. I personally think for WoW, scaling from five to 10 to 20 makes the most sense and is easiest to implement. What are your thoughts?
World of Warcraft: Cataclysm has destroyed Azeroth as we know it; nothing is the same! In WoW Insider's Guide to Cataclysm, you can find out everything you need to know about WoW's third expansion, from leveling up a new goblin or worgen to breaking news and strategies on endgame play.
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Raiding, The Burning Crusade, Wrath of the Lich King
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Deathknighty Dec 1st 2011 8:11PM
Well, actually, I think 15 man is a better idea than 10 man. Perhaps the changes being made to raid buffs and utility in MoP will address the problem, but 10 man tends to just be too small. You're probably going to be missing something in a 10 man.
El Gucks Dec 2nd 2011 10:21AM
15man? Bah, with the raid finder, just bring back 40mans on special occasions.
Gwynedd Dec 1st 2011 8:40PM
Whoa. I was just chatting with someone about how much my guild misses 20mans. Trippy.
Redielin Dec 1st 2011 8:43PM
I think raid size is the source of a lot of current healer balance issues. Some spells just work better in 10 or 25 man, and it causes problems if you are a 25 man spec in a 10 man raid, or vice versa.
thedoctor2031 Dec 1st 2011 8:48PM
The problem I see is completely a matter of scaling. If you need 1-2 tanks, 2-3 healers and 5-7 dps for 10 man, and then 1-2 tanks, 5-7 healers, and 16-19 dps for 25 man, you really can't combine smaller groups more efficiently. Even in a 20 man raid where you can more easily combine those 2 10-man groups, you still have the problem of having too many tanks. If 20 man could use all 2-4 tanks for most fights, great, problem solved, that's wonderful. But otherwise what?
Pyromelter Dec 1st 2011 8:58PM
This is why almost every tank except for high-ranking officer-tanks of guilds has a dps off-spec. Isn't that part of the fun of dual-specs? You can have the fun of tanking or dps'ing, based on the needs of your raid and/or your personal preference. It's one of the best things I love about playing a Death Knight - choosing between 2 very fun and engaging dps roles, while also having another spec to tank.
The scaling with dps and healers would be easier to manage in a world with 20man raids though, and since most tanks do have dps off-specs, it wouldn't hurt them that much, either. (Plus, off-spec tanks can still soak up all that tank gear that main-spec tanks don't need or want.)
N-train Dec 1st 2011 9:05PM
Frankly the tank issue is the biggest thing, as a tank I often get tired of pointless dances that force you to use 2 tanks when only one is really needed, like your standard stacking damage or armor debuff.
Adding 2 extra tanks to every fight means this kind of thing would have to be in every fight, as there's only so much one can tank that's engaging while also making you feel like you're not just tanking a pointless add because there's not much else you can do.
The other issue is that there are simply far more dps players than tanks and healers, as every class can dps and there are no dedicated healing or tanking classes. As a dps the DF or finding a raid spot can be pretty tough as is, imagine if half the raids in the game suddenly needed 4-7 fewer dps players. Tanks and healers essentially stay the same, but the demand for dps drops pretty drastically.
logan Dec 1st 2011 9:53PM
@Pyromelter
It's also a bit screwy that every tank that doesn't happen to be an officer or GM needs to also be a competent DPS or just sit out if they're not needed, no?
I certainly agree that a lot of "mechanics" to allow more tanks aren't very well thought out, but the solution is to improve encounter design, rather than assume (or force) every tank to be able to DPS.
gymboy91 Dec 1st 2011 10:25PM
@Pyro
I think a big problem is if you have 2 tanks who are geared to tanks but need to use their off-spec to fill in as dps for the 25-man raid, their dps will probably be lacking because they have been trying to get avoidance gear instead of dmg stats...
If you don't have many dps plate wearers in the smaller 10-mans, it may not be a big of an issue, but it seems it would be easier for a guild to just grab 2 new guys who main dps :(
/twocents
Jabadabadana Dec 2nd 2011 12:39AM
Hell, I am an officer tank, and I have to have a functional dps set because despite having dps sets, we have 3 officer tanks (in part due to previously running 3 ten mans) and so someone still must be something else. Never mind all of our co-tanks who are either benched, or having to come as something else.
Unfortunately, the reality is that 5 up to 10 scales well, and everything past that doesn't. Dual specs mitigate the issue, but even current raids have a lot of 1 tank fights, requiring people to swap. Bliz has essentially made it mandatory to have a somewhat up-to-par offspec for one (really two) or more people, even in ten mans.
That said, on a guild organizational level, I agree that 20's would be easier to field than 25's.
Pyromelter Dec 2nd 2011 4:34AM
Logan:
Yes it is screwy, which is again why 20-main raiding makes more sense than 25-man.
My point about tank-officers is that the only tanks that I've ever seen that were tank-tank specced were senior officers of guilds, because they are ALWAYS going to tank, and anyone who basically isn't running a raid would never be guaranteed that main tank spot.
In a 20-man system, you'd likely have more tanks in general, and more people specced tank-tank, compared to what we have now.
People who complain about dps spots are missing the boat. DPS spots are by far the easiest to fill in 25-man raiding, and it's very easy to get opportunities for dps spots in even very good guilds. This is because the ratio of tanks to dps is far lower in 25man raiding. Rossi I think even talked about this before - the hardest raid spot to obtain in all of wow is a tanking position in a 25-man raid.
"Unfortunately, the reality is that 5 up to 10 scales well, and everything past that doesn't."
Agreed, but 25-man exacerbates the scaling far worse than 20-man raids do. The ratio stays more even in 20mans. Also, had blizzard gone with a 10-20 model, they could have built the raids from the ground up to require the same ratio of tanks from the start.
The other point is one that many others have made, which is that a guild with two solid 10man teams can scale up to 20man much easier than they can to 25man.
Pyromelter Dec 2nd 2011 4:41AM
Just wanted to single this out for response:
"As a dps the DF or finding a raid spot can be pretty tough as is, imagine if half the raids in the game suddenly needed 4-7 fewer dps players. Tanks and healers essentially stay the same, but the demand for dps drops pretty drastically."
I think you are confusing 5man heroics for raid spots. Yes, in a 5-man heroic world, dps will have to wait quite a bit. But in 25man raids, the ratio reverses for tanks and dps... it's usually easy to find decent tanks for 25 mans, but harder to fill out dps spots. It tends to be most annoying to fill out healer spots (blech can't tell you how many pug/gdkp raids I ran where we are waiting forever for healers). In a 20man raid, it's not likely there would be 3-4 tanks per encounter, so the number of tanks would still be lower. All 20man raiding does is drop the need for a healer and likely 4 dps, and this actually can make bigger raiding better as patch cycles go along, because you'd be amazed at how much less of a hassle it is to organize 20 people versus 25.
Also, in most guilds, aren't there probably 4 dps or more that the rest of the dps are carrying? Hell there've been certain times where me and like 2 other people are carrying the other 15 dps.
Final point: with 20man raids, you might get more guilds that do more 10mans to upscale to that level, assuming they have 2 solid 10 man teams. Currently this is much more difficult with a 25 man raid type as the other spots would have to come from less-than-normal raiders, or pugs, or from a recruitment drive, which can be a big headache for guild leadership.
Pyromelter Dec 1st 2011 8:54PM
Having raided in a game that is far inferior to wow in a 20man setting, I have to say that 20 man definitely feels more balanced and less of a clusterf*** than 25 man. I know it's only 5 less people, but it makes a difference - you have more responsibility as a healer or dps, and having 5 less people means that you don't as many raiders overall for backups. Plus, there is a much more even distribution that you can bring to the tank/dps/healer holy trinity of MMO gaming. In addition, you get that more epic feel of an actual raid with 20 people that you don't quite get in a more cozy 10 man group. All-in-all, I wonder the same thing, why the 25 man raids when 20 man makes so much more sense.
"It would have been a lot easier to scale up raid forces from Kara to the larger raids if they'd just doubled up on people."
This sentence just makes too much sense for the Dilbert world we live in Matthew.
Den Dec 2nd 2011 2:33AM
The thing is, new MMOs are seeing the (rather obvious) mistake Blizz made in it's raid numbers. Off the top of my head, both Rift and TOR go from 2 groups for "light raiding" to 4 groups for "heavy raiding." The 25 man thing bugged the hell out of me right from the get go, and I've yet to hear any valid arguments for it.
Pyromelter Dec 2nd 2011 4:43AM
Exactly right Den... unfortunately Rift is just plain not fun (that's where I did my 20man raiding), and we'll have to see what happens with TOR. I have a feeling we might see blizzard test out a 20man raid sometime in the near future...
Catsmeow Dec 2nd 2011 11:58AM
I know that a 20man raiding structure would ease the pain in my guild exponentially. We are stuck right in that yucky spot of having 18-22 raiders at any given time. Not enough for a solid second 10 man, much less a self sufficient 25 man - and we don't like pugging, even though our best recruiting comes out of our very good pug runs. We manage, but it is difficult.
llcjay2003 Dec 1st 2011 8:55PM
I did not raid when 20s were in so I can't add too much other than to say that it sounds like a good idea. From a logistical standpoint, more people would be able to enjoy the unique dynamics of the larger group. Keeping the number size of the large raid a double of the small raid makes it easier to transition between the 2. Being in a smaller guild with 2 10-man teams, it would help us to be able to do the larger raid without feeling like we need to recruit or pug the rest, which is why we do not do 25s.
In short, yes for 20s.
Randomize Dec 1st 2011 8:58PM
20-mans would have worked perfectly back in BC. It definitely would have made it less painful to transition raiding from 40 man to 20 man. However, I have doubts that Blizzard would ever do it. There was such a clusterfuck when they changed raiding back in BC that I don't think they want to be subject to that again with downsizing raid groups from 25 to 20. It may not seem like much, but it is very difficult to take a stable, well-oiled 25 man group and just dump 5 people out of it.
Animaneth Dec 1st 2011 10:36PM
well they already placed their head in the lion's mouth when they announced that 10's and 25's would drop the same loot. So I dont know if being afraid of the possible reaction players may take (wich to be honest will always be opposite to them) is the reason to not do it.
In my case I support the idea of 15-man raids and dropping the 25 AND 10 man, but that has to do with the fact that I play in a low pop server in the less populated faction. As an officer of a raiding (nor hardcore, nor casual) guild, I always had the problem of having 14 or 15 people online on raid nights, wich meant having to sit out people constantly switching them from week to week so everyone can enjoy the raiding.
Gimmlette Dec 1st 2011 9:47PM
I would LOVE 15-man raids. I have a smaller guild that can consistently have 15 very capable raiders on any given night. 25 is only available to us if we team up with another guild. I'm forced to decide which 10 people can go. Having the ability to take all of my raiders would be wonderful. I think I could even get 20 people on for a certain raid. 25 just is not possible.
I always feel so badly for those I can't take. Some people just quit signing up for raids, particularly if they are dps, because they can't go consistently. I keep records of who went and try to rotate people out but we all know about schedules. Even if it's just one raid that could be offered in either the 15/20 man format, some of us who have small guilds would welcome not having to sit people out. It would also be a great way to bring new to the guild people along to learn our style of raiding.