Officers' Quarters: The plight of 25-man raiding guilds

With today's column, I'd like to illustrate a point by getting personal. Normally I don't like to do that very often, but my guild's own experience is dovetailing too neatly with an overall trend.
In reviewing the guild experience in Cataclysm and in looking forward to improvements we might see in Mists of Pandaria, I've mentioned how hard it's been for 25-man raiding guilds to survive in the current environment. I've noticed people voicing the opinion that if you like 25-man raiding, you can go find 24 other people who do and make it happen. I can understand how someone might believe that -- and in an ideal world, it should be that easy. Finding those players isn't easy these days, but that is in fact the easy part.
The hard part is finding people who want to lead said group.
My guild's raid leader stepped down from the position this week. For years, he led raids for the guild, often three or four per week with alt runs in the mix. His knowledge of class specs, abilities, encounters, and strategy was absolutely unparalleled in the guild. He was a huge part of the guild's success. And he just couldn't do it any more.
I've heard from officers throughout this expansion that have reached that same point of burnout. Let's talk about why that is and why fewer and fewer people want to take on the extra responsibility in 25-man raids.
Roster challenges
That's step one, right? Well, realistically, you need more like 27 to 28 people, minimum. It depends on attendance and spec flexibility. You never want to cancel a raid, so you need a diverse and robust roster to make sure the runs always go off.
As a natural consequence of a larger roster, 25-man guilds experience more turnover. The slow pace of content updates means people burn out and/or quit during every tier. This was worst in the 4.1 patch, which added no new raiding content at all.
The result of all this turnover is that most 25-man guilds find themselves in a perpetual state of open recruitment. Recruiting is always stressful for officers, and the never-ending cycle of adding and losing players can wear down anybody. When the players who quit are themselves officers, that makes the problem 10 times worse.
Tougher scheduling
Once you have that roster in place, you need to find times when the majority of your raid team can attend. Mine is a guild of mostly adults with plenty of real-world obligations, so scheduling can be rough.
After you've established those times, a player's schedule can change, leaving them unable to raid. With a bigger raid team, the likelihood of that happening is much higher, adding to turnover woes.
Complex assignments
Players who only raid 10-man or only run 25-man in the Raid Finder may not realize just how annoying it can be to set up a large raid's assignments.
Cataclysm has been much worse than Wrath when it comes to raid assignments. In my guild, we have an officer for melee, for ranged, and for the healers. Their job is to assign players within those roles during raids. In addition to the raid leader, that's four people in my guild who coordinate the raid.
Nefarian's three pillars, for example, required splitting up the raid into three teams, each with its own interrupting and raid-healing requirements. If you have the same exact people every week, which is more common for smaller raids, you only have to create these teams once. For us, this was rarely the case.
It's a hassle that no one looked forward to. In tier 11, Al'Akir was almost as bad. Pre-nerf tier 12 was probably the worst ever. Six of seven bosses required a large number of player-specific assignments.
It's part of what makes the larger raids interesting, to be sure, but Firelands took this concept too far. Tier 13 has been better overall with these kinds of pre-encounter logistics. Once you get into heroic mode, though, the bosses get assignment-heavy again.
More loot to manage
Of course, more players means more loot and, for most 25-man guilds, a more complex loot system to ensure fair distribution. Whereas many 10-man guilds can get away with rolling for loot, we have two officers assigned to managing it, one primary and one backup.
We use a DKP addon. Using the addon has a learning curve, so it's not an easy role to jump into.
Longer log reviews
In addition to all of those roles, another player records the logs for each raid and uploads them. It's not a difficult or involved job, but it's one more thing that has to be done, and again there is a learning curve to it.
Between raids, all of the officers review the logs to evaluate players' performance and make suggestions where improvement is needed. Not every guild does this, but it's an incredibly helpful tool for coaching your raiders to be better players. More players obviously means more time with logs and more conversations between raids.
If you're counting, that's six total raid jobs in my guild, spread among six players. Our raid leader was actually kind of lucky. Though some officers did double duty, we divided the labor up fairly well among us. For every officer you subtract from that team in a given guild, more responsibility falls on fewer individuals, increasing their likelihood of burnout.
Greater effort, same reward
Of course, 10-man guilds all have to manage the same issues. However, every single issue is more difficult for 25-man guilds. You have a larger pool of volunteers for a larger number of leadership roles, it's true -- but due to the greater difficulty, fewer people want to fill those roles.
I've led plenty of 10-man raids in my time, and I can say with certainty that one person can handle all of the active leadership duties during a 10-man raid. It's stressful, no doubt, but absolutely possible. Asking one person to handle all of the same for a 25-man team is madness.
I haven't mentioned this before, but I actually became an officer in my new guild in September. I switched mains back to my paladin over the summer and took over as one of two healing officers when we lost players during tier 12. Thus, from vanilla through Wrath, I led raids of every possible size, and recently I've helped my current guild with raid leadership. In my opinion, it has never been more difficult to lead larger raids than it is today.
At the same time, it has never been less rewarding to take on all the extra hassle. That, in a nutshell, is why 25-man guilds are dying.
The prevailing belief that 10-man raids have been more loosely tuned during tiers 12 and 13 is, in my opinion, not the biggest factor. It's the lack of players who want to take on the extra leadership responsibilities and the rapid burnout of those who do. Of all the officers in my guild at the launch of Cataclysm (I believe seven total), only one remains an officer today.
Toward extinction
Our raid leader lasted far longer than the average. In the wake of his resignation, my guild has no choice right now but to scale down to 10-man raiding. We've lost players, and recruiting quality raiders is very difficult on our server. We don't want to transfer the guild yet. We're hoping we can get back up to 25 during the next expansion, but there's no guarantee of that.
We are not alone. Many guilds have endured similar difficulties throughout this expansion.
I'm honestly not sure if giving greater rewards in 25-mans is the answer. I just know that if current trends continue, 25-man raiding outside of the Raid Finder will be the domain of a small handful of elite, dedicated guilds worldwide. As someone who prefers the larger raids, that makes me worry for the future of the game.
What, if anything, do you think Blizzard should do to counter this decline?
/salute
Filed under: Raiding, Officers' Quarters (Guild Leadership)






Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)
calebjrowe Jan 30th 2012 4:52PM
I was the founder of Moonwalker on Spinebreaker. This was our experience. We recently went from 25 to 10 man because us Officers simply burned out.
Ayane Jan 30th 2012 1:14PM
"I'm honestly not sure if giving greater rewards in 25-mans is the answer. I just know that if current trends continue, 25-man raiding outside of the Raid Finder will be the domain of a small handful of elite, dedicated guilds worldwide."
Hang on.....isn't that what raiding guilds wanted anyways?
LFR for casuals, Normal and 10 man for slightly more dedicated casuals, and Heroic 25 man for the elite.
BesidesI don't see why 25 mans are in this kind of decline. If people really want to put forth the effort, then they will seek out this kind of raiding experience and join a guild to do so.
....or perhaps....
Was it the fact that, before the introduction of the LFR, players had no choice but to join up with a huge guild, in order to see the content. They were the gatekeepers, and now that's gone. Now that players have more options, guilds can't fill the ranks like they use to.
Personally I like the inclusion of LFR, and I would think as a guild leader, I'd rather play with 28 to 30 people who are dedicated 25 man raiders, then bloat the ranks with people who are only doing this because they are forced to.
...just my 2 copper.
themark0fevil Jan 30th 2012 2:27PM
Actually, normal anything would be the "more dedicated casuals." 10-man heroic has had its rounds of harder and easier than 25-man. Heroic Chimaeron is one encounter that comes to mind that, mechanically, is easier in 25-man than 10-man. For this tier, no, I don't see any encounters that are strictly more difficult in 10-man. But then, it is not the fault of the raiders that Blizzard did not design them this way in this tier.
That said, "casual" is an extremely loose term, and it does not necessarily apply to what size of raid you're in. I led raids for 3.5 years before I finally got burnt out on doing it. This was between both 10- and 25-man raids, too, so I know what it's like handling the amount of people. On the end of the officers and raid leaders, this is the hard part about 25-mans. On the end of the raiders, I found that - in general - 10-man had a little less slack. This is not even due to tuning - it's a matter of sheer percentage of the raid. One person out of 10 dying is 10% of your raid. One out of 25 is 4% of your raid. It would take *three people* to be equal or greater than one person dying in 10-man. And this is not including any discussion about how to make up for missing buffs (in other words, you better pray your hunter has a bunch of different buff/debuff-capable pets, if you even have a hunter), or encounters where you should ideally 2-heal them in 10-man (see: Cho'gall).
I feel that it's wrong to say, "In order to not be considered casual, you have to run 25-man."
Adam Jan 30th 2012 3:14PM
It's not so much the fact that one is harder than the other, as much as it is this:
25 man raiding has lost it's relevancy.
25 man raiders have hurt feelings because they no longer hold all the cards, no longer are the only ones strutting around town on the best mounts, wearing the best gear.
It means nothing to run a 25 man vs. a 10 man. And frankly, I'm ok with that.
I pay the same amount as everyone else, but because I have a life outside of wow, I'm excluded from any type of uniqueness? I do raid when I can, but between friends that have left the game, extracurricular activities, and family time, it's a nightmare trying to find the time in my schedule that fits with 9 other people, let alone 24.
Should there be an incentive to retain 25 man raiding? I have mixed feelings about it. More gold per mob, maybe a better red gem drop rate...
Edymnion Jan 30th 2012 3:26PM
I think we're seeing the real "will of the people" here.
Nobody liked doing 25 man raids. Well, scratch that, obviously some do, but the vast majority did not. They took forever to get going, they were a pain to coordinate, they were just horrid. But, if you wanted the good gear, you had no choice but to do them. I mean literally, you either did 25 man raids, or you simply did not get the best gear.
Now that 25 mans no longer have the "you have to do me, so shut up and wait 2 hours while you fill the slots" status, gasp, almost no one is doing them anymore.
And I am very happy about that. I am happy to see the "We are the XYZ raiding guild, we are better than all of you, we are the elite" guilds dying slow, horrible deaths.
I know it hurts, but just think about something peaceful and let it roll over you, it will all be over soon.
themark0fevil Jan 30th 2012 4:58PM
@Edymnion
Personally, I don't care whether I raid in a 10- or 25-man environment. I just want to raid.
It's just as easy to get burnt out as a 10-man raid leader (arguably easier) as it is for a 25-man raid leader. Since 25-man raid leading almost necessitates delegation in terms of responsibilities (healing lead, dps leads, etc.), 10-man almost always has the burden fall strictly on the shoulders of the raid leader, or two officers at most.
One of the bigger problems with 10-man raiding is that it would be logistically much more difficult for Blizzard to provide a way to have all buffs necessary present in a 10-man environment. The lack of utility there versus 25-man can mean the difference between a kill and a wipe.
That said, in 25-man, two deaths doesn't mean an automatic wipe. There have been too many times in 10-man where that is the case.
Homeschool Jan 30th 2012 5:11PM
It's a natural evolution. The bigger the group, the higher the stress, and you can't just divide it evenly. 40-mans were a nightmare, and when they added 20-mans, they discovered just how much easier it was. Then came Kara, and 10-man was born. And it was easier still! During BC, 40 died altogether: 10 was the "easy", and 25 was the hard. Then came Wrath, with its choice. You could see the content on either, but 25 was "harder", and rewarded better stuff. But they took it farther, and added modes - Sarth had his 3 Drakes, and Ulduar bosses all had challenges.
Then came ToC, and that's when it started to go downhill, and why Ulduar is still so fondly remembered. ToC was the first to offer separate Heroic lockouts, and suddenly raiders could kill those same five bosses 4 times in a week. It was actually less bosses than two clears of Ulduar, but it was SO monotonous - two rooms, five bosses - and why would you limit yourself by NOT taking advantage of all the loot?
In ICC they tried to course-correct by going back to two lockouts, and then (for whatever reason they're sticking to right now), one lockout. 25 was the only real option, since 25 still gave the best gear. And so when Cataclysm came out, and 10s and 25s shared gear pools, it was a shock. 25s WERE better, and now they were the same. Again, we had choice... And so people asked, do I really like extra work without extra reward? While 25s rewarded slightly better, people could rationalize, but once they balanced out, why bother?
What we're seeing is a simple statement of fact - less work is less work. It should be no surprise to anyone that given a choice between equal reward, people will pick the easier option. It's not lazy, it's smart.
With Blizzard's current philosophy, 10-man will win, and 25-man will be LFR-only. If it reaches the point that the 25-man groups are a small fraction of Normal/Heroic raiders, Blizzard will inevitably begin to ask why they're expending effort supporting the extra mode.
Truly, the only way that large raids can come back is if they change their approach to it. Larger groups ARE more work (except when done easy-mode like LFR), and they need something extra to be worthwhile, whether it's unique rewards, better payout, or simply being the only option.
Spellotape Jan 30th 2012 5:46PM
@Adam
"I pay the same amount as everyone else, but because I have a life outside of wow, I'm excluded from any type of uniqueness?"
Why you felt like saying this in regard to 25-man raiding, I don't know - implying 25-man raiders have "no life" because they do 25s is insulting and incorrect.
Pyromelter Jan 30th 2012 8:31PM
I'm with Edy. I think the overwhelming majority of people prefer 10 man raids.
Think about it a second. A 10-man group raided the Mines of Moria (I'm including Gollum). Worked out relatively well for them. I can't imagine a Fellowship of 25 people. Let's think of other pop culture.
Goonies - 8-man.
Football and Futbol - 11 man teams
Star Trek - all series revolved around 7-10 main characters
Baseball - 10 man (9 fielders + DH)
The Matrix - 9 men and women on the Nebuchadnezzar
10 is just a nice, round number, and you get to know your fellow raiders with much greater camaraderie, and your personal responsibility is higher, along with an easier time of organizing the raid. Once you get to 25 man, you start getting into a more impersonal, monolithic warzone type deal. I think 25 man is great for LFR with decreased responsibility and increased sharing of healing and what not. But i would not be sad at all if blizz made everything straight out a 10-man.
Bended Jan 31st 2012 2:00AM
10 is too small. Its no more fun or epic than a 5 man heroic.
The reason 10 mans flourish today and 25 mans have died is simple. Wow is fueled by gear upgrades. It is less hassle to grab 9 other people and rush in, grab your loot, and praise yourself for being so awesome.
25 mans were king before because it had better loot (more fuel). Now the loot is the same (which it should be) the drop rates are equal (which it should NOT be) and the headaches are nowhere near the same.
So... less headaches, same gear, same amount of gear. This leaves you with no extra invective to do 25 mans. Its the path of least resistance.
My opinion when it comes to a massive-multiplayer online role playing game is that it should be massive. 10 man is not massive, its just multiplayer. Massive trade chat is not a role playing game, its an AOL chat room. If 10 man is going to flourish than you obviously don't like MMO's you just like shiny gear.
Eyhk Jan 31st 2012 1:27PM
The 25 man elite is getting even more elite. On my server, there are exactly ONE 25 man raiding guild. Most of the heroic modes are done in 10. It may depend from server to server, but the 25 man raid is already going the way of the Dodo.
undead.american Jan 30th 2012 1:24PM
Couldn't agree with this article more. The extra effort combined with horrible tuning on blizzards part (10-man is far easier than 25-man for both normal and heroic modes) really put an end to 25-man raiding.
LFR was just the final nail in the coffin - why bother putting in any effort trying to organize people when they can see the same content in LFR for no effort? Especially with all gear being reset every patch. There is no sense of progressing your character forward anymore, just time on the treadmill.
Sqtsquish Jan 30th 2012 1:40PM
why hop on a treadmill when you can hop on a bike going downhill and see the sights along the way without even peddling?
I really miss separate lockouts for 10 and 25 mans, being able to do a raid with my guild on 10 man and then do a couple of bosses on a guild based 25 man with a pug really helped flexibility and just helped people feel overall more rewarded for playing.
Blayze Jan 30th 2012 1:47PM
I disagree. The sense of progression these days is far greater than it was during TBC. I was part of a guild that never got past Karazhan, as every time we got someone geared up to our level they'd jump ship to a "better" guild, forcing us to have to recruit and gear up another player who'd then jump ship.
At least in Wrath and post-4.3 Cataclysm, players don't have to be running on the treadmill from the very beginning to stand a chance of doing more than just hearing about 90% of the expansion's bosses.
krisiteenie56 Jan 30th 2012 1:19PM
that is actually a very true statement. I feel like 25 man raiding is harder to organize(for all the reasons listed in the article) but easier on actual game play than 10 man because there is more room for error.
threesixteen Jan 30th 2012 1:24PM
totally untrue and usually this is said by 10 man raiders to address the truism that 25 man raid teams are the true standard of success in wow end-game. it's been an on going issue for years now. 10ers just refuse to aknowledge that their unit of success isn't quite as shiny as the 25er's.
all kinds of things like 'oh 25s are tuned easier" etc have been written by poorly informed and envious 10ers.
part of the trouble is the change that blizzard made connecting the lockout periods... they should have added gear or at least 25-specific cheeves or titles to give extra incentive and value to 25s, which would have alleviated some of the strain in recruiting and maintaining enough players to keep the 25 going.
as soon as blizzard did that they spelled the end of the 25 man team except for a very few of the elite and more committed players.
anyway, it was a bad oversight to not assign official recognition to the 25 man raid teams.
Sqtsquish Jan 30th 2012 1:29PM
I know from trying to lead off nights in my previous 25 man guild (which died at the start of Cata.....imagine that), that not only is finding someone that will lead can be a hassle, but finding someone that is not only willing but that the other raiders have enough respect for to follow. Being knowledgeable, flexible, and on top of not only your own game but watching everything happening and keeping track of it all at once is hard enough, but getting people to cooperate with you when things start to get tough is essential.
Covil Jan 30th 2012 1:30PM
If 25s were so great people would be running them more, they'd be willing to take on the burden of leading, or finding someone who would. But 25s in actuality are pretty bad, and now that people can't prance about in their 25 only gear or achieves and feel better about themselves few people care enough to bother with them and they're dying out.
Natural selection at work ladies and gentlemen. Or to put it another way: No bailout for 25s.
togaman5000 Jan 30th 2012 1:34PM
As a 25 man heroic reader, I feel like I've a lot of experience regarding these issues. Primarily, it's one of manpower. There is zero benefit to do 25s over 10s, but at the same time you need not 27 or 28 people like it says in the article - you need 30+. Especially as a heroic guild, we need thirty experienced, exemplary raiders which are harder and harder to find. We have four people focusing on recruitment and it's competitive to the point of absurdity. Tuning, to me, seems more rigid on 25s. All in all it's putting yourself through a greater ordeal while seeing no gains over 10s, something that is hard to justify.
togaman5000 Jan 30th 2012 3:16PM
Raider*, however I suppose I'm also a reader?