Skip to Content
1-30-2012 @ 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.
1-30-2012 @ 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."
1-30-2012 @ 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...
1-30-2012 @ 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.
1-30-2012 @ 4:58PM
@EdymnionPersonally, 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.
1-30-2012 @ 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.
1-30-2012 @ 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.
1-30-2012 @ 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 teamsStar Trek - all series revolved around 7-10 main charactersBaseball - 10 man (9 fielders + DH)The Matrix - 9 men and women on the Nebuchadnezzar10 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.
1-31-2012 @ 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.
1-31-2012 @ 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.
First time? A confirmation email will be sent to you after submitting.
Members enter your username and password.
Enter your AOL or AIM screenname and password.
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.