Apr 2nd 2012 2:46PM I love it.
Mar 28th 2012 3:59PM Let's say every boss you down in a raid encounter drops 2 pieces of loot for a 10-man raid, which is pretty much the case across the board. Wouldn't it be appropriate to drop 5 pieces for a 25-man raid? And this is what happens, if I'm not mistaken. Proportionately, it's the same amount of gear. 1 piece for every 5 players. So...
Suppose a legendary takes 100 tokens of whatever to create and, as a raid, you get 2 per boss. If a 25-man raid only gets the same 2 tokens per boss, they have a disincentive to keep raiding as a 25-man raid. After all, they would actually get 2 legendaries in the same time if they broke up their group into two 10-mans. How is that fair? The efforts of 25 people should be rewarded equivalently to the efforts of 10, which is why it's done proportionately. In my example, they would get 5 tokens of whatever per boss kill. Would that enable them to get the legendary earlier? Yes, but we're talking about the reward being split among 25 players. In the time it takes the 10-man raid to produce one legendary, the 25-man raid could produce 2.5, and in terms of proportional player-hours of time required to achieve the reward, it's equitable.
I like the idea of scale-able encounters, if the mechanics could be made to work, but even there you mention that "Extra loot but the same level should drop as more people are in the raid." Why shouldn't the same happen for the components used to create a legendary? It's the same principle.
Mar 28th 2012 3:18PM I have never raiding with a 25-man guild. However, if the efforts of 25 people produced the same legendary as the efforts of 10 people, I don't think that would be at all fair to the 25. 2.5 times faster sounds appropriate to me and, unless I'm mistaken, that's the way it works right now.
I suppose they could come up with another system that rewards legendaries differently, in that 25-mans get more legendaries, taking approximately the same time as 10-man raids, but the end result is still basically the same.
Mar 28th 2012 3:03PM I'm not sure if this has been answered yet, but will the Pandaren have a racial leader? Or two? Or none?
Mar 27th 2012 7:56PM @ evoxpisces and Bynde
From my experience, there are far, far more upvotes than downvotes. Almost all grayed-out comments are insulting, meaningless, replies to the wrong comment, or otherwise offensive or pointless. I don't downvote differences of opinion and, based on what I see in most of sections, neither do most other posters.
Mar 27th 2012 4:38PM @Patrick
"What I was referring to was 10M looting as it exists today. No changes are being made to 10M, and that was my gripe. I am fine with the changes they are making. I have no qualms with it. My problem is that 10M looting is currently broken and no changes have been put forth to change it."
How is it broken? Examples? If you're talking about odds, the odds are the same that you'll get a personal upgrade in 10 vs 25-man raiding, since while fewer pieces of gear will drop, the gear is distributed between fewer members. The proportions of gear to members is the same. The only difference is that there's more likely a usable upgrade among 25 players than 10, but that's the nature of larger groups and a relatively minor issue.
If you're talking about loot rolling issues, well, there are a number of options that the raid leader is at liberty to choose and participation in player-organized raids is, as always, voluntary. If you don't like the loot rules or distribution that a raid leader uses, you can always form your own raid or go LFR and use your own rules. Players want the control over how loot is distributed within their own player-created groups and taking that away from them would be a massive mistake.
So what's the 10-man raiding gear issue you're talking about?
Feb 27th 2012 4:00PM She intends to split the difference: Undeath to humans. That should satisfy both camps...
Feb 10th 2012 4:20PM Priests can't avoid interrupts. Our bubbles and barrier can stop pushback until they break, but that's different than being able to ignore interrupts.
We do have decent instant casts in Power Word: Shield and Prayer of Mending (Renew and Holy Nova aren't great), but both have a significant lockouts that prevent us from spamming them, at least on a single target. Outside of those, we use the same types of interruptable spells used by other classes.
Feb 7th 2012 4:11PM As far as I'm concerned, all healers should shoot for 100% uptime, unless they're close to being oom. This doesn't mean hots on people that don't need it. It doesn't mean bubbles for the hell of it. It does, however, mean that you should at least be casting your basic, mana-efficient heal, if nothing else. If somebody is damaged or about the get damaged, even if it's only a little, there's no reason you can't cast heal. It's dirt-cheap and your regen outpaces it. In my mind, this keeps you sharp and preps you for the times when there is massive incoming damage. You just swap your small heals out for your big heals and keep on rollin'.
If you're a healer that's truly opposed to this type of gameplay, we disc priests are lucky in that we still have an easy 100% uptime tactic to keep us busy: Smite healing. I'm not saying this is the best method of healing, but if the alternative is doing nothing, you should be smiting. A little dps on the boss, a little smart healing here and there, and a not-so-little 15% healing buff that you can activate if/when you need it. A discipline priest that stands around waiting for action is making a mistake and could add so much more to their raid if they put their mind to it.