Next tier has no valor gear, everything is gained from raiding only. As someone who often used valor to gear up some of my non raiding characters I will miss it being around. I am hoping for a lot of pugging thanks to the addition of flex but even if there is a bunch, I do not see myself having time to run 11 (or more) characters through pugs even if they are always going on. That is why I loved valor gear. I could gear the alts up slowly doing a little here and a little there.
So this really is not a post about anything in particular, just asking a question. If they did decide to add some valor gear at the 11th hour where would you place the item level for it. Keep in mind that valor gear was usually at the level of normal mode gear but we have a new set of gear added to the game thanks to the addition of flex.
If valor gear was added, what item level do you think it should be?
LFR - 528
Flex - 540
Normal - 553
Heroic -566
As for my opinion, I think valor gear should be normal mode level. However, with the addition of flex my opinion has changed. I think that valor gear should be somewhere between flex and normal. Sort of like the new crafting patterns will be I believe.
So my opinion on what valor gear should be if it were added would be around 545-548. Just better than flex, not as good as normal.
What do you think? One of these numbers or something different.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I am actually pretty happy that there isn't new Valor pieces. I know you complained you only got a couple upgrades from inside the raid itself. I too have had this problem in the past, Firelands I got ZERO upgrades off bosses the entire tier. However this was more to do with the raid Rep and Valor gear, gear dropped but only after I didn't need them. Valor drops the way they are currently implemented diminish boss loot significantly.
ReplyDeleteI'm still a little concerned our fairly casual normal mode guild (12/12 as of 2 weeks ago) will have problems in Normals without being able to effectively overgear the content like we have been in the past with Valor gear but I'm still optimistic.
Anyway, on to the actual question. IF Valor gear was to be added, I would say Flex now would be an OK spot.
I think I would mostly prefer a no Valor gear, but specific raid tokens that only drop off bosses inside the raid. With a vendor with pieces from the actual loot tables to be able to get a piece with enough boss kills. I know you have talked about something similar, but I don't think it should replace drops just supplement. Of course if you have 4 tiers of tokens for each raid (LFR, Flex, N,H) that's a ton more currency. And the system also starts to look a lot more like the original Badges system of old.
You bring up another very good point with the over gearing things with valor gear. Many players actually need that. While my 10 man group will probably be okay my 25 man group will just have to wait on drops from flex and that will not even allow them to over gear it.
DeleteI think one of the huge things I will miss with valor gear is the fact I skip over gear. No need to do LFR if I have valor, and if it were the same as normal, no need to do Flex if I have valor.
I could then do those things only on alts when I feel like it. And that should be how content is designed. To do it when you feel like doing it. Not to feel as if you need to do it.
I want that. I want to not feel like I have to do these two modes of raiding for gear. I just want to do normals. Without valor gear for alts I will feel as if I "have to" do those modes if I ever want them to tag along on normals.
Valor would effectively not only help over gear normals but help eliminate the need to do content I really do not enjoy doing at all. Meaning LFR.
Seems you are in the same area I am, around flex mode, would be a nice area to add valor, if they do.
@dimli "Of course if you have 4 tiers of tokens for each raid (LFR, Flex, N,H) that's a ton more currency."
DeleteI love the idea of a vendor that gets the loot table after you kill a boss. You could do it with 1 set of currency, but things might get a little complex in the implementation.
Hypothetical example:
- Values are given to each tier: LFR 1, Flex 2, Normal 3. (Heroic could be valued the same as Normal, but no Heroic gear will appear on the vendor.)
- Boss kills will award 1 token * tier value (Flex = 2 tokens, Normal 3, etc) with their normal loot. Coin rolls award the Normal number of tokens.
- Limit the token drops across all tiers similar to titan runestones, first kill in any tier awards the tokens and blocks them on other tiers. Could award the difference if a higher tier is completed later, but that might be difficult to implement.
- SoO has 14 bosses, and we want ~2 weeks per item (assuming full clears weekly), so the target should be ~25 bosses beaten per item.
- Item costs would be: N ~75(3*25), F ~50, LFR ~25.
- Normal maximum tokens per week is 42+9 (3 coins), 1.5 weeks per item.
- Flex gets 28+9, 1.4 weeks per item.
- LFR can acquire 14+9, 1.1 weeks per item.
- Jumping tiers would be possible if you had the boss kills from the higher tier. (Kill first boss in a PUG, get the rest of the tokens from LFR/Flex)
All of that math can be tweaked into a smoother system, but there's an example of a per-fight "raid vendor" system.
That is an excellent idea. It is along the lines of something I have been suggesting for years here. A better loot system and your design is pretty damn close to the perfect thing to make up for the unlucky people like myself.
DeleteAaaaaand....I think this is stupod :D
DeleteBeing garanteed to have full BiS after X times clearing the raid is a VERY bad design IMO.
And the argument of using valor gear to overgear content is non-valid now with uprgrades.
Assuming you've cleared normal, more of your gear would be 530ish with upgrade.
First normal of 5.4 is aimed for 520 average ilvl, so normal raiders already overgear it, so flex raid that reward HIGHER gear than current heroic will be a push over for those guild that will allow them to overgear normal even more.
And tbf if you can't beat normal withou overgeraing it, that means you're not the targeted audience.
(Keep in mind that I do acknoledge that the gap between LFR and normal is too big and that Horridon was a horribly bad tuned fight, all others were fine (if not too easy))
That is your opinion, just like mine is I would rather EARN my gear instead of lucking into it.
DeleteBoth our opinions are valid based on how we feel which is usually influenced on how luck has treated us in the past.
Horridon (and to a lesser extent tortos) was the only boss that gave us fits. We are just a normal mode team and for us I think that would have been a more suitable second half boss. Once we were all around 515 or so it became easy. That is what I mean about over gearing it. Valor gear is what allowed us to do that, because we would have never got to that item level only killing one boss a week.
After that the rest was easy. So I think my guild is exactly the guild normals are aimed at. We finished it at roughly at the point where 50% of the guilds that killed the first boss did making us the average guild.
I do agree, after horridon the rest of the fights seemed really easy. But I chalk that up to the fact we were over geared for it by the time we got to them. So I do not believe the fights were actually that easy, just that we over geared them which made it easy.
Make the end timer sufficiently far out and it's a very minor change to the current structure.
DeleteThe example above is just an example, but the timeframe isn't too far out there.
Assuming you get nothing from normal drops (Thanks RNG!) it will require 24 full clears to fill out all 16 item slots in the example above. That's almost 6 months, or the full Hydraxian Waterlords grind from 0 to Max.
From an aggregated drop standpoint, it's 1 extra item drop each kill for 25 (14 extra items each clear), and every 2.5 kills for 10 (5.6/clear).
Then factor in how long it will take most guilds/groups to get to the point of full clears, if they even make it past the first few bosses, and that extends the timeframe out much further.
Add in any battle pets(250) or rare mounts(1000) from the tier and you've got something to keep everybody busy for a very long time.
Very nicely put Tess. You actually showed that it would keep people more involved, whereas luck could get them everything in one run.
DeleteI would prefer a smoothed out system like the one you suggested and luck being a secondary way of getting things, maybe, if you were really lucky.
6 months to a full set of gear, if you work your ass off and kill everything for 6 months? Heck, how could anyone say that is bad. Even with my bad luck if I downed every single boss for 6 months I am sure I would get pieces, and my luck sucks. lol
Luck system would still gear you up way faster than the one you suggest, which makes the one you suggest a perfect bad luck filler.
Not sure what the point is of discussing potential iLvl of gear that won't exist in 5.4. :) Still, I'd put it on par with LFR, I think... I'd rather it not be as good as premade (flex+) raid gear.
ReplyDeleteBesides, won't you be able to get i535 gear from the new zone? I much prefer that design to VP. We'll agree to disagree on that point, though, knowing how thrilled you are about gear RNG.
What I'm wondering about is why, with the removal of VP gear, Blizz isn't just adding an additional gear drop (10) or two (25) to normal bosses... currently, with VP gear, you're getting a new piece of gear every 2 weeks or so (if capping). I would think that would rougly correlate to adding a 3rd or 7th (8th? Do they drop 5 or 6 now?) drop to the normal bosses. Should also help smooth out the bad RNG streaks where a trinket that 5 people want doesn't drop for 4 months, adding another drop makes it a lot less likely it'll be dry for that long.
With the 535 gear you are guaranteed one a week. So that is not random. That is the exact opposite of random. It is guaranteed. For alts 535 is not half bad. Not good, but not had either.
DeleteThe only issue I see with it is that it is a shared chest on a long respawn timer which once again makes it luck. Be the lucky one to be there when it spawns, be the lucky one to click on it when it spawns.
So yeah, I like that 535 once a week idea. I don't like the luck bases system. That is cheap half-ass design because they can't come up with something better and stick with it.
At least the barrens had the quest to get that one piece a week. Timeless would be better served with a quest once a week in my opinion then leaving it to luck.
As for why we are talking about it, because valor gear will be added. Trust me on this. I know things like that. ;) I just want to see what people think would be a fair number for it.
I agree with you, with the absence of valor gear they really should have increased raid drops of normal at least, as valor gear is usually normal gear level.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteRandom Number Generator
DeleteIt's very similar to your Naughty Granny guess. You don't know if you're going to get socks or an advance on your inheritance for Christmas.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"So yeah, I like that 535 once a week idea. I don't like the luck bases system. That is cheap half-ass design because they can't come up with something better and stick with it."
DeleteIt's not half-ass design, it's been proven to get people the most excited and hook people the most. Look up a Skinner box.
They basically put a rage in a cage with a lever that delivered a reward.
1, if they made the lever always give a food pellet, the rat would push the level until it was full and then stop until it was hungry again.
2, if they made the level give a food pellet every, say, five pushes...the rat would also push the lever until full and then stop until it was hungry again.
3, if they made it so the lever would only deliver food every, say, five minutes no matter how much it was pushed, the rat would eventually only push the lever every five minutes once it figured the experiment out.
4, if they made it so the lever had a small chance of giving a pellet but it was random...the rat would just frantically constantly push the button. There was no pattern the rat could settle in to, it felt compelled to push the lever as much as possible in the hope of getting better rewards.
Which of those four experiments do you think MMOs usually use? That said, you'll also see elements of the other experiments precisely BECAUSE too much randomness is also unfun for players.
People get excited and enthused about luck and the unknown. Far more than they do about crossing off a gear checklist steadily.
You may personally hate it, but claiming that Blizzard has a terrible design is simply not true. The design is that way for a multitude of reasons.
Oh, and I don't see a point of adding any new Valor gear when there's already nearly an entire 522 set available. That's about what I would suggest it be set to anyway - a way to guarantee slightly worse than LFR items if needed but make it so LFR items are still an upgrade from valor.
"I want that. I want to not feel like I have to do these two modes of raiding for gear. I just want to do normals. Without valor gear for alts I will feel as if I "have to" do those modes if I ever want them to tag along on normals."
That's a lack of a lockout problem. And there is a big problem with it. But making most LFR and Flex gear worthless is not the answer.
@Roo
DeleteThose would be some kick ass socks. I want them. Now!
@Balkoth
The skinner box is the whole concept of games like this. To get people addicted so they keep playing, so they keep clicking on the lever hoping to get a pellet.
This rat is just tired from clicking on the lever and getting nothing. Even a rat in a cage will sooner or later give up unless they feel that the reward is worth the effort.
MMOs use 4, I would prefer 3.
Actually MMOs use all of them. 3 is the daily grind. Do your dailies, get your rep over time, be able to buy something. It is a mathematical equation. You know what you are getting and you know when you are getting it based on the effort you put into earning it. That is the design I prefer.
Option four means someone wins everything their first time in a raid and another person goes 15 kills before even seeing something they can use drop.
Sorry, you might support luck based crap. I don't. I would rather earn my gear than luck into it any day.
While I admit I get excited when a rare mount I was farming for drops I am not so excited because it dropped, I am excited because I will never have to do the damn grind any longer.
I am not the typical player, I know that and understand that. With that said I enjoy making a list and crossing things off a hell of a lot more than waiting for luck. Making a list and checking things off feels like I have actually accomplished something. Getting a drop just feel like, cool, but I was going to kill the mob anyway, so no biggie.
With flex being capable of being done with pugs (at least that is the intention) the lockout issue is less of an issue. BUT...
It does not change the fact I do not have the time, or desire, to raid on 11 or more characters a week. Sorry, not enough time in my day.
I like valor because I can do one dungeon here, one scenario there, on pug on a weekend once in a while, and maybe a few quests and buy a piece of valor here and there.
See, playing at my pace. That is why valor gear is needed. So people can choose to play at their pace.
535 ilvl is AWESOME for alts. It's way more than needed for 5.4 normal (which is 520).
DeleteAnd I think you also get it wrong for the way to get the 535 items.
It is a one time chest on the island garanteed drop (which means once you get it on a toon, you can't open that chest another time)
It is also a random drop from any monster in the zone (that you will dislike)
But it is also buyable for 7.5k timeless coins, so you can just grind it.
I thought I had read that 530 was the target starting item level suggested for normals. I could be wrong however.
DeleteEven if that is the case, yes, 535 is awesome. For someone like myself that loves to grind it works but for people that do not like to grind, and from the comments here telling me most don't, the whole grind for gear concept does not cut it.
I still think valor gear would serve a purpose. Even more so for alts.
I have one alt that has never stepped foot into a raid. Did not even do the LFRs. It is sitting at 515 item level. Way more than ample to full clear ToT on normal. That is what valor is for, so alts can basically just do nothing, but be ready if you need them. You might not like it, but I sure like the fact I can get an alt I never play up to that item level without needing to step into random content.
"Sorry, you might support luck based crap. I don't. I would rather earn my gear than luck into it any day."
DeleteIt doesn't matter what *I* think, it has to do what has proven the most effective way of getting people interested time and time again. You may personally claim to hate it - but trying to claim Blizzard is avoiding a better solution is completely unfair. They've *considered* solutions like yours and are *deliberately* avoiding it because it would be bad for the game overall.
Maybe you'd be happier, but 99 out of 100 people would be less happy.
"It does not change the fact I do not have the time, or desire, to raid on 11 or more characters a week. Sorry, not enough time in my day."
Who in the world said you A, had to raid on 11 characters, or B, had to do full raids?
You could easily do a wing or two of LFR or Flex each week on a character and progress them. You're effectively complaining you can't get nearly full normal gear without even stepping foot in normal - which is exactly the problem! That's the whole reason for the change!
If you want 553 ilvl gear, you have to do normal raids. Otherwise, do Flex for 540s. Otherwise, do Timeless Isle for 535s. Otherwise, do LFR for 528s.
"I thought I had read that 530 was the target starting item level suggested for normals. I could be wrong however."
Probably 525-530. But, as I showed in an earlier post, you can get 531 ilvl without getting a single item from normal modes this patch.
"I have one alt that has never stepped foot into a raid. Did not even do the LFRs. It is sitting at 515 item level."
So how do you have valor gear that requires you to do at least LFR? You got 300 per week from the weekly quest? So about 6 months x 4 weeks x 300 = 7200 rep. That's not even enough to hit honored. So you could only buy the neck, bracers, ring, and trinket if I recall correctly.
"That is what valor is for, so alts can basically just do nothing, but be ready if you need them."
Citation needed. Valor (or it's equivalent) has *never* been for that purpose. Not in BC, not in WotLK, not in Cata, not in MoP.
I understand what you are saying with "proven the most effective". I am not arguing that.
DeleteI am saying that "proven the most effective" does not mean that it works for everyone. And I do not like it.
Just because more people in the world like vanilla ice cream doesn't mean I do. Just because that is proven effective doesn't mean I like it.
Just because it is "proven effective" does not mean it is good. Effective and good are two different things.
No, I am not complaining my alts can not get nearly full normal gear without stepping into a normal. I think that is where you misunderstand what I am saying.
I am complaining that my alts can not "be ready for normal" without LFR and/or flex.
Flex, maybe, if the pug world picks up might be an option. LFR is NOT an option. It has a horrible wait time, worse groups once you get in there, and the drop rate for the gear is insanely low unless you happen to be lucky.
For my alts I want to be able to cap valor doing quests, scenarios, you know, quick stuff, instead of dealing with the dregs of humanity in the LFR.
Then, in a mix of some 522 gear, from this tier, and some 553 gear, from the new tier for valor, I would effectively be raid ready should I need to bring in an alt.
That is what I mean. You are completely misunderstanding it. I do not want the valor gear to gear me up completely. I want the valor gear to keep my alts raid ready without having to do LFR.
Even if the valor gear was a mix of LFR and flex level it would be great. I just want my alts to be able to be raid ready without having the go through the hell known as LFR.
Is that too much to ask?
I got 4 pieces from valor, 2 pieces from crafting, and assorted other stuff like old tier and 516 scenario items. I could actually get it higher than 515 if I capped my valor on it every week and upgraded the items or got lucky with scenarios and got a few more 516.
I bet I could have gotten it to 525 or maybe even more without ever stepping foot into a raid. And that is raid ready for the new tier.
I want valor gear to help the characters I did not buy crafted gear on. To help the characters that had no luck with scenario bags. To let those characters have the option to slowly build up.
No citation needed.
What did I use it for? That. Than that is what it is meant for. You don't need citation for actual facts on how you have always used it.
They might have "intended" it to be something else. But that is not how it worked out. It is used for alts and for bad luck protection. Both of those are now screwed by the no valor gear system.
I am not sure why you, and others, are so obsessed with making people run the LFR. I do it on my main because I feel I have to and as a raider I will do everything within my power to try to get gear on my own just in case nothing drops for me. But the place is a fucking nightmare and I do not want to run other characters through it.
Why would it be so bad to give valor gear? Something that people have had for the better part of 6 years?
What about valor gear upsets you so much?
"Just because more people in the world like vanilla ice cream doesn't mean I do. Just because that is proven effective doesn't mean I like it."
DeleteSure - tastes vary. But you said, and I quote...
"That is cheap half-ass design because they can't come up with something better and stick with it."
Which is flat out wrong. You might not like the design (which is your opinion), but accusing them of being cheap and not being able to come up with something better is inaccurate.
In other words, it's like you yelling at the vanilla ice cream makers how their ice cream is horribly made - the ice cream itself is fine, you just don't like it.
"That is what I mean. You are completely misunderstanding it. I do not want the valor gear to gear me up completely. I want the valor gear to keep my alts raid ready without having to do LFR."
Then what in the world do you mean by "raid ready?" If your alts have valor gear at the moment and have done Heroic Scenarios, you're at least at 530 ilvl at they're all raid ready for SoO.
"I just want my alts to be able to be raid ready without having the go through the hell known as LFR.
Is that too much to ask?"
Not at all, and I have excellent news!
First, you can do ToT normal cross-realm with a 20% nerf in SoO! Get easy 522 gear and upgrade it to 530!
Second, you can get 535 gear from the Timeless Isle!
Third, you have two new world bosses a week (one of the Celestials and the Yaungol guy) plus you can still do Nalak and Oondasta!
Plenty of opportunities to get your characters enough gear to be able to do SoO normal.
"No citation needed.
What did I use it for? That. Than that is what it is meant for. You don't need citation for actual facts on how you have always used it."
No, because you use something for some purpose doesn't mean that's the intent. For example, Blizzard has specifically said Flex was NOT made for PUGs. They said that if PUGs use it, great, nice bonus, but it's meant for organized groups.
So if a person goes and makes a Flex PUG and then complains it's too hard, do you think Blizzard will say
1, Oh goodness gracious, you tried to use Flex for PUGing so that's what it's meant for and thus we need to make it easier
or
2, Flex was not designed for PUGs, tough luck
Hint: it's not #1.
So if you want to claim Blizzard needs to always have valor gear available to gear your alts with as little effort as possible, you need to demonstrate HOW they've indicated that was the point of valor gear.
"What about valor gear upsets you so much?"
It completely disrupts the gearing process.
For those doing LFR, it turns LFR from their primary gearing source to a secondary source with valor as the primary source - so you don't care about 80% of the loot in LFR, despite spending months farming it.
This also means that Blizzard expects everyone to have mostly 522s for SoO, so the new LFR gear HAS to be at least 522. If valor didn't exist (or was limited to normal/heroic), then you could easily have SoO LFR gear be 522 or lower - meaning doing normal ToT would be a valid or even BETTER alternative to SoO LFR.
I think I already linked this, but:
"http://balkothsword.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-flexible-raid-item-level-conundrum.html"
Also, on TOP of all of that, Valor leads to inflated expectations.
You know why ToT PUGs ask for like 520+ ilvl? Because of Valor gear - even if you didn't step foot into normal, you'd have like 75% of your items as 522s.
If Valor gear didn't exist, then expectations would be lower since 522 gear wouldn't be able to anyone who could AFK through LFR.
Valor gear just causes so many issues in a world with LFR and Flex - there's a good reason (many, in fact) why Blizzard isn't using it in Siege.
Oh, and another interview was just posted on MMO-Champion with this gem:
Delete"Valor gear originally was added to complement normal difficulty raiding and filling in for bad luck. The Valor gear continued to work like that for normal difficulty raiders, but for players that just do LFR, it replaced the gear that dropped in LFR. Most of the gear that was best in slot for players that only do LFR was just purchased off a vendor, which isn't very exciting."
Look familiar?
I am now convinced you and I are playing two completely different games. Is the game between normal and heroic really that huge in how players view the game?
Delete"Which is flat out wrong. You might not like the design (which is your opinion), but accusing them of being cheap and not being able to come up with something better is inaccurate."
Calling them half-ass for not coming up with something that works and sticking with it might be my opinion, true, but it sure as hell is not, repeat, NOT, inaccurate.
If they keep changing how things work that means they are not sticking with it. That is accurate. They are not updating it, adjusting it, they are removing it and doing something else when the first thing was working fine already. That is doing it half-ass.
"Blizzard has specifically said Flex was NOT made for PUGs"
Now I am completely sure you and I are playing two different games. What game are you playing?
They have stated over and over at least 100 times that it was made for mom and pop type guilds and pugs trying to bring back the ICC feeling of difficulty. Where there were pugs going 24/7 on every server.
I have no clue what game you are talking about now if you think Flex is not being added for pugs. That is EXACTLY what it is being added for.
I must say I love the debating back and forth with us both giving our own opinions, but I think you picked this one for arguments sake. You are grasping at straws with this one.
""You know why ToT PUGs ask for like 520+ ilvl? Because of Valor gear - even if you didn't step foot into normal, you'd have like 75% of your items as 522s."
No, you know why pugs ask for 520 item level? Because the people assembling the pug are too lazy to look at the player and not the item level. So yes, valor skews that a great deal, but blame the person assembling the pug, not the valor gear.
Gear only increases your potential as a player. Nothing more, nothing less.
On one of my servers they pug heroic ToT (sadly I do not have a max level on that server) and they only ask the person have a 510 item level and know the fights at least on normal. Do you know why? Because the person assembling the raid looks at the player, not the gear.
Do not blame bad players asking for high item level that know nothing for valor being a bad thing. I don't care what anyone says, I would rather take a pug filled with 510 item level players that know how to play than a bunch of bad players that refuse to learn but have all valor gear.
You are using valor gear as an excuse for bad pugs, it is not, bad players are the reason for bad pugs.
Valor gear and ability to play are two separate things. Do not confuse them.
"Then what in the world do you mean by "raid ready?""
Most of my alts I play maybe once a week, more like once a month. I was able to get them between 505-520, thanks in part to valor gear. That is raid ready.
We needed a tank the other night, I went in on my monk, who I have played maybe twice in the last month, its has a 518 item level, and tanked the entire thing including the last boss. That is what I mean by raid ready. I want my alts, that are rarely played, to be able to step in and do just fine, maybe even better than fine, if they are needed. I can do that thanks to valor gear. That is what I mean by raid ready.
@ Post 2
Delete"Valor gear originally was added to complement normal difficulty raiding and filling in for bad luck."
So they say the exact same thing I have said and they are right and I am wrong? How come when I say that it is like I am the antichrist and when they say it then it is gospel?
"Most of the gear that was best in slot for players that only do LFR was just purchased off a vendor, which isn't very exciting."
So? Really. So?
An upgrade is an upgrade is an upgrade. I do not give a shit where it comes from. If LFR has an upgrade, I run it. If valor has an upgrade I earn my valor and buy it. If there is a crafted item that is an upgrade, I make it or buy it. If a world boss has an upgrade, I kill it weekly. If standing on one leg flapping my arms making chicken sounds while spinning in a circle wearing a tutu would get me an upgrade, you would be damn straight I would do it.
None are more exciting than another. But the last one would be kind of funny to see. Getting a drop is no more exciting than saving up and getting a piece. They are both upgrades and it is exciting to get either. I am sure if you ask 100 people if they would be happy to get an upgrade 100 out of 100 would say yes, and most would not even ask you "how do I get it", because they would just care that they got it.
That is something blizzard needs to realize.
Will respond more later, wanted to address one particular point quickly:
Delete"I have no clue what game you are talking about now if you think Flex is not being added for pugs. That is EXACTLY what it is being added for.
I must say I love the debating back and forth with us both giving our own opinions, but I think you picked this one for arguments sake. You are grasping at straws with this one."
Not at all - I am literally going by Blizzard's statements.
See...
"If your guild or group of friends isn't attempting raids now outside of LFR, you might have some roles you're not filling, but you certainly could get to that point. Certainly expect people to be building PUGs and such, but that's not really the intended target. The immediately intended target of Flex is to allow the more casual guilds that are already making small attempts at Normal (and probably hit a brick wall early on in ToT) to more easily get weekly groups together to have fun and progress on content that's more suited for their pace."
"We think people putting together PUGs for Flex is totally cool and giving some love to PUG raids is an overall positive for the game, but it's a side-bonus. It's not really an important point to make necessarily, but I just wanted to point it out as you stated your understanding of the intent of Flex so certainly. PUG Flex is cool, just not the primary intent of the system. Somewhat ironically it's mostly to keep guilds from having to invite PUGs to their "Beer League" runs."
"I'd like to briefly clarify Flexible mode's target audience and what that means regarding how we tune the content: Flexible mode is primarily for roughly the audience served by 10-player Normal raiding in Wrath of the Lich King (10 Normal used to be a tier lower than 25 Normal). Not every guild that raids is a raiding guild, if that makes sense. I'd say that Flexible mode is for social groups that raid; Normal mode is for raiding guilds (and Heroic is for hardcore raiding guilds). That distinction consists of factors such as whether or not the group will ever recruit based on class needs, or remove someone based on performance (or even openly criticize them).
But a friends-and-family group is far from a ragtag pickup group.
....
Now, will players form PUGs for Flexible Siege of Orgrimmar? Absolutely -- and we're excited at the prospect. But that's an organic process that will evolve over time, if we get the tuning right. I don't recall very many Trade chat PUGs waltzing into Icecrown Citadel in January 2010 and killing Festergut."
"Flex raiding is designed to cater to two groups. The first are friends and family raid groups--people who like raiding with their friends when they have the time, and have been playing with these friends for years. In past expansions, WotLK 10s would have appealed to this type of player, but after the merge between 10s and 25s in Cataclysm, that wasn't the same.
The second group are raiding guilds--those who are interested in finding people in game to accomplish raiding goals. For people who are struggling on some Normal modes, learning the bosses on Flex mode will help practice boss strategies and the gearing process. One of the hopes is that players forming Flex raids will go on to raid even more with those same people."
And finally (there's certainly more out there):
https://twitter.com/Ghostcrawler/status/368451316135129088
"We expect to see flex pugs spring up in a month. Even that is more social than LFR."
Blizzard doesn't expect true PUGs for a month.
You are forgetting one simple thing. Spin. They are trying to play it safe, as always, but the intent is for it to be pugged.
DeleteRead between the lines. They want to make it ICC level. ICC was NOT easy. There is a reason that the world first heroic LK kill was not until after the debuff started coming out. There is also a reason that the world first heroic 10 man strict LK kill did not come for 8 months. Because ICC was not, repeat, was not easy.
When they refer to ICC easy they mean that it could be pugged. The content itself was not easy but the fact that the first few bosses could be taken down by a pick up group is what made it great. The fact there were 2 different lock outs is what made it great.
They might not be saying as much, but they did say so if you read between the lines. They want to bring back the heyday of ICC and what made that the heyday was PUGS. Not easy content, because it was not easy content.
People seem to forget that even pugs could not get down PP, BQ or Sin. But they did get stuff down before it and lots of pugs were run because of that. That is why many believe ICC was the heyday of raiding. Not because of "easier content" but because of PUGS.
So, they made this for friends and family guilds, or a beer league if you will. But those friends and family guilds will have 6 or 7 people and they will PUG.
So while they say it is meant for them, they also know that they will indeed pug. So it was created for pugs. Absolutely 100% created for pugs. Anyone that says otherwise is playing a different game than I am.
Read between the lines. They are just saying it the way they are so if the pug world does not instantly take off they have covered their asses. But make no mistake, they made this with the intention of it bringing back the ICC days where pugs were running 24/7.
They made this to bring back the ICC days when you could run with your guild (normal or heroic) and pug on the weekend. That is why they are on separate lock outs. To bring back that 2 lock out a week feel.
The only difference is in ICC you ran 10 or 25 with guild and then pugged the other. Now you run normals/heroics with guild and flex can be pugged.
That is what they mean by bring back the ICC days. That is what flex was made for. That is pugging. Like it or not, believe it or not. Flex was made for pugging.
ICC was not easier, it had lots of pugs. So when they say they want to bring that time back, they mean bring pugs back. They sure as hell do not mean bring the difficulty level back. Because if they did that I am sure half the heroic guilds would quit. Could you just imagine no world first kill until the next tier came out and it got debuffed? No, they are not talking ICC difficulty, they are talking ICC pugs.
Going to try to be brief, relatively speaking - so I apologize if I skip over a point you think is important. Just point it out if I do so.
Delete"If they keep changing how things work that means they are not sticking with it. That is accurate. They are not updating it, adjusting it, they are removing it and doing something else when the first thing was working fine already. That is doing it half-ass."
But it *wasn't* working fine already.
Blizzard even spelled out one of the problems - it meant that for LFR players, they didn't care about most of the gear that dropped.
Your idea of what is ideal often seems to eliminate most or all of RNG - which is something Blizzard definitely does not want.
"Do not blame bad players asking for high item level that know nothing for valor being a bad thing. I don't care what anyone says, I would rather take a pug filled with 510 item level players that know how to play than a bunch of bad players that refuse to learn but have all valor gear.
You are using valor gear as an excuse for bad pugs, it is not, bad players are the reason for bad pugs."
I'm not saying anything remotely close to that - not talking about the quality of PUGs at all.
I'm saying that the existence of valor gear means that anyone who gives a damn will have 530+ ilvl at this point without doing normals. This means there is a HUGE amount of players with 520+ ilvl - so people can ask for it. Same reason they can ask for 515+ ilvl or whatever for H Scens - there are enough people out there with that ilvl.
All else equal, if you have to choose between a 505 player and a 520 player who otherwise look basically equal in experience...you're going to go with the 520.
I have an alt on Area 52 and I've pugged some heroics with like 510-515 ilvl. Believe me - I know player skill is far more important than ilvl. But ilvl + skill > skill.
"That is what I mean by raid ready. I want my alts, that are rarely played, to be able to step in and do just fine, maybe even better than fine, if they are needed. I can do that thanks to valor gear. That is what I mean by raid ready."
Two things.
One, many people do NOT want that with their alts - they want to be able to invest time in then and for them to matter.
Two, it sounds like you don't want valor gear specifically, you want a way to keep alts current on gear without investing time into them. So you'd need a system that would allow you to do that without also allowing mains to benefit.
"So they say the exact same thing I have said and they are right and I am wrong? How come when I say that it is like I am the antichrist and when they say it then it is gospel?"
You're missing the word "complement." As in "not be the main source of gear." Which is what you seem to want.
Also, valor was a lot more reasonable before LFR, for what it's worth. You can sort of blame LFR for killing valor gear as well.
"Getting a drop is no more exciting than saving up and getting a piece."
Except, y'know, it is.
Most people find the idea of killing a boss and having a 20% chance of getting an item to be a lot more fun than getting the item for sure after 10 kills of the boss.
Why? Because *this* kill could be the time! It's like gambling - people like the idea they might hit it big this week. It makes people always want to be in for the boss because THIS might be the week the item drops.
I mean, right now you're basically saying people who have made living out of studying this idea in psychology are all wrong.
*You* might hate randomness like this, but *most* people prefer it far more to guaranteed stuff. They *want* loot to have randomness instead of a boring checklist drop.
"Read between the lines. They want to make it ICC level. ICC was NOT easy. There is a reason that the world first heroic LK kill was not until after the debuff started coming out."
DeleteYes, it was. Because they're referring to 10N ICC. They're referring to the "easy mode" difficulty that got people into raiding. They're referring to the easy difficulty that they lost when they equalized 10s and 25s. Whether 25H or even 10H was hard is irrelevant - because Blizzard is referring to 10N which was great for a lot of casual guilds that weren't very good.
"That is why many believe ICC was the heyday of raiding. Not because of "easier content" but because of PUGS."
And what happened to these PUGs in Cata, when 10N was suddenly as hard as 25N instead of being much easier?
Those PUGs only formed early on because 10N was deliberately designed to be easy.
"But it *wasn't* working fine already.
DeleteBlizzard even spelled out one of the problems - it meant that for LFR players, they didn't care about most of the gear that dropped."
And I repeat again. So?
No one really gives a crap where their gear comes from. Best gear they can get is best gear they can get. Who cares if valor was better than LFR loot. Valor is supposed to be better than LFR loot.
There is no argument from blizzard there, just rationalizations trying to make themselves feel better about what they did.
"I'm saying that the existence of valor gear means that anyone who gives a damn will have 530+ ilvl at this point without doing normals. "
Tada, you seem to have gotten the point of valor gear without noticing it. "anyone that gives a damn will have a 530+ ilvl". Thank you for finally getting it.
With valor you can see who actually gives a damn. Without valor there is just "I have bad luck".
Without valor there is no way to prove you are at least trying the best you can. All you have do so is say, I have bad luck.
And if that is indeed true, who gets taken on the pug? Mr bad luck still sitting in last tiers gear or Mr I did LFR once and won off every boss lol.
With valor the bad luck guy looks better on paper because he worked for his gear, he showed he gave a damn.
You just made my point for me when you said "anyone that gives a damn will have a 530+ ilvl". Thank you for proving my point.
"You're missing the word "complement." As in "not be the main source of gear." Which is what you seem to want."
I did not miss that word, I choose to ignore it. It is a useless word thrown in there to try and make it sound better.
Okay, it complements my main. It complements my last tiers gear on my alts. It complements these pants because they are the same color.
Don't hang on useless words thrown in there because they wanted to sounds smart.
If it was meant to complement raid gear it would have been tokens that drops from raids, like I have suggested 101 times. it is available to everyone in the game raider or not. It is not meant to complement raid gear, and if that was indeed their intention the second they made it so everyone could get it they opened the can of worms, so they should just deal with it.
"Most people find the idea of killing a boss and having a 20% chance of getting an item to be a lot more fun than getting the item for sure after 10 kills of the boss."
I am not most people. Actually most of the people I know are not most people.
I know 1 person that spammed dungeons for a specific piece. Everyone else did dungeons to get valor to buy real pieces. The real piece from valor was better than some random drop from a dungeon because it was a better piece.
It has nothing to do with dropped or purchased. People will be happy to get the best piece they can get. That is it. There is no more excitement in getting it as drop except for the fact that it is welfare gear you did not need to pay for. That is all drops give you, the sense of entitlement that you should get everything for free.
@ICC
DeleteYou are completely missing the concept of the ICC easy. They are talking about the ICC 30% easy. They are also talking ICC 25, not 10. 25s were WAY easier to pug and get somewhere with.
Mind you the following is how I see it, but if you ask 100 people I am sure 95 would say they agree with this next statement.
Cata had no pugs not because of difficulty, they had no pugs because there was only 1 lock out.
No more could I run 10 with the guild and pug 25 on the weekend. No more could I run 25 with the guild and run 10s on the weekend.
Cata did not have a lack of pugs because it was hard. It was NOT hard. It had no pugs because it only had 1 lockout.
The change to 10 difficulty was nothing really. 10s where always harder than 25s to begin with.
Reminder. The PUGs we saw for ICC were all 25 man pugs because 25s where easier and you could carry a lot of people. It was also only pugged a lot when it was 30% nerfed.
Everyone seems to forget that. They all talk ICC easy and they forget that ICC was not easy. It was 30% ICC that was easy.
If you want to talk easy, DS was easy. Even before any nerf ever came in. My guild has never really been more than just a normal guild. We managed to kill DS without nerfs. Now THAT was easy.
More later, but...
Delete"They are talking about the ICC 30% easy. They are also talking ICC 25, not 10.
....
Cata did not have a lack of pugs because it was hard. It was NOT hard. It had no pugs because it only had 1 lockout.
The change to 10 difficulty was nothing really. 10s where always harder than 25s to begin with."
This is simply wrong. Factually wrong. ICC 10 was tuned to be far, far easier than ICC 25. You had to do something like 33% more damage per person in ICC 25 and boss abilities would often hit for 50% harder.
https://twitter.com/Ghostcrawler/status/374988919940464640
"We disagree. 10-player ToT is harder than 10-player ICC. The players who enjoyed the ICC level of difficulty are shut out."
"A series of steps. 1) Didn't want 10s to feel like 2nd class citizens, so we gave them the same ilevel.
2) Didn't want same ilevel for easier difficulty, so we brought 10s up to the 25 level (overall - there is variety per boss).
You can argue that those were both missteps, but that's how we arrived where we are today. Flex is trying to recapture ICC 10."
That might be true and there could be a million bits of data to back it up, but no matter what the data says, you can never argue first hand experience and from first hand experience I always found 25s to be easier. Even more so in wrath.
DeleteThey are a lot closer now than back then but in wrath you could pull any 25 people out of trade (and I do mean anyone, oh, your 80, invite) and down at least 6/12 on my server but unless you found 10 decent players you were never even getting past the 4th boss on 10. That is a fact I experienced all throughout the ICC tier, even after the 30% buff. 25s where just easier. No matter what data you throw at me you can not change actual first hand knowledge.
The reason 10s are harder is that in 10s personal responsibility means more and that is why it is, was, and always will be, harder than 25 man. 10s are hurt a lot more by a weak link than 25s are.
GC disagrees because he is talking ICC 30% difficulty. Not ICC difficulty. ICC was not 'easy mode" until the buffs came in. Just because he did not say the 30% do not assume he did not mean it. ICC 30% was way easier than ToT. Then again DS 30% was way easier than ICC 30%.
Add the 30% after what he said and it is more believable. ICC was not a laugh fest happy go lucky land world that everyone pugged in until well after the buffs started.
GC is just assuming, wrongly it seems, that everyone knows he is talking about the good old days when 30% pugs where happening 24/7. Trust me, that is what he meant.
If they make flex ICC difficulty with no buffs, it will be harder than normal mode SoO.
If this discussion is to go anywhere, we need to agree on a few basic facts. I will also point out that I am a 10H raider - and I prefer the feel of a 10 man over 25 man.
DeleteICC 25 man was harder than ICC 10.
1. Bosses hit harder. This meant tank deaths were more likely
2. Boss abilities hit harder - often to the order of 50% more. This means it's more likely people will die to them and you actually needed to use cooldowns
3. Boss abilities were more difficult to handle. You had more people to coordinate, more chances of someone screwing something up. If you look at something like Lich King, you had 3 Valks versus 1 (which completely changed the dynamic because you needed 3 all Valks to go the same direction) and Defile was more likely to get screwed up by 1 person (though I believe it did spread faster on 10 man to partially compensate).
Even the losing one person on 10 man hurts more claim is not really true for three reasons.
One, on the hard fights, you cannot afford to lose someone on 25 man either. Whether you have 9 people or 24 people, you still wipe.
Two, one person dying on 10 man is like 2-3 people dying on 25 man.
Three, because 10 mans were already tuned to be substantially easier, you could beat a 10 man boss with 8 or 9 people of the exact same skill and gear that it took to beat a 25 man boss with 25 people.
Everything was more forgiving on 10 man in ICC (or at least 99% of it was) than 25 man.
So, no, we're not talking about ICC 30%. We're talking about the 10 man Naxx or 10 man Ulduar or 10 man ToC or 10 man ICC difficulty that was substantially easier and thus far more accessible to family/friends guilds (in addition to being far easier to organize).
If you're sitting there and you're going to claim ICC 10 at 0% was harder than ICC 25 at 0%, then you're telling me that the sky is yellow with pink polka dots and I doubt we can have any kind of reasonable discussion.
It's possible that you simply had better groups of people for ICC 25 man - but if you took 10 clones of the same person to ICC 10, and then 25 clones of the same person to ICC 25, the 10 man group would have a much easier time. In effect, ICC 25 at 15-20% was equivalent to ICC 10 at 0%.
Oh, and if it wasn't clear, Cataclysm was when Blizzard equalized the difficulty of 10 and 25. Not saying 10 mans are much easier than 25 mans - that ended with the launch of Cata.
DeleteOf course, some fights are still harder on 25 man - but others are harder on 10 man. It varies. But not in ICC.
I am really sorry but I can not agree with that. I believe based on experience, and basic human nature, that 25s are/were easier. I might very well be wrong, but my own personal experiences have shown that you can get further in 25 with a ragtag group of people than you can in a 10 man.
DeleteI do know that once cataclysm came out they evened the raids out, in theory anyway. Some fights are harder on 10 and some on 25 now. But again, from personal experience, I have not felt a marked increase in the difficulty of 10s, but I have felt a huge increase in the difficulty of 25s. This is another reason why I feel that 25s were easier back then. Because when they evened them out, 25s got harder, not 10s.
Now, as to human nature, as someone much smarter than I said (wish I remembered who), there is a reason guilds that are trying for world first choose the 25 man format. Because statistically it is easier and when going for the first kill you will take every single advantage you can get. It is only human nature to take the path of least resistance. That is why world first guilds raid 25 man.
You can argue with human nature, I am just agreeing with it.
"Now, as to human nature, as someone much smarter than I said (wish I remembered who), there is a reason guilds that are trying for world first choose the 25 man format."
DeleteThere is a reason - but it's not because it's easier. It's because it's *harder.* Because 25s are considered more prestigious since they're (slightly) harder.
That's why a lot of people mocked Paragon and claimed they were trying to go easy-mode 10 man (and a lot of people will claim they don't even count anymore in the race because they dropped down to 10 man). It's why a lot of 25 mans try to dismiss 10 man raiding (unfairly). It's why Blizzard is introducing separate 10 and 25 man achievements - 10 and 25s are now roughly the same difficulty but 25 mans are harder to organize on top of that.
I don't know who in the world you've gotten your information from, but they're absolutely 100% dead wrong. No serious guild has ever taken 10 mans seriously until Cata. And 25s are still considered (very) slightly harder.
The people who push for world firsts want to be doing the hardest content possible. And Paragon has repeatedly said that they WOULD still be doing 25 mans if they could field enough Finnish speaking players of the needed skill and dedication. Paragon still considers 25 man the premier format.
I will always give you that about 25s. They are harder to organize, they are harder to fit in a smaller room, they are harder to make teams for, they are harder to spread the appropriate amount, they are harder to rotate cooldowns with and they are harder to get attendance with.
DeleteI think that might be another reason hard core raiders like it. Not only does it allow them more flexibility with stacking but it is easier for them to do all those little things with better players.
Doing 25s with 4 skull banners makes it a lot easier than doing 10s with none. Just as an example. But it takes more skill and coordination to get it done right.
Like I said about my 25, we have a fair deal of players that are not really all that great. It does bring an added level of difficulty to 25 because of it. So that is partly why I say 25s are easier, outside of that one aspect.
I am quite shocked we ever even got 5 down in the short time we ran it with not the best players. I do honestly believe we would have not gotten down 5 in a 10 with the same level of players in it. Most guilds on my server, as in over 80% of them, never got 5 down on normal 10.
I understand what you and many others are saying about 25 and I respect that. I have never played a 25 with anywhere near the level of players that I have been able to field in a 10.
It is an argument that can never be won by either side. Both versions have their own set of difficulties. I will continue to believe what I do and you will continue to believe what you do. If I do 25s first, 10s will seem easier, as I already know it. If you take the 10 "best" players from the 25 and walk into a 10, of course it is going to seem easier.
If I do 10s first, 25s will seem easier because we already know how to do it. And that is where my perspective comes from right now. When I do 25s (at least now, back in wrath I did 25s first) I already did it on 10, so the 25s seems a lot easier.
That is why my opinion is what it is and I am sure that is why your opinion is what it is. Remember, we can debate all we want, but 10 vs 25 difficulty is all about opinion. A lot of times that opinion is formed on where you are coming from.
"That is why my opinion is what it is and I am sure that is why your opinion is what it is. Remember, we can debate all we want, but 10 vs 25 difficulty is all about opinion. A lot of times that opinion is formed on where you are coming from."
DeleteWhether you think 10s or 25s are overall harder since the start of Cataclysm is sort of an opinion.
But specific things are not an opinion. Certain fights ARE harder on 10. Certain fights ARE harder on 25. Those are facts.
But it's a fact that ICC 25 was harder than ICC 10. Your opinion that ICC 10 was harder is irrelevant because that's not a matter of debate - 25 was harder in every way possible in ICC.
That might sound harsh, but there are certain facts that need to be acknowledged and accepted to have a discussion. We can't discuss the weather properly if your "opinion" is that "raining" means there is no water falling from the sky.
Trying to argue ICC 10 was harder than ICC 25 is like claiming gravity isn't pulling us down, it's the moon pushing us away from it. You're free to believe that - but you're still wrong about it.
You can say ICC 25 was harder than ICC 10 all you want, it does not change the fact that you could PUG ICC 25 and get further a lot easier than you could PUG ICC 10 and even get 6 down. That alone is all the proof needed to show 10 was indeed harder.
DeleteMaybe it was the pugs I was in. Maybe we had better people in the 25s than in the 10s. But that would only hold water if it was once in a while but it wasn't. Every ICC 25 pug went better than a 10 pug because 25s were easier.
That is not something I read, not something I heard, it was something I experienced first hand. You can not ever argue that. Every 25 pug I went on did better than every 10 pug I went on. FACT. Absolutely 100% indisputable fact. Argue all you want, you can not change the facts.
I am not wrong about it no matter what you say. I know it because I experienced it. 25s were just way easier to pug and get further in.
You can not call actual experience "wrong" because actual experience is not opinion, it is how it was. And 25s were easier to pug. Like it or not, that is the truth.
"That alone is all the proof needed to show 10 was indeed harder."
DeleteNo, it isn't.
For example, 25s have a selection bias. Because it was tougher, better people in general wanted to do them.
That could be the reason your 25s went more smoothly.
"You can not call actual experience "wrong" because actual experience is not opinion, it is how it was."
How many people claim to have actual experience with visiting aliens? Or seeing Elvis? Or being visited by God/Allah/Buddha/etc?
Actual experience is hogwash and eyewitness testimony is unreliable. You need either firm facts or a very large pool of data to eliminate bias - and in this case, neither the facts nor the general population's experiences fit your scenario.
Try this: go to the Dungeons and Raids forum and ask whether ICC 10 normal or ICC 25 normal was harder. See what responses you get.
The 25s were all pug people, usually in crap gear. We once had a DK tank that had spell power gems in because he said "it helped his abilities hit harder". We joked with the guy that was assembling it for even inviting him but the main tank said not to worry, he would do all the heavy lifting. You can not do stuff like that in a 10.
DeleteThose are people "saying" it have seen them. I am not just saying I have done them, I did do them. And with the DK with spell power gems.
If you are not going to believe I actually did them, then this conversation ends now. It is not hogwash and it is not unreliable. You choose to say that because it shows you are wrong. So instead of just saying "I've experienced different" and leave it at that you would rather call me a lair sand say I did not pug 25s. So the conversion is over. If you are not going to believe actual facts then there is no way to have a conversation about it.
If I ask on the forums they will all say 25s. Do you know why? Because everyone is brain washed into thinking that 25s make them the elite. Even if they did it on 10s and never touched 25s they will say 25s. Even if they believe 10s are harder they will never say it because people would say, you are just a baddie.
Not to mention that the forums are usually visited by the "better" players. The better players all do 25s because 25s are the easiest route to get to what they want. And you know, and do not deny this, that human nature basically prohibits most people from admitting they they took the easy route.
So if you want the absolute most tainted imbalanced opinions ever feel free to go to the forums. If you want facts, go to people that play with math.
"You can not do stuff like that in a 10."
DeleteExcept you could since the bosses hit like 30-40% weaker and required less tank mechanics.
"The better players all do 25s because 25s are the easiest route to get to what they want"
They were REQUIRED to get what they wanted in ICC - the better gear and more prestigious kills. It wasn't because it was easier - which is also why 25 mans suffered so much when 10 mans were made harder. Since you could do a 10 man for the same rewards and slightly easier difficulty, a lot of people switched to 10s.
"So if you want the absolute most tainted imbalanced opinions ever feel free to go to the forums. If you want facts, go to people that play with math."
First, honest question: if you could magically poll the WoW playerbase who did ICC 10 and 25 and 99%+ of them said ICC 25 was harder, would you actually consider you might be wrong? At what point do you wonder that your perspective might be the skewed one?
Second, we already went to the people that played with math. We heard from the raid designers at Blizzard in charge of tuning. They said 10 was easier. We looked at the actual numbers involved in the raid. The numbers indicated 10 was easier. We looked at the math involved in coordinating mechanics. That math also indicates 10 is easier.
But you're not convinced by the people who did the math MAKING the raids, the math looking at the NUMBERS in the raids, or the math looking at the MECHANICS in the raids.
So...er...what math are you referring to?
If you could poll them all and ask them, then yes, I would believe that because that is actual data.
DeleteBut you can not ask the forum, where the better players go, what is harder when the common belief is "25s are harder" because they will just say that.
It would be the same as going to the republican national convention and asking them who do they think will win the next presidency. Of course they will say the republican candidate.
You are confusing the "10s were easier" with why 10s were easier. Yes, in 264 gear 10s where easier to over gear. But when you compare someone progressing in all 251 gear through 10s it was harder than someone progressing through 25s with 264 gear.
As for the math there was a huge write up when they combined raid lock outs (which I disagreed with because I liked 2 lock outs) and changed it to them dropping the same gear for 10s and 25s saying that 10s were finally getting some love.
The basic idea was that instead of needing 25 man gear to clear 10s it would balance them so 10s would be easier.
I do not recall who wrote it, but I do remember it was on the official site I read it and took a link from there to the blog.
While the data presented there was just numbers I could not prove or disprove because of my personal experiences I was lead to believe it.
There was not only that but dozens if not more posts where people complained that progressing in 10 strict, which was a small population but still a reasonable one and the only one you would have had a true interpretation of how 10 difficulty was, was way to hard when compared to 25s. You go tell the world first LK 10 kill in 10 man strict they were just bad because 10s are easier and it took them 8 months to down it. One blue even said, that was because you are expected to have gear from 25s.
So if the "lesser content" required over gearing it, how exactly is that easier?
The only things that 10s are always much easier with, hands down and no argument from me ever is coordinating and assembling.
25s did not die because 10s where the same skill level now, or even easier. 25s died because when offered two similar difficulties, people would rather do 10s that were easier to assemble for the average player base. Whereas the hard core groups keep doing 25s because they can class stack to make the fights easier and they like the "prestige" that comes with it.
They death of 25s has nothing to do with difficultly levels, it has to do with dwindling player base reasons. And 10s are all over now because 10s are easier to assemble. It has nothing to do with difficulty, it has everything to do with assembly.
"It would be the same as going to the republican national convention and asking them who do they think will win the next presidency. Of course they will say the republican candidate."
DeleteSo you're saying you wouldn't even care about any logic or numbers they might have? Are they disqualified from showing you polling math and political logic that shows a 99% likelihood that their candidate will win?
Sure, them simply saying "My candidate will totally win" is worthless, but what about people who have actual reasons?
"But when you compare someone progressing in all 251 gear through 10s it was harder than someone progressing through 25s with 264 gear."
That's closer to being true but still not correct (for example, 3 Valks on 25 LK completely changes how the mechanic needs to be handled compared to 10 man). Interestingly enough, people claiming that is one of the main reasons Blizzard made 10 man drop the same gear and be tuned to the same difficulty.
Of course, after that, the best "strict" 10 mans claiming they were as good as the best 25 mans couldn't actually compete or do as well in Cataclysm.
On top of that, unless you were in a "strict" 10 man guild, people have 264 gear from emblems of frost and probably some ICC 25 man PUGs.
But are you finally acknowledging that ICC 25 was absolutely harder than ICC 10 man? And instead now claiming that their *relative* difficulty, ilvl wise, had 10 man being harder?
"The basic idea was that instead of needing 25 man gear to clear 10s it would balance them so 10s would be easier.
I do not recall who wrote it, but I do remember it was on the official site I read it and took a link from there to the blog."
You have it backward. 25 mans were compelled to do 10 mans for the extra loot because it had unique items and the extra loot was needed to clear 25 mans in a competitive manner. 10 mans were made harder, given better gear, and shared a lockout with 25 mans to address this issue.
"You go tell the world first LK 10 kill in 10 man strict they were just bad because 10s are easier and it took them 8 months to down it."
Maybe I'll eat my words from this, but could you kindly point out a high ranked 10 man strict guild in WotLK which got a high rank in Cataclysm? You're claiming 10 mans actually got easier, right, so surely that must mean they did superbly well in Cata?
Logic and numbers are what I follow. Numbers more than everything else. But asking 100 heroic raiders if normal mode is easy will get you inaccurate numbers. Just like asking 100 people that never raided if normal is hard would get you inaccurate numbers.
DeleteYou can not pick who you ask the question and then expect to get accurate results. It is how poll takers make a living. By phrasing the question in a way to get an answer they want or by asking people they know they will get the answer they want from.
So asking on the forums, a forum filled with player that either are good or think they are good anything will have tainted results.
To get real numbers you need a completely anonymous place to vote and you need to ask everyone. Not just the people that will let you here what you want to hear.
I've always claimed relative difficulty. You are the one trying to make it absolute. 10s were harder for what they are. Flat out. 10 was harder even using 264 gear than 25s were. All because of how things work.
In 25s you can class stack. In 25s if have an issue with one thing, you can throw more people on it. In 25s if you lose 1 damage dealer you lose 5.8% of your group damage whereas in a 10 you lose 20% of your group damage. Don't even pretend like those things do not give 25s a huge advantage in easing out a great deal of things.
Things like that. I have always been talking relative. 25s are easier. You keep trying to argue math but you can't. 25s (removing the human factor) have always been and will always be easier because you have less personal responsibility and more versatility.
Adding the human factor is what makes 25s harder, and that is not want I am talking about. Yes it is harder to get 25 quality players together. Yes, it is harder to get them to all show up on time. Yes, it is harder to position 25 players. Yes, it is harder to make assignments for 25 players. Yes, there are many difficulties that 25 that 10s never have to deal with. But those are all things that involve the human factor. I've said in many posts that I love doing 25s but I hate doing them because they are so hard to manage. So no, I am not saying 25s are easier when talking about people because they are not. Not even close. I am talking about actually doing them when removing the human factor.
So with that said, once again, removing the human factor, 10s are harder. That is a fact. Heck, just look at any one of the things I mentioned as proof. Like losing a damage dealer is losing 5.8% vs losing 20%. Which do you think it is easier to lose a damage dealer in? Don't even think about saying 10s.
Using your argument would mean that 40 man vanilla raids were the hardest content ever made and nothing will ever come close to it. Because getting 40 people together was a bitch. Getting them all doing everything they were supposed to do was a bitch. But no, looking at the fights themselves, vanilla raids where a joke. If they released even one vanilla style boss now even the LFR players would call it a joke.
Having more people does not make content harder, it makes it easier. Again, removing the human factor. If everyone in a 10 or 25 was 100% equally skilled 10 mans are harder because mathematically they do not have the many advantages that come with doing a 25 man raid.
I'll have to look and see if I can find more than 1. I only knew the US first one because they were on my blog list. I really would like to see if they moved up, down, or stayed the same. It is worth taking the time to look into it.
"But asking 100 heroic raiders if normal mode is easy will get you inaccurate numbers. Just like asking 100 people that never raided if normal is hard would get you inaccurate numbers."
DeleteBut couldn't the people who raided heroic tell you whether heroic or normal was harder? And couldn't people who did 10 and 25 man tell you which was harder?
"I've always claimed relative difficulty. You are the one trying to make it absolute. 10s were harder for what they are. Flat out. 10 was harder even using 264 gear than 25s were."
That's...claiming absolute difficulty.
"In 25s if you lose 1 damage dealer you lose 5.8% of your group damage whereas in a 10 you lose 20% of your group damage. Don't even pretend like those things do not give 25s a huge advantage in easing out a great deal of things."
It doesn't when 25s require more out of each player.
Let's look at a 10 person raid in ICC which has a boss that requires 48k DPS from 6 DPS. And we have a 25 man raid that has a boss that requires 170k DPS from 17 DPS.
Which is harder?
Well, first of all, the 25 man raiders have to do 25% more DPS each. But let's assume they're equally skilled/geared and can do, say, 10.5k DPS each.
What happens if the 25 man loses a person? They go from 178.5k DPS (enough to beat the boss) to 168k DPS (not enough). Losing a person means they wipe.
What happens if the 10 man loses a boss? They go from 63k DPS (enough to beat the boss) to 52.5k DPS (STILL enough to beat the boss). Losing a person doesn't matter, they still win.
Even though the 25 man loses a smaller percentage overall when a person dies, it was still harder because the content was tuned harder and more was expected from each person in a 25 man.
I mean, if we use your logic, the ICC 5 mans were harder than ICC 10 because losing a DPS meant you were losing 33.3% of your DPS players.
See how that doesn't make sense?
"I am talking about actually doing them when removing the human factor."
I don't think I've once mentioned that. I've said the mechanics are harder to deal with on 25 in the past AND the content was tuned to be harder. Nothing about the human factor.
3 Valks instead of 1 was harder AND you had to do more DPS/stunning on the 25 man Valks. Nothing to do with organizing or getting people to show up.
"Which do you think it is easier to lose a damage dealer in? Don't even think about saying 10s."
In ICC (and Wrath in general), it was 10s -- because you didn't even need the entire raid in the first place! If you make a 10 man raid which only requires 2 tanks, 2 healers, and 3 DPS to actually beat, it is certainly easier than a 25 man raid which requires 2 tanks, 6 healers, and 14 DPS to beat. You might not need a full 25 people (notice my example only has 22 people) but you need a greater percentage than a 10 man needs.
"Using your argument would mean that 40 man vanilla raids were the hardest content ever made and nothing will ever come close to it."
Absolutely not and that is not my argument whatsoever. You could 20 man MC. I have never and will never argue something is harder solely due to a larger size *UNLESS ALL OTHER FACTORS ARE PERFECTLY EQUAL.* Which is extraordinarily rare.
10 man H Beth'tilac was harder than 25 man H Beth'tilac. 25 man H Ragnaros was harder than 10 man H Ragnaros. Nothing to do with size, solely the mechanics and tuning of the fight.
"I really would like to see if they moved up, down, or stayed the same. It is worth taking the time to look into it."
Indeed. I eagerly await your results.
The ICC 5 mans where harder than the raids, halls most notably. Anything random is always harder. You also need to remember they were made to be massively easier than raids, so you can not compare. But if they were on the same scale, they would be harder. Absolutely.
DeleteBut using that 33% number you are correct. Unless there is a damage dealer that is doing the amount of 2 or 3 (which there always was) then mathematically it was harder. If all three were "just" capable of doing it they will not get it done down one, ever.
With a 10 it would be tiny bit easier because there are more extras that can pick it up a tiny bit to cover the loss of one.
With 25 it becomes a joke, you can lose one and everyone else can get 1 extra crit here and there and it would make up for the loss of one.
The more people you add, the easier the content gets on a per person basis. That is a fact no matter how much you like to argue it.
1 Valk with 5 DPS is harder than 3 valks with 17 DPS.
With 17 DPS you have more stuns, snares, slows, and more people to begin with. Not to mention more cooldowns, personal and group.
If they take only damage dealers with 5 DPS you lose one, so you have 4 on one. With 17 you lose 3 so you have 14 on three which means 5 on 2 and 4 on one. So one of the three valks is the same as 10 and the other 2 are easier than 10. Even with more life to them because in 25s you do more damage. (more on that later)
Just because you have more to deal with there does not mean it makes it harder. Harder to coordinate, yes, not harder to do.
And don't forget the key there. More slows, snares, stuns, and more class stacking if you need more slows, snares, stuns.
Nice work ignoring the benefits of having more people in a 25 and just saying "25 has 3 and 10 has 1 so it is harder".
You also completely ignore the fact that you do more DPS in 25s than you do in 10s because of how cooldowns works. Just look at world of logs and see that 25 numbers are so much higher than 10s. It is not because 25s have better players it is because 25s have more people which means more skull banners out more often, and stuff like that, so more damage is put out.
More anecdotal evidence for you, being you love that. How come in a 10 I do 235 on a boss and on the same boss in a 25 I do 275? Am I just suddenly a better player when I raid in 25s? No, I have more to work with so my DPS goes up accordingly. This is another thing that makes 25s easier.
I am sure you will interpret that to mean I do better because I thrive on the "harder" 25 mans where I view it as I do better because I get more temporary buffs.
I do agree with one thing as you mentioned the rag thing. Any fight where there are effects like that and you have less space to work with always adds a level of difficulty to 25s that 10s never need to worry about. It is why some guilds have switched to 10s in the recent past for certain fights. Then again, horridon in 25s was leaps and bounds easier than in 10s. Same amount of adds, more dispels, more interrupts, more everything. So it equals out the space to available options, in many cases.
I have not yet looked them up but I will have to remember to do so. She stopped blogging so I do not even know if she is still raiding or the guild is even still around. Might be hard to interpret the numbers even if we find them because there are so fewer guilds even raiding now compared to in wrath.
Heck, in wrath my guild was usually lucky to get into the top 35000 guilds in the world, now we kill things top 5000 sometimes and even our crappy 25 man is top 2000 in the world. No one raids any more so the numbers are hard to compare. They could very well rank higher in over all but it not actually be higher. That would be like me saying my guild got better because we used to be top 35000 and now we are top 10000 when both cases we were about the 50% mark. It is just that there used to be 70000 raiding guilds and now there are only 20000 of them.
From what little I can find the world first 10 strict guild can't be found. Seems they disbanded as I can not even find reference to the guild even with no progress.
DeleteThe world second 10 strict team seems to still be raiding, but doesn't seem to be as far, even if still good, as they were previously even if they do have heroic progress in each tier. They remain top around top 600 US even now and ended cataclysm in the top 1% of guilds.
With that said, and depending on how you look at it, I would say they are a pretty damn good team. Feel free to disagree, but any group that is even top 5% of the world I believe is a good team and if they remained top 1%-2% throughout the entirety of cataclysm that shows they were good. Again, my opinion.
Back to the topic at hand. If a 25 man guild killed world first LK heroic with the 5% buff and a 10 man strict guild needed the 30% and 8 months to do it, and that guild is a top 1% guild otherwise it has to mean something.
You can read into it what you want and I will read into it what I want of course.
What I read into is that if they had 15 other players of equal 1% skills, they would have killed LK a hell of a lot earlier just like 100s or even 1000s of other guilds that were not running 10 strict.
They most likely would have been in the 1% of kills then too and not much much further down the line because they were only doing 10 strict. So, if they would have gotten the kill much sooner in 25 to stay within their normal 1% than they did doing strict 10 couldn't you infer that 25s would have been easier for them if that had the people for it? Again, just my opinion.
Would it be safe to agree that if they were top 1%-2% when 10s and 25s where "equalized" in cataclysm that they should have been top 1%-2% at least doing the "easier" 10s in wrath?
Being there were not top 1%-2% in wrath, because they only did the "easier" 10s one could argue that 10s were indeed harder without help from 25s gear.
As you can guess, that is the angle I will argue.
"You also need to remember they were made to be massively easier than raids, so you can not compare."
DeleteSo what you're saying is that the 5 mans were deliberately tuned to be easier than the 10 and 25 mans?
The same is true for 10 mans being deliberately tuned to be easier than 25 mans in Wrath.
Blizzard *could* have made 25 mans the easiest, with 10 mans harder, and made some 5 mans that were so brutally difficult you'd need a 10% zone buff to beat the final boss. Blizzard *could* have made 10 man harder than 25 man *if they wanted to.*
But they didn't. And they deliberately tuned 10 mans to make them easier than 25 mans (and they got worse loot as a result).
In other words, whether 10 or 25 is innately harder *only matters when everything else is effectively equal in regards to tuning.* But Blizzard deliberately made 10 mans much easier.
"The more people you add, the easier the content gets on a per person basis. That is a fact no matter how much you like to argue it."
Let me get this straight: if 10 man Patchwerk required 10k DPS per person and 25 man Patchwerk required 15k DPS per person, you'd claim 10 man Patchwerk is harder?
"1 Valk with 5 DPS is harder than 3 valks with 17 DPS.
With 17 DPS you have more stuns, snares, slows, and more people to begin with. Not to mention more cooldowns, personal and group."
You're completely missing the point and clearly never did it while it was relevant.
With 1 Valk, you could go any way you wanted for Defile and you single targeted it.
With 3 Valks, you had to coordinate where the group would go because the Valks *had to go in the same direction* Because you *had* to cleave them down. And if people moved in different directions for Defile, Valks could go opposite directions (or even in three wildly different directions).
The fact you had 3 Valks completely changed the nature of the mechanic and it was MUCH harder on 25.
Other mechanics CAN be harder on 10 man -- not in ICC, but they have happened -- but Valks were trivial on 10 man.
"It is not because 25s have better players it is because 25s have more people which means more skull banners out more often, and stuff like that, so more damage is put out."
Besides Skull Banners (3 v 1) and maybe Stormlash, what else is there?
The real reason 25s often has higher numbers is twofold. One, it's easier once you outgear/outskill a fight to do something like let someone sit on the boss instead of having to switch to an add. Two, 25s man get higher average ilvls with Thunderforged/Warforged and also gear up faster overall.
"How come in a 10 I do 235 on a boss and on the same boss in a 25 I do 275?"
Are you seriously suggesting you gained 40k DPS, a 17% increase, because you had a few more Skull Banners for 10 seconds every 3 minutes? Seriously? Think about what you're saying.
"Same amount of adds, more dispels, more interrupts, more everything. So it equals out the space to available options, in many cases."
If by "in many cases" you mean "in nearly every case since Cataclysm," yes. And I've never said otherwise. I've repeatedly said that, since Cataclysm, some fights are harder on 10 and some are harder on 25. Overall, more are harder on 25 and overall 25 is probably like 1-2% harder, but it is a very, very small difference
Which is completely different from the situation in WotLK where 10 mans were designed and tuned to be much easier.
"Feel free to disagree, but any group that is even top 5% of the world I believe is a good team and if they remained top 1%-2% throughout the entirety of cataclysm that shows they were good."
DeleteHere's my guild: http://www.wowprogress.com/guild/us/greymane/Despotism
We're 279 US for 10 mans (432 overall) and have full cleared 10H every tier since Firelands. We haven't even raided this week yet - and we'll kill 3 heroics this Sunday night which will put us about 165 US for 10 mans and 250 overall. Did I mention we only raid two nights a week?
Based on what you're saying, we're doing substantially better than the second best 10 man strict guild and on less hours.
In short, that 10 man strict guild isn't terrible by any means, but they're not *that* good and nowhere near world class status.
"If a 25 man guild killed world first LK heroic with the 5% buff and a 10 man strict guild needed the 30% and 8 months to do it, and that guild is a top 1% guild otherwise it has to mean something."
Let me ask you a few questions.
1, how many hours per week was that strict guild raiding? Because the guild that killed LK at 5% was raiding something like 12+ hours a day 7 days a week.
To put this in perspective: the guilds that are 13/14H right now in Siege have raided *at least* 12 hours a day for about 17 days. That's 204 hours minimum. That's more than *my* guild will raid in five and a half MONTHS.
Your 10 man strict guild was nowhere remotely close to that in terms of time.
2, how many other runs was your strict guild doing? During their 80+ hours of raiding per week, guilds working on H LK 25 would be clearing 10H ICC for more gear along with doing 25H ToC and other bosses for trinkets and special items. While obviously the strict guild couldn't do 25 mans, they could have been doing 10H ToC, 10N ToC, and hard modes in Ulduar to maximize their gear progression.
Except, of course, they WEREN'T -- partially because they simply didn't raid that much and partially because they weren't as dedicated.
In SoO, the top guilds were running 6+ 25 man groups the first week to effectively get 6 weeks of gear in one week -- I guarantee you that your strict guild is not doing that.
So no, your numbers don't mean anything. The 10 man strict players weren't as good (they weren't bad, but they weren't the best of the best), they didn't invest the same amount of time, and they didn't have the same dedication.
If, given what you've said, my little two night a week 10 man guild is doing far better than apparently the second best strict 10 man guild in the world...what does that say about them and their relative ability?
In the past I was able to solo heroic 5 man on release. I did in wrath as soon as I hit 80, did in cataclysm as soon as I hit 85, and did not try this time around but I did recently and they were easy, but maybe I could have as soon as I hit 90.
DeleteYou can not base raid scaling off 5 mans. Just not in the same league when 5 man heroics can be soloed by a freshly dinged character that knows how to play their class, and that class is a hunter of course. ;)
You do more DPS in a 25 than you do in a 10 to begin with, so that is why 25s have a "slightly" higher DPS requirement. Not to make them harder, to make it so they are not as face roll easy in comparison
No, I did not do ICC 25 heroic when it was current, I was doing 10s. My 25 man team broke up 10/12 normal and we just did 25s as pugs from that point on and there was no pugging heroic content on my server, not in a million years. Hey, LK 25 heroic happened after BWD heroic was done. That shows you the skill base on my server.
I am not sure why I do more in 25 than 10. I am the same player playing the same class hitting the same buttons. I just do more in 25s. I was asking you why that is.
So you are a top percent guild too. But you remained that from wrath to now. They were not in wrath but are now.
Goes to show that in wrath, doing the 25s, or 10s with 25s gear, was easier. Otherwise they would be in roughly the same position in both cases.
1) Can't answer that over all because I do not know.
2) They did no 25s at all, ever, on those characters. If any of them ever looted a 25 man items they would have lost their 10 strict designation. They might have raided them on alts, but the 10 strict team only raiding 10s. Nothing else.
If yours is doing better than their, congrats, but that does not take anything away from the fact they are still a good guild. Good enough that if 10s and 25s where equal as they are now, they would have ranked a hell of a lot higher. But they weren't. So they ranked lower.
You can read into it all you want, but the fact they moved UP in ranking when 10s and 25s were combined shows that 10s were harder. If 10s where easier and all they ever did was 10s, they would have moved down when 10s where made "harder" but they didn't.
You see it as you like, I will see it as I like. There is no way either one of us could convince the other because everything is a case of "that was then" and "this is now".
If someone asked me to join a quick and easy run for a 25 I would say yes, but if they asked me for the same of a 10 I would say no. Reason being, 10s are just so much harder. In a 25 if they have a few slackers, no big deal, but in a 10, one slacker will screw us all over. And yes, I am talking current content, I am talking doing ToT now when we are in SoO gear. I would still not do a 10 with people I do not know because it would be too damn hard if you get any screw ups, but I would jump in a 25 in a heart beat because they are easier.
That is my opinion. While I might not see it from your perspective, it is your right to have your own opinion and I respect. I just do not understand it.
Maybe I've just had some excellent experiences with 25 man pugs and some horrible ones with 10s. But from my own experiences, 25s are, hands down, without a doubt, easier than 10s.
"You can not base raid scaling off 5 mans. Just not in the same league when 5 man heroics can be soloed by a freshly dinged character that knows how to play their class, and that class is a hunter of course."
DeleteWhich is harder?
LFR or the Zul 5 man heroics in Cataclysm?
Hint: the latter.
"You do more DPS in a 25 than you do in a 10 to begin with, so that is why 25s have a "slightly" higher DPS requirement."
You barely do more DPS and 15-20% more DPS required in WotLK is not slight by any stretch of the imagination.
Let's look at spot 100 for WoWProgress rankings (to avoid really skewed stuff like one person being few Tricks or whatever) and let's look at normal Iron Juggernaut (single target fight with no damage modifiers).
10N: 244k
25N: 248k
That 1.6% difference is really huge, right?
Or let's look at the next fight, Dark Shaman:
10N: 352k
25N: 348k
Whoa, now the 25 man person did 1.2% LESS damage.
Or how about Malkorok?
10N: 249k
25N: 250k
Weird.
What happened to the 15-20% more damage you automatically do in 25 man?
"So you are a top percent guild too. But you remained that from wrath to now. They were not in wrath but are now."
No, I wasn't a top percent guild in Wrath. I had quit from the end of BC to near the end of WotLK. I came back to play with 3 friends and we PUGGED 11/12H in 10H ICC in a weekly run that was ONCE PER WEEK. Because 10 man ICC was much easier than 25 man.
In Cata I decided to build the guild up -- we finished normals like 5 months after launch and only got halfway through heroics before Firelands. We've only been a top percent guild since Firelands.
"Goes to show that in wrath, doing the 25s, or 10s with 25s gear, was easier."
No, doing 25s with 25s gear was hardest, followed by 10s with 10s gear, followed by 10s with 25s fear.
"1) Can't answer that over all because I do not know."
DeleteDo you think it was anywhere close to 72+ hours a week?
"2) They did no 25s at all, ever, on those characters. If any of them ever looted a 25 man items they would have lost their 10 strict designation. They might have raided them on alts, but the 10 strict team only raiding 10s. Nothing else."
Did you even read what I wrote?
I said:
While obviously the strict guild couldn't do 25 mans, they could have been doing 10H ToC, 10N ToC, and hard modes in Ulduar to maximize their gear progression.
I understand what the strict thing meant. But the strict guilds weren't doing all they could to progress nor were their players as good as the ones in the best 25 mans.
"Good enough that if 10s and 25s where equal as they are now, they would have ranked a hell of a lot higher."
Your logic is completely reversed. Your claim is that this guild WOULD have ranked higher in WotLK except that 10 mans were harder than 25s. Which means if they were the number 1 strict guild (or number 2 or whatever), you'd expect them to be near the pinnacle of 10 man raiding since the other 10 mans can't "cheat" by getting better 25 man gear now.
Except they're not doing very well, relatively speaking. They've gone from claiming they were basically one of the best 10 mans (since they were the best of the strict guilds) to being like 600th.
"You can read into it all you want, but the fact they moved UP in ranking when 10s and 25s were combined shows that 10s were harder."
They went DOWN in ranking -- they claimed to basically be one of the best 10 man guilds (or equivalent to the best ones) because they were one of the best strict guilds and thus didn't get 25 man gear. But they're nowhere near the top of 10 man guilds -- they're even being trounced by a casual 10 man group only raiding twice a week!
"While I might not see it from your perspective, it is your right to have your own opinion and I respect. I just do not understand it."
I've had a lot of contact with a lot of players over the years. Not a single one but you claims that 10 man WotLK raids were harder than 25 man WotLK raids. Not a single one but you claims 10 mans are innately much harder -- at MOST they claim 10 mans and 25s are equal.
"Which is harder?
DeleteLFR or the Zul 5 man heroics in Cataclysm?
Hint: the latter."
In theory, yes. With 5 and 25 equally skilled players the Zuls are harder than LFR. With random people the LFR is harder than the zuls.
Heck, compare zuls to zuls. Guild runs, bear mount nearly every time with hand picked people. Randoms, and I did it over 200 times, only 3 bear runs.
Random makes things harder. Random with more people make it even harder.
"What happened to the 15-20% more damage you automatically do in 25 man?"
Again, just because the tops there does not show it, I know what I do, and I do more in 25s, considerably more. That is 100% complete and total fact. Stop trying to argue it.
Look at individual players difference between 10 and 25. Not highest 10 and highest 25. That would me like comparing me and and the # 1 WoL hunter. He does 350, I do 240. Does that mean he is great and I suck? No, he has better gear. Sure, even if I had the same gear I could not beat him, but it might be 350 to 300 and not 350 to 240. With so many variables you can not compare different people. So top 25 and top 10 is not a good comparison. You can not compare different people. Seek out individual people and see the difference they do between 10 and 25.
"Because 10 man ICC was much easier than 25 man."
Again I will point out the obvious to people that seem to miss it. Of course 10s are easier in 25 man gear because 25 man gear was higher and basically you out geared the 10s. Stop trying to say that "I over geared it so it was easier" It is not a real argument.
1) Hell no, I doubt it is anywhere even close to that. Only the extremely hard core guilds even come close to that. Even the average "hard core" guild does not do more than 20 hours a week.
2) I must have misunderstood what you said there.
"Your logic is completely reversed. Your claim is that this guild WOULD have ranked higher in WotLK except that 10 mans were harder than 25s. "
Not flawed at all. They would have ranked higher. As in over all they were not even a top 30,000 guild, whereas since they they are top 2%. Which means, they would have ranked higher if all things were equal. No where did I ever say they were the best 10 man guild. I only said they were good and were willing to do something other guilds were not willing to do because they deemed it "too hard" and took the easier route to a kill with 25s or 10s in 25 man gear.
They were one of the best because no other guild wanted to to it that way. Which made them one of the best.
Once the other guilds had no choice, and those hard core 72 hour guilds started to do what they do, they were not\ longer the best, they were just another "good" guild.
Anytime you add someone obsessive to the mix, meaning the 72 hour a week + teams, the other quality teams that do not press as hard get left in the dust.
If your guild and its 2 day a week raid schedule would actually try harder and play it like one of those world first guilds I have no doubt you could be top 10 or at least challenge for it.
So why don't you?
Because you do not want to, you enjoy the pace you move at and you move at that pace. At least that is what I would guess, am I right?
Almost any guild could be world first if they had the time to invest in it. Even your guild. Maybe not mine however. :P
"In theory, yes. With 5 and 25 equally skilled players the Zuls are harder than LFR. With random people the LFR is harder than the zuls."
DeleteDid you never hear of Jin'do the PUGBreaker? Had more wipes than LFR DS by far.
Regardless, the point (which you now seem willing to acknowledge) is that Blizzard CAN make a given group size harder than another. They can make 5 harder than 25. They can make 5 easier than 25. It depends on what Blizzard wants to do.
"Look at individual players difference between 10 and 25."
That is...exactly what I did? I looked at the person in the 100th spot for both raid sizes.
Or do you literally mean find logs from the same raider for both 10 and 25 -- which will never happen because of the shared lockout?
"Stop trying to say that "I over geared it so it was easier" It is not a real argument."
I didn't say that. I literally said that I found the 10 man fights much less demanding (and I was not walking around in 25H gear or something). We could have a third of the raid die and not care because the 10 man version required so much less per person than the 25 man version.
I mean, let's look at a concrete example. Heroic Rotface on 25 man has 4.5 times the HP of 10 man. The standard ratio between 10 and 25 man is 3x the HP. This means that 25 man raiders had to do 50% more DPS per person to meet the berserk. Now, 13 ilvl is (at most) about a 26% DPS bonus. So let's assume we're talking a strict 10 man guild which thus has 13 less ilvl overall.
The 25 man group still has to do 20% more DPS per person.
And I never found my DPS between 10 and 25 to be significantly different unless I was able to pad meters by AoEing adds or ignoring adds that were difficult to kill or something.
"No where did I ever say they were the best 10 man guild. I only said they were good and were willing to do something other guilds were not willing to do because they deemed it "too hard" and took the easier route to a kill with 25s or 10s in 25 man gear."
No, you also claimed we could use the fact that it took them 8 months and 30% to kill 10H LK to prove 10 man was harder in a strict fashion. But this comparison can only work if this guild is one of the top guilds because you're comparing it to the top 25H guilds.
I mean, otherwise, I could point out it took plenty of guilds until 30% and 8 months to kill 25H LK even with full 25H and 10H gear. Lots of guilds never even managed it then.
'Because you do not want to, you enjoy the pace you move at and you move at that pace. At least that is what I would guess, am I right?"
Well, we always want to move at a faster pace, but we're not willing to commit more time each week, correct. Hence why I founded the guild ;)
Heard of him? I had nightmares about him. I wrote entire posts about him and going through 17 players trying to get him down.
DeleteWhat made him "easier" was cycling through the players was fast. You would not have to sit 50 minutes waiting on a tank like you do in the LFR. That is what makes LFR harder, not just the content, the wait for it.
"Or do you literally mean find logs from the same raider for both 10 and 25 -- which will never happen because of the shared lockout?"
That is actually want I meant. It is the only way to get real data but even that would or could be thrown off depending on gear level when they ranked.
I know you do not believe me, but please just for the sake of sanity take my word for it. I do a lot more DPS in 25s than I do in 10s. I also do about 40% more HPS in 25s than I do in 10s. But that should be much easier to understand as there are more people to heal.
I've actually given up on this one, you win. 25s are harder "in your opinion".
Just like 10s are harder "in my opinion"
In the end we can all throw examples around of stuff we read, stuff we experienced, stats we looked up, numbers we crunched and even if we throw stuff back and forth for days or months or years it will always come back to the same thing. We will always believe our opinion is right and we will find the data to back it up.
"No, you also claimed we could use the fact that it took them 8 months and 30% to kill 10H LK to prove 10 man was harder in a strict fashion. But this comparison can only work if this guild is one of the top guilds because you're comparing it to the top 25H guilds."
DeleteI think you missed what I was getting at. If it took them 8 months and the 30% buff to kill LK on 10 strict and outside of that they are in the middle of the pack with all other good guilds then you could guess that all those other good guilds it would have taken them 8 months also.
If all things were equal. That is what I am getting at. All those other guilds, the ones that killed LK MUCH earlier in 25s but are now basically the same "skill level" as that guild being all things are equal, you could have to at least entertain the fact that being they are equal now they would have been equal then and it would have taken those guilds 8 months and the 30% buff also.
Which is what proves what I was saying. The guilds they are "equals" now thanks to 10s and 25s being equal should have been equal then too right? In theory anyway. So if it took them 8 months and their "equals" 3 months, that means if their "equals" were doing 10s it would have taken them 8 months also. Being it only took them 3, if they are indeed equals, like they are now, that means they finished 25 faster than they would have finished 10 strict.
That is what I was getting at.
For arguments sake lets say they are the 600th guild in the US (don't know just making that up) you could say that all guildW between 500 and 700 are roughly at the same skill level give or take. Now if we could go back and look and see that most of those guilds downed LK 25 heroic in 3-5 months, yet this guild it took 8 months in 10. If they were all of the same skill level, wouldn't you consider that to be reasonable data to suggest that 10s might, just might, have been harder if guilds of equal skill killed it sooner in 25 mode?
That is what I was referring to when I said they moved up since the change in difficulty. Because now they are with those others between 500-700 instead of being 30,000 over all.
I could dig a guild like yours, hard core dedication, casual approach. I just feel comfortable where I am, hence the reason I never looked for more even if I do believe I could get further and have gotten offers. Somewhere along the line I found who I played with mattered more than what I accomplished. (but I must admit it does get frustrating sometimes as I am sure you can imagine) Being happy with what you do is key I believe. Maybe one day you guys might push it, would be interesting to see what you can do being you do so well with limited time.
Either way, I'll leave this one to you. You can have it. You believe 25s are harder and no matter how much I might try to show you otherwise you will never change. You opinion is what it is, and for both of is, it is just opinion. The only real facts we could get were lost years ago and the players are not the same so comparing it is impossible. Now with equal raids, some things will be harder in 25 and some things will be harder in 10s. We just get to pick our poison now.
"What made him "easier" was cycling through the players was fast."
DeleteWhoa whoa whoa. I thought we only cared about the difficulty of the fight itself?
"But that should be much easier to understand as there are more people to heal."
No, all else equal, if you have 1 healer per 5 players then HPS (2 for 10 man, 5 for 25 man) should be equal -- UNLESS things hit harder on 25 man and demand more per healer. Meaning 25 man is harder. No wonder your HPS was higher in 25 man.
"I've actually given up on this one, you win. 25s are harder "in your opinion".
Just like 10s are harder "in my opinion""
Stop it. We're not talking 10 v 25. We're talking WotLK 10 v 25 -- which is completely different. Watch about a minute and a half of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeV5Cj7sES8&feature=player_detailpage#t=746
"I think you missed what I was getting at. If it took them 8 months and the 30% buff to kill LK on 10 strict and outside of that they are in the middle of the pack with all other good guilds then you could guess that all those other good guilds it would have taken them 8 months also. "
You said the 10 man guild is about US 600 right now. Let's assume that with the equalizing of 10 and 25 man that we now have twice as many guilds overall -- meaning US 600 right now would be equivalent to US 300 back then. Hell, let's even be more generous. We'll say there are three times as many guilds now, meaning US 600 now would be equivalent to US 200 back then.
To summarize, they should be about as good as a guild that was US 200 in ICC (I'd frankly say 300 but we'll give them the benefit of the doubt).
LK was available on Feb 2nd. The 30% buff hit on July 20th (six months later). As of July 20th, less than 100 guilds had killed 25H LK:
http://www.wowprogress.com/i/graph/ach_4584_us.png
Let's fast forward to the date of 4.0.1 which changed everything -- nearly 9 months later. That was October 12th. Less than 211 guilds had killed 25H LK at that point.
Oh hey, look...it took a guild about US 200 eight months to kill H LK 25 at 30% just like it took your strict guild about eight months to kill H LK 10 at 30%. Which is just about what we'd expect.
And this is still being exceeding generous because we're assuming the guild didn't get better players since then -- which means their relative ranking in LK would have been like 300 or 400 instead of 200 assuming they've improved substantially with the equalization of 10 v 25.
"So if it took them 8 months and their "equals" 3 months, that means if their "equals" were doing 10s it would have taken them 8 months also."
As we just showed, it took their "equals" 8 months as well. Probably longer.
"For arguments sake lets say they are the 600th guild in the US (don't know just making that up) you could say that all guilds between 500 and 700 are roughly at the same skill level give or take. Now if we could go back and look and see that most of those guilds downed LK 25 heroic in 3-5 months, yet this guild it took 8 months in 10. If they were all of the same skill level, wouldn't you consider that to be reasonable data to suggest that 10s might, just might, have been harder if guilds of equal skill killed it sooner in 25 mode?"
DeleteAbsolutely! I agree entirely with this logic! This is an excellent point I think we should dwell on!
Of course, not even 250 US guilds killed LK 25 heroic in *8* months. So, using your logic and numbers, this actually shows 10H was much EASIER because only 317 guilds killed 25H before Cataclysm launched, period. Guilds that were US 320+ never even managed to kill it in nine months, let alone 500 or 600.
"You believe 25s are harder and no matter how much I might try to show you otherwise you will never change. You opinion is what it is, and for both of is, it is just opinion. The only real facts we could get were lost years ago and the players are not the same so comparing it is impossible. Now with equal raids, some things will be harder in 25 and some things will be harder in 10s. We just get to pick our poison now."
Hmm...lemme go back and quote myself from a previous post:
"I've repeatedly said that, since Cataclysm, some fights are harder on 10 and some are harder on 25. Overall, more are harder on 25 and overall 25 is probably like 1-2% harder, but it is a very, very small difference.
Which is completely different from the situation in WotLK where 10 mans were designed and tuned to be much easier."
Gee, thanks for agreeing with me while claiming to disagree with me? I guess?
I completely give up. You are the terminator. You can not be reasoned with.
DeleteYou can believe what you want and I will believe what I want. Simple as that.
I know what I experienced. I know we were doing 10s when we switched to 25s we did better and that was even with most of the people we added in the 25s being really lesser players, just people to fill slots.
I know we were stuck on the 4th boss in 10s. I know that the week we moved to 25s in 10s gear we downed the 4th boss and fester. I know the week after we did rotface and dreamwalker as well. I know the third week we did the blood quarter.
I know that when we moved from 10s with our 10s gear to 25s we started to make massive progress because, to us, 25s were easier.
You can live by the numbers that everyone throws around and that is your right. I will live by my actual real experiences and that is my right.
You can argue all you want. You can not and will not ever convince me otherwise because I know from the actual facts of first hand experience, 25s were easier for me. "for me", your mileage might vary.
But I will go back to human psychology once more to end it. It is human nature to take the path of least resistance. Just think about that for a minute.
In the end, like I said, I give up. If saying 25s are harder makes you feel better about yourself. Go for it.
"I completely give up. You are the terminator. You can not be reasoned with."
DeleteOn the contrary.
I've given facts about the relative tuning numbers. I've looked at the impact of individual mechanics. I've shown Blizzard's statements. I've used your own logic.
All of these lead to the conclusion that 25s in ICC (and WotLK in general) were harder than 10 mans.
I mean, I literally took your own argument, plugged in the actual data, and...you just ignore the conclusion?
"But I will go back to human psychology once more to end it. It is human nature to take the path of least resistance. Just think about that for a minute."
Why do people climb Mount Everest? Saying you were the first to climb a hill in your home town doesn't mean anything. The best guilds live on prestige and they intentionally seek out the hardest difficulty.
"In the end, like I said, I give up. If saying 25s are harder makes you feel better about yourself. Go for it."
For the last time...
"I've repeatedly said that, since Cataclysm, some fights are harder on 10 and some are harder on 25. Overall, more are harder on 25 and overall 25 is probably like 1-2% harder, but it is a very, very small difference.
Which is completely different from the situation in WotLK where 10 mans were designed and tuned to be much easier."
.. and you have come to your own conclusion.
DeleteThere is nothing wrong with that. If that is what you believe that is what you believe. I am not arguing it. Just saying I disagree and believe something different.
"Why do people climb Mount Everest? Saying you were the first to climb a hill in your home town doesn't mean anything. The best guilds live on prestige and they intentionally seek out the hardest difficulty."
Nope, sorry, does not work that way. Or we would see lots of "first guild to do it with 20 people", "first guild to do it with no one over 500 item level", "first guild to do a full clear in less than 3 hours on heroic".
They are not trying for the prestige of harder, they are trying for the prestige of first. To get first you take the easy route. Harder takes longer. No one going for first takes the harder route.
Do you really believe someone would hinder themselves taking the harder route in a race where only the person that finishes first matter?
Like I said, you believe what you want to believe and I will believe what I want to believe.
I wouldn't give Valor its own base IL. If it's not Normal IL I'd put it at Flex IL with 2/2 valor upgrades (+8) applied already, blocking any further upgrades.
ReplyDelete548 then, that would be nice. Awesome for alts too.
DeleteNice idea.
Pre-upgraded Flex iLvL. I like that as well.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIf they ever name an item in game after you that has to be it. With that flavor text in it as well.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete