tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9015737272343810105.post3521551034447123216..comments2024-03-27T07:57:48.010-04:00Comments on The Grumpy Elf: Where Would You Add Valor Gear?TheGrumpyElfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07621615711198405365noreply@blogger.comBlogger67125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9015737272343810105.post-40517546138557227632013-10-16T08:56:31.870-04:002013-10-16T08:56:31.870-04:00.. and you have come to your own conclusion.
Ther..... and you have come to your own conclusion.<br /><br />There 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.<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />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".<br /><br />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. <br /><br />Do you really believe someone would hinder themselves taking the harder route in a race where only the person that finishes first matter? <br /><br />Like I said, you believe what you want to believe and I will believe what I want to believe. TheGrumpyElfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07621615711198405365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9015737272343810105.post-18451331493985402512013-10-15T23:06:54.264-04:002013-10-15T23:06:54.264-04:00"I completely give up. You are the terminator..."I completely give up. You are the terminator. You can not be reasoned with."<br /><br />On the contrary.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />All of these lead to the conclusion that 25s in ICC (and WotLK in general) were harder than 10 mans.<br /><br />I mean, I literally took your own argument, plugged in the actual data, and...you just ignore the conclusion?<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"In the end, like I said, I give up. If saying 25s are harder makes you feel better about yourself. Go for it."<br /><br />For the last time...<br /><br /><br />"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.<br /><br />Which is completely different from the situation in WotLK where 10 mans were designed and tuned to be much easier."Balkothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12425374556730828853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9015737272343810105.post-2045760842295037842013-10-08T08:18:48.520-04:002013-10-08T08:18:48.520-04:00I completely give up. You are the terminator. Yo...I completely give up. You are the terminator. You can not be reasoned with.<br /><br />You can believe what you want and I will believe what I want. Simple as that.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />In the end, like I said, I give up. If saying 25s are harder makes you feel better about yourself. Go for it.TheGrumpyElfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07621615711198405365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9015737272343810105.post-70564301195144068682013-10-07T18:21:39.774-04:002013-10-07T18:21:39.774-04:00"For arguments sake lets say they are the 600..."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?"<br /><br />Absolutely! I agree entirely with this logic! This is an excellent point I think we should dwell on!<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />Hmm...lemme go back and quote myself from a previous post:<br /><br />"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.<br /><br />Which is completely different from the situation in WotLK where 10 mans were designed and tuned to be much easier."<br /><br />Gee, thanks for agreeing with me while claiming to disagree with me? I guess?Balkothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12425374556730828853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9015737272343810105.post-10013729962729971892013-10-07T18:21:20.429-04:002013-10-07T18:21:20.429-04:00"What made him "easier" was cycling..."What made him "easier" was cycling through the players was fast."<br /><br />Whoa whoa whoa. I thought we only cared about the difficulty of the fight itself?<br /><br />"But that should be much easier to understand as there are more people to heal."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"I've actually given up on this one, you win. 25s are harder "in your opinion".<br /><br />Just like 10s are harder "in my opinion""<br /><br />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<br /><br />"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. "<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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:<br /><br />http://www.wowprogress.com/i/graph/ach_4584_us.png<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />As we just showed, it took their "equals" 8 months as well. Probably longer.Balkothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12425374556730828853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9015737272343810105.post-67530633294562892002013-10-07T11:49:22.721-04:002013-10-07T11:49:22.721-04:00"No, you also claimed we could use the fact t..."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."<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />That is what I was getting at.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.TheGrumpyElfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07621615711198405365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9015737272343810105.post-17343907783071135882013-10-07T11:49:07.087-04:002013-10-07T11:49:07.087-04:00Heard of him? I had nightmares about him. I wrot...Heard of him? I had nightmares about him. I wrote entire posts about him and going through 17 players trying to get him down.<br /><br />What 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.<br /><br />"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?"<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />I've actually given up on this one, you win. 25s are harder "in your opinion".<br /><br />Just like 10s are harder "in my opinion"<br /><br />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.<br />TheGrumpyElfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07621615711198405365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9015737272343810105.post-76702171025335777392013-10-04T13:56:07.102-04:002013-10-04T13:56:07.102-04:00"In theory, yes. With 5 and 25 equally skille..."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."<br /><br />Did you never hear of Jin'do the PUGBreaker? Had more wipes than LFR DS by far.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"Look at individual players difference between 10 and 25."<br /><br />That is...exactly what I did? I looked at the person in the 100th spot for both raid sizes.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />"Stop trying to say that "I over geared it so it was easier" It is not a real argument."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The 25 man group still has to do 20% more DPS per person.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />'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?"<br /><br />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 ;)Balkothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12425374556730828853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9015737272343810105.post-53093606253574067862013-10-04T08:54:53.863-04:002013-10-04T08:54:53.863-04:00"Which is harder?
LFR or the Zul 5 man heroi..."Which is harder?<br /><br />LFR or the Zul 5 man heroics in Cataclysm?<br /><br />Hint: the latter."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Random makes things harder. Random with more people make it even harder.<br /><br />"What happened to the 15-20% more damage you automatically do in 25 man?"<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />"Because 10 man ICC was much easier than 25 man."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />2) I must have misunderstood what you said there.<br /><br />"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. "<br /><br />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.<br /><br />They were one of the best because no other guild wanted to to it that way. Which made them one of the best.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />So why don't you?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />Almost any guild could be world first if they had the time to invest in it. Even your guild. Maybe not mine however. :PTheGrumpyElfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07621615711198405365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9015737272343810105.post-25845167821832644982013-10-03T16:43:24.913-04:002013-10-03T16:43:24.913-04:00"1) Can't answer that over all because I ..."1) Can't answer that over all because I do not know."<br /><br />Do you think it was anywhere close to 72+ hours a week?<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />Did you even read what I wrote?<br /><br />I said:<br /><br /> 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"Good enough that if 10s and 25s where equal as they are now, they would have ranked a hell of a lot higher."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />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!<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />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.Balkothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12425374556730828853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9015737272343810105.post-87961690811894001292013-10-03T16:43:09.659-04:002013-10-03T16:43:09.659-04:00"You can not base raid scaling off 5 mans. Ju..."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."<br /><br />Which is harder?<br /><br />LFR or the Zul 5 man heroics in Cataclysm?<br /><br />Hint: the latter.<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />You barely do more DPS and 15-20% more DPS required in WotLK is not slight by any stretch of the imagination.<br /><br />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).<br /><br />10N: 244k<br />25N: 248k<br /><br />That 1.6% difference is really huge, right?<br /><br />Or let's look at the next fight, Dark Shaman:<br /><br />10N: 352k<br />25N: 348k<br /><br />Whoa, now the 25 man person did 1.2% LESS damage.<br /><br />Or how about Malkorok?<br /><br />10N: 249k<br />25N: 250k<br /><br />Weird.<br /><br />What happened to the 15-20% more damage you automatically do in 25 man?<br /><br />"So you are a top percent guild too. But you remained that from wrath to now. They were not in wrath but are now."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"Goes to show that in wrath, doing the 25s, or 10s with 25s gear, was easier."<br /><br />No, doing 25s with 25s gear was hardest, followed by 10s with 10s gear, followed by 10s with 25s fear.Balkothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12425374556730828853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9015737272343810105.post-4439733350772521562013-09-30T11:45:54.099-04:002013-09-30T11:45:54.099-04:00In the past I was able to solo heroic 5 man on rel...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.<br /><br />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. ;)<br /><br />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<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />So you are a top percent guild too. But you remained that from wrath to now. They were not in wrath but are now.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />1) Can't answer that over all because I do not know.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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".<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.TheGrumpyElfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07621615711198405365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9015737272343810105.post-51726308192363367192013-09-27T16:26:35.489-04:002013-09-27T16:26:35.489-04:00"Feel free to disagree, but any group that is..."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."<br /><br />Here's my guild: http://www.wowprogress.com/guild/us/greymane/Despotism<br /><br />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?<br /><br />Based on what you're saying, we're doing substantially better than the second best 10 man strict guild and on less hours.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />Let me ask you a few questions.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Your 10 man strict guild was nowhere remotely close to that in terms of time.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Except, of course, they WEREN'T -- partially because they simply didn't raid that much and partially because they weren't as dedicated.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?Balkothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12425374556730828853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9015737272343810105.post-56508270616287507792013-09-27T16:26:13.467-04:002013-09-27T16:26:13.467-04:00"You also need to remember they were made to ..."You also need to remember they were made to be massively easier than raids, so you can not compare."<br /><br />So what you're saying is that the 5 mans were deliberately tuned to be easier than the 10 and 25 mans?<br /><br />The same is true for 10 mans being deliberately tuned to be easier than 25 mans in Wrath.<br /><br />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.*<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />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?<br /><br />"1 Valk with 5 DPS is harder than 3 valks with 17 DPS.<br /><br />With 17 DPS you have more stuns, snares, slows, and more people to begin with. Not to mention more cooldowns, personal and group."<br /><br />You're completely missing the point and clearly never did it while it was relevant.<br /><br />With 1 Valk, you could go any way you wanted for Defile and you single targeted it.<br /><br />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).<br /><br />The fact you had 3 Valks completely changed the nature of the mechanic and it was MUCH harder on 25.<br /><br />Other mechanics CAN be harder on 10 man -- not in ICC, but they have happened -- but Valks were trivial on 10 man.<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />Besides Skull Banners (3 v 1) and maybe Stormlash, what else is there?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"How come in a 10 I do 235 on a boss and on the same boss in a 25 I do 275?"<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"Same amount of adds, more dispels, more interrupts, more everything. So it equals out the space to available options, in many cases."<br /><br />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<br /><br />Which is completely different from the situation in WotLK where 10 mans were designed and tuned to be much easier.Balkothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12425374556730828853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9015737272343810105.post-35663867081203633382013-09-24T14:32:03.464-04:002013-09-24T14:32:03.464-04:00From what little I can find the world first 10 str...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. <br /><br />The 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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />You can read into it what you want and I will read into it what I want of course.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />As you can guess, that is the angle I will argue.TheGrumpyElfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07621615711198405365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9015737272343810105.post-4616475663118392242013-09-24T08:49:38.610-04:002013-09-24T08:49:38.610-04:00The ICC 5 mans where harder than the raids, halls ...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.<br /><br />But 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />1 Valk with 5 DPS is harder than 3 valks with 17 DPS.<br /><br />With 17 DPS you have more stuns, snares, slows, and more people to begin with. Not to mention more cooldowns, personal and group.<br /><br />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)<br /><br />Just because you have more to deal with there does not mean it makes it harder. Harder to coordinate, yes, not harder to do.<br /><br />And don't forget the key there. More slows, snares, stuns, and more class stacking if you need more slows, snares, stuns.<br /><br />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". <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.TheGrumpyElfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07621615711198405365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9015737272343810105.post-27824334976526961452013-09-24T02:24:51.263-04:002013-09-24T02:24:51.263-04:00"But asking 100 heroic raiders if normal mode..."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."<br /><br />But 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?<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />That's...claiming absolute difficulty.<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />It doesn't when 25s require more out of each player.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Which is harder?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />See how that doesn't make sense?<br /><br />"I am talking about actually doing them when removing the human factor."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"Which do you think it is easier to lose a damage dealer in? Don't even think about saying 10s."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"Using your argument would mean that 40 man vanilla raids were the hardest content ever made and nothing will ever come close to it."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />Indeed. I eagerly await your results.Balkothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12425374556730828853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9015737272343810105.post-5705715100239585432013-09-20T08:04:12.111-04:002013-09-20T08:04:12.111-04:00Logic and numbers are what I follow. Numbers more...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.<br /><br />You 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.<br /><br />So asking on the forums, a forum filled with player that either are good or think they are good anything will have tainted results.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.TheGrumpyElfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07621615711198405365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9015737272343810105.post-4089101509681914342013-09-19T16:00:51.001-04:002013-09-19T16:00:51.001-04:00"It would be the same as going to the republi..."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."<br /><br />So 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?<br /><br />Sure, them simply saying "My candidate will totally win" is worthless, but what about people who have actual reasons?<br /><br />"But when you compare someone progressing in all 251 gear through 10s it was harder than someone progressing through 25s with 264 gear."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />"The basic idea was that instead of needing 25 man gear to clear 10s it would balance them so 10s would be easier.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />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?Balkothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12425374556730828853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9015737272343810105.post-72742760968650385882013-09-16T16:20:58.205-04:002013-09-16T16:20:58.205-04:00If you could poll them all and ask them, then yes,...If you could poll them all and ask them, then yes, I would believe that because that is actual data.<br /><br />But 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The basic idea was that instead of needing 25 man gear to clear 10s it would balance them so 10s would be easier.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />So if the "lesser content" required over gearing it, how exactly is that easier?<br /><br />The only things that 10s are always much easier with, hands down and no argument from me ever is coordinating and assembling.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.TheGrumpyElfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07621615711198405365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9015737272343810105.post-80096262900942284972013-09-16T13:44:49.986-04:002013-09-16T13:44:49.986-04:00"You can not do stuff like that in a 10."..."You can not do stuff like that in a 10."<br /><br />Except you could since the bosses hit like 30-40% weaker and required less tank mechanics.<br /><br />"The better players all do 25s because 25s are the easiest route to get to what they want"<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />So...er...what math are you referring to?Balkothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12425374556730828853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9015737272343810105.post-21283311011148014332013-09-16T07:15:10.434-04:002013-09-16T07:15:10.434-04:00The 25s were all pug people, usually in crap gear....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.<br /><br />Those 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. TheGrumpyElfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07621615711198405365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9015737272343810105.post-46305509366716567112013-09-14T01:14:39.422-04:002013-09-14T01:14:39.422-04:00"That alone is all the proof needed to show 1..."That alone is all the proof needed to show 10 was indeed harder."<br /><br />No, it isn't.<br /><br />For example, 25s have a selection bias. Because it was tougher, better people in general wanted to do them.<br /><br />That could be the reason your 25s went more smoothly.<br /><br />"You can not call actual experience "wrong" because actual experience is not opinion, it is how it was."<br /><br />How many people claim to have actual experience with visiting aliens? Or seeing Elvis? Or being visited by God/Allah/Buddha/etc?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Balkothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12425374556730828853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9015737272343810105.post-41777194082054197442013-09-11T07:19:20.445-04:002013-09-11T07:19:20.445-04:00You can say ICC 25 was harder than ICC 10 all you ...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.<br /><br />Maybe 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.TheGrumpyElfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07621615711198405365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9015737272343810105.post-85209405790837458192013-09-10T16:12:51.647-04:002013-09-10T16:12:51.647-04:00"That is why my opinion is what it is and I a..."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."<br /><br />Whether you think 10s or 25s are overall harder since the start of Cataclysm is sort of an opinion.<br /><br />But specific things are not an opinion. Certain fights ARE harder on 10. Certain fights ARE harder on 25. Those are facts. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Balkothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12425374556730828853noreply@blogger.com