Running wild through Azeroth from the perspective of a Protection warrior.
"I'm also disinclined to pay any heed to the point that nobody should be forced into doing two raids a week because, quite honestly, that's up to the player to decide; all this change did was rob the game of viable content (particularly for weekend PuG groups) and flare up continual arguments about 10's versus 25's."I keep seeing this. I really don't get it./oldgeezervoiceWhen *I* was hardcore raiding, we only had one raid size to choose from! It was 25 man for the serious raids! Or 10 man for some others! And the same was true in Vanilla except it was 40 and 20 instead!How is asking for separate 10 and 25 man lockouts different from asking for two 10 man or two 25 man lockouts?There is nothing inherently special about having two different raid size locks, the idea of two locks didn't even exist until WotLK.P.S. European forums : /
That's a really good point, actually. In all honesty, I think the change in WotLK was a good one because it was the single biggest contributor to rising raid numbers in the game's history (in my opinion, of course - it could be contested).As such, the two-lockout system worked in a way that allowed more serious raiders to play 25-man raids for better rewards, while 10-man groups could still see all the content but, admittedly, more casually. By "casual", I mean with easier encounters and easier administration. Yes, there were some anomalies such as Sartharion 3D, but this generally worked out.I think what you're implying is that a single raid lockout would be fine, assuming there was enough raid content to satisfy everyone; as in, why bother with seperate locks when there are enough bosses to kill anyway?There's value in that assessment, there really is.And honestly, I think the best system would be that each tier had a raft of content that catered to everyone - let's say three five-man dungeons, two 10-man raids and a 25-man raid. Personally?I'd be more than happy with that.
"I think what you're implying is that a single raid lockout would be fine, assuming there was enough raid content to satisfy everyone; as in, why bother with seperate locks when there are enough bosses to kill anyway?"Mostly, yes. There are three main factors regarding loot:1. How powerful it is (item level)2. How much drops from a boss3. How often you can get itFor example, let's look at a hypothetical 25 man raid that drops item level 500 gear. Let's also say it drops six items per boss and you can do it once per week. So if we assume the raid has 10 bosses, that's 60 items per week for the raid group of a given item level. 60 items per week is what Blizzard wants (2.4 items per raider).Therefore, if you "separate" (notice the quotes!) 10 and 25 man locks or flat out give two raid locks per week, you're going to get three items per 25 man boss.So the question is, are you happier with doing a raid once per week and getting 2.4 items per raider, or having to do the raid twice per week and getting 1.2 items per raider each time for the same total of 60?Because that 60 number will always stay the same. Remember how people thought 25 mans were dropping tons of items at the start of Cataclysm? It was due to the inability to ALSO run a 10 man and get gear from that. So Blizzard increased the drop rates of 25 man to compensate for the lack of 10 man gear.And then people complained they couldn't run both sizes for more loot.
I referenced your earlier post on the thread, would you mind if I quoted this onto the thread in its entirety? Obviously, I'll make sure you're properly credited for it. :)
Awesome! I think it's a wonderful point to put in and will potentially assuage a lot of concerns (which, when I think back, were quite legitimate during tier 11 - I recall far less looting complaints).That said, I've gone through the loot tables as they are for tier 14 and there are many, many options for gearing outside of the SINGLE drop for my favourite slot.My shield. >:(
I'm afraid you may have exceeded the functional limit of my fuzzy-brained attention span, but I'll try.
"As such, the two-lockout system worked in a way that allowed more serious raiders to play 25-man raids for better rewards, while 10-man groups could still see all the content but, admittedly, more casually"Possible, I guess, but my experience is that things worked the other way round. Casual raid guilds ran 25 man normal raids, and the more hardcore of their raiders could still do hard modes in 10 mans to satisfy their progression urges.Losing that flexibility is what killed casual raids in Cataclysm, because all their more hardcore raiders (and every raid has some raiders who are more hardcore than others) either left for progression 10 mans or quit. The dual raid lock meant that people could run progression raids with one team and friendly raids with another, if they wanted to.
Give it a stab, Hira, you’ll get there. :PAnd I actually commented about what you’re referencing on the thread, Spinks – on Kilrogg, anyway, the weekends were filled with PuG groups doing 25-man content while most did the 10-man in their guilds. All serious guild progression, however, happened in 25-man progression guilds which have taken an utter nosedive since 4.0. There was the 10-man-strict set up, but I’m not sure how seriously it was taken outside of that community. I think guild levels have contributed to that too, but that’s a whoooooooole other topic.
So, correct me if I'm wrong, but regarding the whole "10 v 25" thing it seems you're claiming you want the ability to run with two different groups in a given week and receive loot from both of them.Blizzard could simply halve the loot and give two raid lockouts. However, I suspect most people would run with the same group twice, which would also contribute to burnout faster.Blizzard could give separate 10 and 25 man lockouts and halve the loot. However, this would destroy serious 10 man guilds due to being unable to field 25 man raids for the added loot while 25 mans can easily field multiple 10s. This model "worked" in Wrath because 10 mans were explicitly designated as inferior to 25 mans. This is a "viable" solution if Blizzard is willing to kill serious 10 mans. It would be equivalent to 10 mans only dropping one item per boss. And you still have to run the same raid twice for the same amount of loot.Blizzard cannot do the LFR style lockouts because it would be incredibly abused.Hell, the whole reason raid lockouts exist isn't for the casual raiders. If you spend a few hours per week on a single night raiding with some friends on normal mode, you probably don't care about whether the raid resets every day or every week. But if you're a top world guild, you certainly do care. And you'll abuse the system to your advantage is possible, which is why Blizzard has to be careful and why they can't simply give two raid lockouts or separate 10 and 25 again without changing anything else.And again, the whole "10 v 25" is an arbitrary distinction introduced in Wrath. There is no inherent reason to have a 10 and 25 lockout versus two 10 man or two 25 man lockouts.
No, I was agreeing with you inasmuch as the shared lockout is perfectly fine assuming there are enough bosses and decent gearing options throughout a tier. If we were to take tier 11 as an example, but with properly tuned introductory bosses that didn't smash new raiders, it could have been spot on.In short, you convinced me. :P