I can't even begin to understand every aspect of the game in that, how different classes would scale with this tiers items. At which point of progression. Even though to anyone it should be noticable what classes are simply not there on f.ex. Paragon's HC kill. But it is clear to everyone, that there are pretty severe differences in the classes and because of that intermediate synergy between them regarding different raidsizes. In the end it can be quantified as huge oversight by Blizzard regarding game design.
We have 10 different classes at the moment, and a raidsize of 10 and 25. Now if you would go by the eyes of someone outside of this game, i would imagine the first thought would be "Oh, well thats handy, we'll just get one of each class and we can go". Well sure, you can go but it might not get you anywhere. With the hybrid classes those numbers actually end up going up to 15 or more, depending how much diversity you really want in your raid. Keeping in mind of just how many different classes, specs there is, what happens when you get new tier. I have absolutely no belief, that Blizzard has enough research to actually realise just how much certain class or a spec changes, with different gearsetups. And as anyone who has been playing this game for awhile, should remember that you don't get full tier sets or the like one raid. You get bits and bits, on a long long time schedule. Cause, that's after all how they are making their money.
While we can argue, that Blizzard can't do this and that, raidsizes are flawed in every tier. Shamans aren't upto bar again, apparently Finland is the only country where people learn to play their alts, etc list goes on. It would be more or less needed, to just know what criterias is Blizzard using to change the classes/encounters/raidsizes to the place that they have.
Keeping in mind, that the game can be in some way called a beta and that we're all just paying to particiate and give feedback for them to improve the game for us(i know its naive, but one can hope).
As for the debate itself, which is better which is harder. Coming from an officer in a casual guild, i've come across quite a lot of different people. And that is what in the end makes the game either difficult or hard, it's the people. What people can and can't learn, how fast they can learn it. And so forth. When the battleplan for Blizzard currently on how to diffrentiate different raidsizes, is to just tweak ability numbers. It's not going to balanced. There will always be something that is more difficult, something that is easier simply due the raidcompisitions and how different abilities work when there is less or more people. And only the ones who will actually do those encounters on both raidsizes with the SAME GEAR, will know what they are.
Experience is golden, and we should listen to the people who have it more than we have so far. Though, would be nice if Blizzard did aswell.
The 10-man vs 25-man debate
Re: The 10-man vs 25-man debate
25 Jul 2011 21:42
-
Sun_Tzu
- Posts: 12
Iots; There's an excellent reason why Blizzard keeps on re-iterating their mantra that you can't tell which classes are fundamentally broken based on a particular encounter, or a particular guilds comp on said encounter. A fight such as Ragnaros favours highly mobile classes with a bit of good aoe for particular points of the fight. These same classes were not at all disadvantaged on the two next-hardest encounters. Even a Shaman would have been brought(enhancement), for bloodlust as a replacement for the arcane mage, but Paragon hasn't really had Enhancement Shaman main for a while.
That being said, there are some general trends which can be deduced, which reflect both weaknesses of given classes and specs, and especially tendencies for current encounter design to not favour specific classes strengths. But this is largely outside of the current discussion.
That being said, there are some general trends which can be deduced, which reflect both weaknesses of given classes and specs, and especially tendencies for current encounter design to not favour specific classes strengths. But this is largely outside of the current discussion.
Re: The 10-man vs 25-man debate
25 Jul 2011 22:39
-
Fisu
- Posts: 1
Hey everyone!
I would just like to pose a small question or thought for the community about the wipe numbers you posted earlier. These wipe numbers vastly differ from 10 to 25 man Ragnaros heroic.
25 man 500 wipes.
10 man 32 wipes.
When you look at those numbers directly, you would get the assumption that the 25 man version is extremely hard, were as the 10 man version is close to a walkover. But in my opinion this is not even remotely correct, due to one issue: you killed the 25 man mode first.
In those 500 wipes you had on 25 man heroic mode, you were still learning the fight, learning the best setup, changing the setup and other small things. But when you went in and killed it on 10 man heroic mode, you knew what classes you needed to bring, to get the best possible setup, and most importantly, you had nothing new to learn about the fight (I do agree there are differences between a 10 and a 25 man heroic boss, but those differences are vast minorities for knowing the whole strategy in 25 man).
IF you on the other hand would have started with the 10 man heroic, I would assume you would have made tens (probably not hundreds) of wipes more if this was the case. Due to having to learn the fight.
We can also use a analogy here to simplify it a bit: Let's say after your 25 man normal mode kill of Ragnaros you had learned how to juggle 2 tennis balls in the air, and after your 25 man heroic kill you had mastered to juggle 5 tennis balls. Then you went in to the 10 man heroic Ragnaros, where you were given 5 golf balls to juggle, the learning curve from juggling 2 tennis balls to 5 tennis balls is vastly superior than only changing the type of the balls from tennis to golf balls, so you would assume in all logic, that the learning curve would be a lot shorter.
I'm not by any measure saying that the 10 man's would be harder than the 25 man's, my honest opinion is that the 25 man is harder due to multiple reasons: less space, more players to make a mistake, and the list could go on and on. Im just trying to clarify that the gap within the wipe counts are not even remotely correct for an even okey'ish comparison between the difficulties.
Congratulations again on both 25 and 10 man heroic Ragnaros kills!
/Fisu
I would just like to pose a small question or thought for the community about the wipe numbers you posted earlier. These wipe numbers vastly differ from 10 to 25 man Ragnaros heroic.
25 man 500 wipes.
10 man 32 wipes.
When you look at those numbers directly, you would get the assumption that the 25 man version is extremely hard, were as the 10 man version is close to a walkover. But in my opinion this is not even remotely correct, due to one issue: you killed the 25 man mode first.
In those 500 wipes you had on 25 man heroic mode, you were still learning the fight, learning the best setup, changing the setup and other small things. But when you went in and killed it on 10 man heroic mode, you knew what classes you needed to bring, to get the best possible setup, and most importantly, you had nothing new to learn about the fight (I do agree there are differences between a 10 and a 25 man heroic boss, but those differences are vast minorities for knowing the whole strategy in 25 man).
IF you on the other hand would have started with the 10 man heroic, I would assume you would have made tens (probably not hundreds) of wipes more if this was the case. Due to having to learn the fight.
We can also use a analogy here to simplify it a bit: Let's say after your 25 man normal mode kill of Ragnaros you had learned how to juggle 2 tennis balls in the air, and after your 25 man heroic kill you had mastered to juggle 5 tennis balls. Then you went in to the 10 man heroic Ragnaros, where you were given 5 golf balls to juggle, the learning curve from juggling 2 tennis balls to 5 tennis balls is vastly superior than only changing the type of the balls from tennis to golf balls, so you would assume in all logic, that the learning curve would be a lot shorter.
I'm not by any measure saying that the 10 man's would be harder than the 25 man's, my honest opinion is that the 25 man is harder due to multiple reasons: less space, more players to make a mistake, and the list could go on and on. Im just trying to clarify that the gap within the wipe counts are not even remotely correct for an even okey'ish comparison between the difficulties.
Congratulations again on both 25 and 10 man heroic Ragnaros kills!
/Fisu
Re: The 10-man vs 25-man debate
25 Jul 2011 23:04
-
Ashunera
- Posts: 1
I've obviously never posted here before, but would first like to say congratulations on a dominant run through Firelands.
I've been interested in this particular debate since before the launch of Cataclysm. My initial reaction when the two raid sizes becoming one was announced was "is Blizzard really so arrogant that they think they can balance two different raid settings to be equal in difficulty when they can't even remotely balance Fury, Fire, or either DPS Shaman specs in ICC?"
Perhaps that was an overly negative viewpoint, and since then I have went ahead and spent a great deal of time in both settings, on both normal and heroic, clearing the majority of tier 11 content on multiple characters. I'll preface my experiences by saying that to this day I haven't killed Sinestra or Ascendant Council on heroic. On my server (Anvilmar), as of the release of Firelands, there was only one 10-player guild that did. I am 4/7 heroic 25 on my new "main."
These are my more noteworthy characters, on US realms (Hunter and Death Knight haven't seen any action since Firelands).
Turiyaa @ Windrunner
Ashunera, Chicane, Lianara @ Anvilmar
I was one of the two raid leaders for my 25 man guild, Voracity, through tier 11 content while simultaneously leading a more casual 10 man group on my Hunter alt. My 25 man group was always several steps ahead, but eventually took a couple month break shortly after our Nefarian kill.
Normal mode content was easier on the 25 player setting with the exception of Chimaeron and Ascendant Council (both of which were notably more difficult). None of it was terribly difficult on either setting, but it was overall slightly easier on 25. I mean very slightly. The same is not true for the Heroic content I experienced. The two settings, had their own advantages and disadvantages, but a distinct "this is more difficult" overall based on all encounters combined wasn't possible. 10 player was always more punishing to mistakes, but those mistakes were typically harder to make simply due to having more space available to you. The difficult of each individual encounter, however, swung wildly based on each setting.
In neither setting did we ever "stack" the group in any way. In fact, our 25 player group was probably at a significant disadvantage due to having to run with five Shamans (3 Resto, 2 DPS) instead of the ideal one or zero. We never brought or attempted to gear alts (except for mine, when one of our tanks left the game.) Based on my experience as several specs of several classes, it's not possible to make a blanket statement about tier 11 being easier or harder on one setting or the other. It can be done for each boss individually (some cases were pretty extreme - Al'Akir) but overall, it can't be done. This is a big part of the problem, though. When you can't accurately compare the overall difficulty of a tier on each setting, you have to do it on an individual boss level, and as soon as "Realm First!" or overall world progression comes into play, you simply can't compare killing a boss like Al'Akir on 10 to killing it on 25... but you have little choice but to do so because it's the official stance.
I'm not going to argue against 10 and 25 player settings sharing loot. 25 player setting having more of it per person is a much more elegant design than 25 player gear being better. Ulduar, if I'm not mistaken, approached having the same number of pieces of gear as the entire Burning Crusade expansion's raid content did... which is a little too extreme. Achievements for killing a boss, also, can remain the "same" regardless of which setting it was done on, but what I would personally ask is that Realm First! achievements be separated, and also that each individual boss achievement notes which setting it was completed on (also noting if it was completed on both, if applicable, for no extra point value). Also, to keep everyone happy, a player or guild present in a Realm First! should be disqualified from the other setting's Realm First! for the same boss.
I suspect the only way this debate will ever die down is if the above is done. Blizzard should separate the realm firsts and cease claiming the two are balanced. They never will be.
As for Firelands.. is it easier on 10? I don't have the experience to say for heroic, but the normal mode versions of the encounters definitely strongly suggest 10 is easier to an extreme. Baleroc is the best example of extreme disparity, and all it takes is a quick glance at the average kill length on 10 and 25 heroic. The average 10 kill is 40 seconds faster than the average 25 kill. In a way, that's a good thing, how would a 10 player group deal with 30-40 seconds of Enrage time? They wouldn't. But completely removing that aspect of the encounter isn't the right answer either, and doing so makes the two unable to be compared for progression purposes... and that's not even taking into the account the fact that you only have one crystal to worry about.
Plain and simple, this is how most players need to look at it: If you are a 25 player group, you compare yourselves exclusively against other 25 player groups. If you are a 10, you compare exclusively against other 10s. If you are noxa or Hordlinge, comparing yourselves to Paragon or Premonition can't be done with any semblance of accuracy. If what you are interested in is to do the most difficult content, 25 player is going to be a safer bet. 10 player, while more random, simply does not require the same level of coordination and setup.
I've been interested in this particular debate since before the launch of Cataclysm. My initial reaction when the two raid sizes becoming one was announced was "is Blizzard really so arrogant that they think they can balance two different raid settings to be equal in difficulty when they can't even remotely balance Fury, Fire, or either DPS Shaman specs in ICC?"
Perhaps that was an overly negative viewpoint, and since then I have went ahead and spent a great deal of time in both settings, on both normal and heroic, clearing the majority of tier 11 content on multiple characters. I'll preface my experiences by saying that to this day I haven't killed Sinestra or Ascendant Council on heroic. On my server (Anvilmar), as of the release of Firelands, there was only one 10-player guild that did. I am 4/7 heroic 25 on my new "main."
These are my more noteworthy characters, on US realms (Hunter and Death Knight haven't seen any action since Firelands).
Turiyaa @ Windrunner
Ashunera, Chicane, Lianara @ Anvilmar
I was one of the two raid leaders for my 25 man guild, Voracity, through tier 11 content while simultaneously leading a more casual 10 man group on my Hunter alt. My 25 man group was always several steps ahead, but eventually took a couple month break shortly after our Nefarian kill.
Normal mode content was easier on the 25 player setting with the exception of Chimaeron and Ascendant Council (both of which were notably more difficult). None of it was terribly difficult on either setting, but it was overall slightly easier on 25. I mean very slightly. The same is not true for the Heroic content I experienced. The two settings, had their own advantages and disadvantages, but a distinct "this is more difficult" overall based on all encounters combined wasn't possible. 10 player was always more punishing to mistakes, but those mistakes were typically harder to make simply due to having more space available to you. The difficult of each individual encounter, however, swung wildly based on each setting.
In neither setting did we ever "stack" the group in any way. In fact, our 25 player group was probably at a significant disadvantage due to having to run with five Shamans (3 Resto, 2 DPS) instead of the ideal one or zero. We never brought or attempted to gear alts (except for mine, when one of our tanks left the game.) Based on my experience as several specs of several classes, it's not possible to make a blanket statement about tier 11 being easier or harder on one setting or the other. It can be done for each boss individually (some cases were pretty extreme - Al'Akir) but overall, it can't be done. This is a big part of the problem, though. When you can't accurately compare the overall difficulty of a tier on each setting, you have to do it on an individual boss level, and as soon as "Realm First!" or overall world progression comes into play, you simply can't compare killing a boss like Al'Akir on 10 to killing it on 25... but you have little choice but to do so because it's the official stance.
I'm not going to argue against 10 and 25 player settings sharing loot. 25 player setting having more of it per person is a much more elegant design than 25 player gear being better. Ulduar, if I'm not mistaken, approached having the same number of pieces of gear as the entire Burning Crusade expansion's raid content did... which is a little too extreme. Achievements for killing a boss, also, can remain the "same" regardless of which setting it was done on, but what I would personally ask is that Realm First! achievements be separated, and also that each individual boss achievement notes which setting it was completed on (also noting if it was completed on both, if applicable, for no extra point value). Also, to keep everyone happy, a player or guild present in a Realm First! should be disqualified from the other setting's Realm First! for the same boss.
I suspect the only way this debate will ever die down is if the above is done. Blizzard should separate the realm firsts and cease claiming the two are balanced. They never will be.
As for Firelands.. is it easier on 10? I don't have the experience to say for heroic, but the normal mode versions of the encounters definitely strongly suggest 10 is easier to an extreme. Baleroc is the best example of extreme disparity, and all it takes is a quick glance at the average kill length on 10 and 25 heroic. The average 10 kill is 40 seconds faster than the average 25 kill. In a way, that's a good thing, how would a 10 player group deal with 30-40 seconds of Enrage time? They wouldn't. But completely removing that aspect of the encounter isn't the right answer either, and doing so makes the two unable to be compared for progression purposes... and that's not even taking into the account the fact that you only have one crystal to worry about.
Plain and simple, this is how most players need to look at it: If you are a 25 player group, you compare yourselves exclusively against other 25 player groups. If you are a 10, you compare exclusively against other 10s. If you are noxa or Hordlinge, comparing yourselves to Paragon or Premonition can't be done with any semblance of accuracy. If what you are interested in is to do the most difficult content, 25 player is going to be a safer bet. 10 player, while more random, simply does not require the same level of coordination and setup.
Re: The 10-man vs 25-man debate
25 Jul 2011 23:58
-
arx
- Posts: 273
Fisu wrote:I would just like to pose a small question or thought for the community about the wipe numbers you posted earlier. These wipe numbers vastly differ from 10 to 25 man Ragnaros heroic.
...
Since it's bound to come up again, I'll answer this even if the answers are available elsewhere on the site.
Quoting zyn:
There's a lot of people on various forums and community sites nitpicking on the fact that our Ragnaros 25-man kill took 500+ wipes (an estimate), and the Ragnaros 10-man kill took 32 wipes. People were asking about it, we gave the numbers. There is nothing more to it. Do not read between the lines. This is nothing more but trivia. If you use it for any other purposes, you're very misguided.
Claiming that we could do it in 32 wipes or less, from scratch, with zero knowledge, would be stupid. It's not an easy encounter, even if we think it's easier than its 25 counterpart. A realistic figure would be somewhere around 100, and 100-150 would be a rather safe bet.
arx / xaar
Re: The 10-man vs 25-man debate
26 Jul 2011 01:27
-
Iots
- Posts: 2
Sun_Tzu, yeah realise that, one of the things most hate about blizzard but that'd be just too much energy wasted :)
It's somewhat late and all, but just reading Ashunera's post, the thought that came to my mind is that. The number of fights that we're easier in either raidsize. Were they the same procentage of the full amount of bosses for that tier of content (tier11 against tier12). If they just happen to randomly, or with just luck determine which fights are easier. Is it possible Blizzard has tried to adress the difficulties in raidsizes yet. Which should be easier with half the bosses in this tier than last.
It's somewhat late and all, but just reading Ashunera's post, the thought that came to my mind is that. The number of fights that we're easier in either raidsize. Were they the same procentage of the full amount of bosses for that tier of content (tier11 against tier12). If they just happen to randomly, or with just luck determine which fights are easier. Is it possible Blizzard has tried to adress the difficulties in raidsizes yet. Which should be easier with half the bosses in this tier than last.
Re: The 10-man vs 25-man debate
26 Jul 2011 01:38
-
Yertle4
- Posts: 4
To be fair, sacrificing a Paladin on the pull seems to be a successful tactic for Heroic Staghelm at any raid size :P
I really liked the article and didn't feel it was biased in regards the topic (the only bias was against people that find the early bosses challenging :) ). I would haved liked to hear more about the specific abilities differences that make things easier/harder on 10 vs 25 heroic modes (especially on the first 4, the last 3 are covered well) rather than just saying 'first 4 bosses are super easy, the last 3 have too low dps requirements'. Numbers can be hotfixed pretty easily, while encounter mechanics usually can't (or won't be).
As an example, the Initiates during phase 1 Alysrazor 25N will spam Fieroblasts until one cast is interrupted, when they will resume casting Brushfires. If your assigned interrupters are muppets, the damage will stack up quickly. In 10N, they will cast Fieroblast and then another Brushfire irrelevant of whether or not the Fieroblast was interrupted.
This is an example of the kind of balancing that occurs as a result of raid comp restrictions - 25man are expected to have at least 2 >10sec interrupts on each side, while that is not a fair expectation to have of 10 man.
Likewise, is it "balanced" to expect a 10 man raid to have access to Heroism/Bloodlust? What about raid-wide magic resist? Sunder stacks? Increased spell damage debuff? All these should be expected in 25 man compositions, but not always in 10 man comps. There is also the issue that raid-wide buffs/debuffs are relatively more effective (ie. scale better) when used on 25 people over 10.
I'd argue that for 10m heroic modes you should at least expect some form of Bloodlust and 80% of the raid buffs/debuffs available, but balancing specific fights around such assumptions is difficult.
My question is thus - if the numbers/dps requirements on Baleroc, Majordomo and Ragnaros were adjusted to be relatively comparable to 25 man, do you still feel 10 man would be easier?
I really liked the article and didn't feel it was biased in regards the topic (the only bias was against people that find the early bosses challenging :) ). I would haved liked to hear more about the specific abilities differences that make things easier/harder on 10 vs 25 heroic modes (especially on the first 4, the last 3 are covered well) rather than just saying 'first 4 bosses are super easy, the last 3 have too low dps requirements'. Numbers can be hotfixed pretty easily, while encounter mechanics usually can't (or won't be).
As an example, the Initiates during phase 1 Alysrazor 25N will spam Fieroblasts until one cast is interrupted, when they will resume casting Brushfires. If your assigned interrupters are muppets, the damage will stack up quickly. In 10N, they will cast Fieroblast and then another Brushfire irrelevant of whether or not the Fieroblast was interrupted.
This is an example of the kind of balancing that occurs as a result of raid comp restrictions - 25man are expected to have at least 2 >10sec interrupts on each side, while that is not a fair expectation to have of 10 man.
Likewise, is it "balanced" to expect a 10 man raid to have access to Heroism/Bloodlust? What about raid-wide magic resist? Sunder stacks? Increased spell damage debuff? All these should be expected in 25 man compositions, but not always in 10 man comps. There is also the issue that raid-wide buffs/debuffs are relatively more effective (ie. scale better) when used on 25 people over 10.
I'd argue that for 10m heroic modes you should at least expect some form of Bloodlust and 80% of the raid buffs/debuffs available, but balancing specific fights around such assumptions is difficult.
My question is thus - if the numbers/dps requirements on Baleroc, Majordomo and Ragnaros were adjusted to be relatively comparable to 25 man, do you still feel 10 man would be easier?
Re: The 10-man vs 25-man debate
26 Jul 2011 04:56
-
Sun_Tzu
- Posts: 12
I suppose I'll comment on the t11 10man vs. 25man difficulty a bit. I'm in a bit of an unique position, in that up until 9/13 HC, the group I was playing with was roughly world top20 for a 10man guild. I got a further 10/13 kill before switching over to a 25man guild, and finishing off the tier as 13/13 HC in a world top100 overall guild.
Bastion of Twilight
Halfus - Perhaps slightly harder on the healers in 10man in terms of mana early on. Discovery of atonement superiority made the fight rather simple on both sizes.
Valiona & Theralion - Quite specific requirements on both raid sizes, perhaps initially a tad harder on 10man. 2 Sub rogues made life a lot easier though.
Council - Frost orbs are a bit silly, same amount in each raid size seems off. Fight initially harder on 25man due to spacial requirements. Post fix, DPS requirements p3 perhaps slightly tighter on 10man?
Cho'Gal - Hardly easy on 25man, but for the longest time did not even seem doable on 10man. Perhaps slightly harder tuned on 10man, although can't say from own experience. Normal mode early kills rather requiring to drop down to 2 healers was a pretty obvious hint.
Sinestra - Again, don't have first hand experience, but at least post-fix, when it first started to actually become available, from what I've heard it wasn't very challenging on 10man. Not that it was extremely hard on 25man either.
Blackwing Descent
Omnitron - I don't personally regard this as very hard on either difficulty, even before any of the nerfs. A Shaman interrupter was highly recommended on 10man. Otherwise pretty standard.
Magmaw - Doesn't really stand out on either. Probably rather similar tuning on both difficulties.
Atramedes - Bugged. Then extremely easy on both raid sizes.
Chimaeron - Probably easier on 10man. Not hard on either.
Maloriak - Initial AoE requirements were a bit tight on 10man, although easily solved through raidstacking, had we had the ability to do so. I suspect much the same on 25man initially. Neither really stands out as hard.
Nefarian - Probably harder on the healers in 10man. Complaining about interrupters is a joke. Raidstacking probably more effective in 10man. Otherwise rather similar.
Throne of Four Winds
Conclave of Winds - Clearly more specific raid requirements and more taxing on the healers in 10man initially. Quite easy by comparison in 25man.
Al'Akir - Obviously harder in 25man, even post-25man nerf.
Overall, as I've said, mana felt really tight on 10man, and we had to adjust to that, where as it seemed our 25man counterparts were just happily spamming away lining up trinkets with Tide. Had the scaling of that single component been different, there wouldn't have been much of an argument for most 10man bosses being much harder. Some specific cases were a bit overtuned though, specifically Cho'gall/Nefa/V&T pre-nerfs.
Bastion of Twilight
Halfus - Perhaps slightly harder on the healers in 10man in terms of mana early on. Discovery of atonement superiority made the fight rather simple on both sizes.
Valiona & Theralion - Quite specific requirements on both raid sizes, perhaps initially a tad harder on 10man. 2 Sub rogues made life a lot easier though.
Council - Frost orbs are a bit silly, same amount in each raid size seems off. Fight initially harder on 25man due to spacial requirements. Post fix, DPS requirements p3 perhaps slightly tighter on 10man?
Cho'Gal - Hardly easy on 25man, but for the longest time did not even seem doable on 10man. Perhaps slightly harder tuned on 10man, although can't say from own experience. Normal mode early kills rather requiring to drop down to 2 healers was a pretty obvious hint.
Sinestra - Again, don't have first hand experience, but at least post-fix, when it first started to actually become available, from what I've heard it wasn't very challenging on 10man. Not that it was extremely hard on 25man either.
Blackwing Descent
Omnitron - I don't personally regard this as very hard on either difficulty, even before any of the nerfs. A Shaman interrupter was highly recommended on 10man. Otherwise pretty standard.
Magmaw - Doesn't really stand out on either. Probably rather similar tuning on both difficulties.
Atramedes - Bugged. Then extremely easy on both raid sizes.
Chimaeron - Probably easier on 10man. Not hard on either.
Maloriak - Initial AoE requirements were a bit tight on 10man, although easily solved through raidstacking, had we had the ability to do so. I suspect much the same on 25man initially. Neither really stands out as hard.
Nefarian - Probably harder on the healers in 10man. Complaining about interrupters is a joke. Raidstacking probably more effective in 10man. Otherwise rather similar.
Throne of Four Winds
Conclave of Winds - Clearly more specific raid requirements and more taxing on the healers in 10man initially. Quite easy by comparison in 25man.
Al'Akir - Obviously harder in 25man, even post-25man nerf.
Overall, as I've said, mana felt really tight on 10man, and we had to adjust to that, where as it seemed our 25man counterparts were just happily spamming away lining up trinkets with Tide. Had the scaling of that single component been different, there wouldn't have been much of an argument for most 10man bosses being much harder. Some specific cases were a bit overtuned though, specifically Cho'gall/Nefa/V&T pre-nerfs.
Re: The 10-man vs 25-man debate
26 Jul 2011 06:14
-
Sun_Tzu
- Posts: 12
Yertle4 wrote:Likewise, is it "balanced" to expect a 10 man raid to have access to Heroism/Bloodlust? What about raid-wide magic resist? Sunder stacks? Increased spell damage debuff? All these should be expected in 25 man compositions, but not always in 10 man comps. There is also the issue that raid-wide buffs/debuffs are relatively more effective (ie. scale better) when used on 25 people over 10.
I'd say it's balanced to expect a serious 10man guild to have 99% of all buffs 99% of the time. They may deem some not worth getting though, if particular encounter favours a particular approach, and the dps gain of bringing some utility buffer are less than the dps gain of bringing a for said encounter optimal class/spec.
I can understand that specific buffs may be annoying to get at times, but if you're going to be serious about raiding, you really should make sure you've got access to those specs that bring said buffs in the most elegant way. This may be in some cases rather strict, but so be it.
For example:
Tanks:
A serious 10man guild should always run Druid/Pala tanks, with a Warrior tank as back-up for fights which favour high tank mobility. For kiting, they should always have a DPS DK who's able to do the part.
Healers:
A serious 10man guild should probably have access to at least 1 Holy Paladin. Currently, they also should have access to a Resto Druid for most AoE healing and high mobility fights. They should also have a Priest who is extremely good at playing both specs. There should also be another Holydin+Resto Druid available to be switched in. The benefits of 2x priests aren't really there. A Shaman is mostly useless, but one should still be had in reserve if a future fight might play to it's strengths/the strengths of Spirit Link Totem (similarly to Cho'Gall Elephant healing).
I'm not prepared to say exactly what kind of DPS roster you'd need to play seriously. The obvious things to keep in mind for the alt-roster though are kiters/classes that can reset stacks/cc/interrupts/heavy aoe.
Re: The 10-man vs 25-man debate
26 Jul 2011 07:23
-
prossu
- Posts: 2
Sun_Tzu wrote:
I'd say it's balanced to expect a serious 10man guild to have 99% of all buffs 99% of the time. They may deem some not worth getting though, if particular encounter favours a particular approach, and the dps gain of bringing some utility buffer are less than the dps gain of bringing a for said encounter optimal class/spec.
I can understand that specific buffs may be annoying to get at times, but if you're going to be serious about raiding, you really should make sure you've got access to those specs that bring said buffs in the most elegant way. This may be in some cases rather strict, but so be it.
I'm not prepared to say exactly what kind of DPS roster you'd need to play seriously. The obvious things to keep in mind for the alt-roster though are kiters/classes that can reset stacks/cc/interrupts/heavy aoe.
I think it's not really that intresting to list all the DPS you need. The main point is that one can't expect to be a competitive raiding guild with 13 people without geared offspecs and alts for everyone. Lot of the 10man QQ seems to be about not being able to have a flexible raid composition. That's not a valid argument in my opinion, as if one would aspire to be one of the top guilds, they would simply have to recruit a roster that allows them to be flexible, either through having more people in the guild and swapping them in and out of the main raid, or having alts for everyone, or even several alts. This might require hard work and lot of raiding, but that's what's required at the top.
An encounter that can be made a lot easier with 3 boomkins or 2 sub rogues or 3 paladins or 3 disc priests, shouldn't be a problem. And these kind of encounters will keep coming, unless Blizzard completely nerfs 10man raiding, allowing any raid composition to kill bosses with ease. At that point there wouldn't be any serious competition to be had in 10man format anyway. Stacking certain classes is part of the raiding game, if you're not prepared to do that, don't expect to succeed.
Anyway, grats to Paragon, and thanks for an intresting article, and the discussion it sparked.