Plus Heal |Site Info
of 8

Cataclysm Loot Distribution (10 and 25)

75 replies
I'm with Riprap on this. I'd much rather raid 25s than 10s, even if the rewards were exactly the same. However, the problem is that most people prefer to follow the path of least resistance, which means 10-mans in almost every respect. So players like myself who prefer 25s have to gather a larger number of players from a smaller raiding pool than 10-mans, while still factoring in things like scheduling conflicts, skill levels, additional organizational overhead, etc. With even fewer incentives to run 25s than what was stated in Nethaera's post quoted above, the concern is that many people won't think the additional effort required will be worth it and so the pool of available players becomes even smaller, to the point where it's worryingly possible that those of us who want to run 25s simply may not be able to find enough people to raid without having to make serious compromises (such as changing real life schedules to conform to the fewer available raiding opportunities).

On top of that, the organizational demands of 25s tend to be significantly higher. Rostering is a good example. In many 10-mans, you can get away with only having 10 regulars on the roster, and relatively easily fill in any holes via friends/guildies/PuGs. In 25s, you usually need to have a bench of subs to fill in for absent raiders because there are (on average) more holes to fill. If 1/5 of a 10-man raid doesn't show, that's just 2 people to replace. If 1/5th of a 25-man doesn't show, that's 5 spots to fill (which is an even harder feat to accomplish considering the diminished raiding pool mentioned above).

Looting overhead is another good example of differences in organizational effort required. In 10s, there are few enough people after any given drop that simple loot systems (such as /roll) can suffice, because raiders know that even if they lose the roll this time, they'll have a significantly better chance to get it next time. On the other hand, 25s tend to require more complex distribution systems, such as Loot Council or DKP, because there will still be a lot of people competing for that same drop the next time, so random distribution feels less fair. Even ignoring the differences between loot systems, don't forget that the 25s have 4 pieces of loot to sort out per boss compared to the 10-mans' 2—which means roughly twice the amount of time spent distributing it out after the boss is dead.
Lovella wrote:
If you get 105 points per boss in a 25 and 75 for a boss in 10 man then mathematically speaking it's a 40% increase in points per boss.

I hate being technical but, 40% is quite large if you think about it. Let's say a piece of gear cost 1500 valor points. You'd have to kill 20 bosses in 10 to get the points but only 15 bosses in 25 man. That's probably a week quicker with points.

Well if you want to be technical, that completely ignores the fact that there is a weekly cap on the number of Valor Points that can be earned per week, so realistically there will be little to no difference whatsoever between 10-man and 25-man raiders in the number of weeks it takes to purchase an item for Valor Points. :sick: From the Blizzard post on the topic (italics emphasis mine):
Bashiok wrote:
Valor Points -- High-tier, harder-to-get PvE points. Maximum cap to how many you can own, as well as a cap to how many you can earn per week. Earned from Dungeon Finder daily Heroic and from raids. (most like the current Emblem of Frost)

And raids aren't the only method by which Valor Points are earned. According to both the above quote from Bashiok and this post by Nethaera, one can also run the Cataclysm daily Heroic dungeon for Valor Points (75 points, to be exact).

So for the sake of example, let's assume that the weekly cap on Valor Points is 1050 points. That means that if there are only 10 bosses per raid tier, then a 25-man raider will be able to reach the cap purely by killing all 10 bosses at 105 points per boss. If a 10-man raider were to kill all the bosses, then they'd only get 750 points, ending up 300 points under the cap. But that doesn't mean that they'd never reach the cap, because they'd still have the option of running the daily Heroic dungeon for 75 Valor Points per day for 4 days, thereby netting them the 300 points they're short, capping them at the same 1050 as the 25-man dungeon runner. Plus, the 10s raider will get 75 Justice (not Valor) points for each heroic dungeon boss killed while running those dailies, and the added gold from the daily dungeon reward, money drops, vendor trash, and salable materials would probably make up for the additional gold dropped in the 25-man raids. Additionally, when factoring in the time differences for organization, learning and executing encounters, distributing loot (see looting overhead paragraph above), etc., the time expenditure for 25s would probably be fairly similar to running the raids on 10 and doing the 4 daily Heroic dungeons instead.
Posted Oct 21, 10
Riprap wrote:
I'm one of the people who really enjoys 25 man raiding... and I think 10 man raiding is boring and limited.

It's not the gear that you get. If you were a 10-man raider in Wrath, you got the highest level of gear from your raiding in Icecrown Citadel, just like the people doing 25-man raiding. It was only when you compared it to people doing 25's that your gear wasn't technically as good, but if what you did was 10man raiding... then that didn't matter.

What I like about 25's is that they have what feels to be a good size, that they have what feels to be a higher requirement of strategy. They're far less dependent on composition, and if you have two friends who play the same class and role, you're not agonized about leaving one out because there aren't enough raid spots. This was what I thought was a problem in the switch from 40's to 25's: there weren't enough raid spots for everyone to go. The 10-man (Karazhan) that came out at the same time showed how bad this problem was. How many raiding guilds did Karazhan destroy? I remember quite a few.

I also like that you can tailor raid assignments to players much more, and yes, even hide some players who are great to be around but might not be the bestest player ever. It gives people the opportunity to develop as well, since you can cover for them more. They also tend to have more hierarchical structure. Some people like that, others don't. I do, no matter what part of the hierarchy I'm in.

I would raid 25's if the loot items dropped per boss was the same as 10s. If it was 'raid 10s or nothing' then maybe I would raid 10s. But I think it would be a tremendous loss to the feel of the game.

Excuse me while I choke on the condescension. All I am asking for is that the raids drop the same loot in the same proportion with the same rewards. So 10's drop 2 items per boss 25's drop 5 items and the points are the same. Then we can all play with the same size groups that we prefer.

As to organisation you are perfectly correct it takes far more time and effort to set up a 25 man raid than a 10 man raid but this is not comparing like for like. My argument would be that for a guild it takes much more effort to set up two 10 man runs than one 25 man run thus making a guild that runs multiple 10 man teams lose out in the race to gear up.

All we are asking for is a level playing field and the end of the culture of the 25 man subsidy. I hardly think that your stated desire to be able to carry players or the fact that you like a strict heirarchical structure is enough to have blizzard give you 40% more points. If this is the case then there is an argument for saying that if 25 man raids get all of these subsidies for carrying people then they are indeed the 'short bus' of raiding as they are doing 10 man raids the favour of training up people for the 10 man raids of the future. :sick:
Posted Oct 21, 10 · OP
Maybe because of all the "condescencion" you imagined in my post, you didn't notice that I don't care if there's a 25-man subsidy or not. What I care about is people saying "Why don't they just get rid of 25's, cause 10's are easier."

Also, I'd argue that multiple 10-mans are easier to set up if the guild culture supports it than a single 25. I know plenty of guilds that run 3 or 4 10-mans, but barely scrape together a 25. Sure, if you're trying to do it top down (which is a poor way to do it), then you're going to have a lot of strife. But if you let each 10-man be autonomous, and let people commit to the run they want to go on, it's much easier to set up multiple 10s, because you still only need to have 10 people committed to the day and time.

I think there are a lot of people who prefer 25's, not because of some subsidy but because they enjoy the scope of 25-man raiding. And I think that it's short changing a lot of those people to say that the only reason that 25's could exist is because they get something extra. But I am completely against those who would argue "Get rid of 25's, cause 10's are 'easier'." There's a place for both.
Posted Oct 21, 10 · OP
At this point there is no reason to be upset about discussing a 25man "subsidy". Everything Blizzard has said, so far, recognizes the organizational and tactical differences that make organization and logistics of 25man tougher than 10man. Blizzard have said they will compensate 25man raiders for this loss of efficiency by increasing the efficiency of their gearing. Two aspects to Blizzard's suggested solution have been:

[*]More Justice/Valor points dropped in 25man.
[*]More gear drops per player in 25man.

I don't see it as 'whining' that players who enjoy 25man raiding want to see these things implemented. I, myself, want to raid 25man and I welcome a subsidy because it will lead to more people raiding 25man with me. This would expand my options, which are already constrained by a 2-night raiding schedule.

The increased point drops are already seen in the beta and likely to show up in release. The issues we're seeing with loot aren't that drops are not higher than 10man, it's that they're lower. I'm open to the argument that identical drop rates are acceptable when placed next to increased points, but points are capped each week and only save the 25man raider time in reaching that cap. So, while extra points save some time, they do not offset the 2/4 drop pattern. 2/5, 1/3, or 3/8 are the only drop patterns that make sense unless Blizzard has something else up their sleeves.
Posted Oct 21, 10 · OP
Riprap wrote:
"Why don't they just get rid of 25's, cause 10's are easier."

My point was not that 25s SHOULD be eliminated, only that I think the "epic feel" can be replicated in smaller group sizes if the smaller groups did not always out-gear the content. something that will get tested in T11 I suppose.

In my opinion there should be no incentives for 25s since that will still push people toward 25s even if they don't have a 25 man team of reliable good raiders. If you DO have a reliable team of 25 good raiders, then I would assume you will raid with them. If you do not, you will still be able to progress in tens while your recruit/guild hunt. there seem to be plenty of folks out there who are passionate about 25 man raiding so it should not be to difficult. I personally could care less about the size of the group, I just don't feel like it makes that much difference.

the bottom line is that the raid size should be determined by the number of players, not the quality or quantity of loot.
Posted Oct 21, 10 · OP
Well said Gryph; I was going to put a lengthy response in, but you summed up my position much more eloquently than I could. I think your observations are spot on.

I would also disagree that running multiple 10s is more difficult administratively, if only fromt the loot system perspective. In 25s, you have to have some kind of established loot distribution system (even if its only dictated that it's by /roll) simply because there is going to be more competition on each item by the inherent number of people involved (ie 3-5 people want one item). In a ten man, you may only have 1-2 people interested in each item, and it becomes much easier for it to be resoved casually. In my guild 10 mans, for example, we let the interested parties talk it out and have never had any real dispute over the outcomes. In 25s, however, there is always someone who disagrees with the way the system is set up (and we've tried 4-5 different ways, from loot council to DKP).
Posted Oct 21, 10 · OP
In a way, 10 mans are still going to out gear the content. You have to think, the exact mechanics of the fight cannot be the same. The tanks cannot tank as much damage as in 25s because healers would not be able to heal through it. Technically, you should be putting out the same number of HPS and DPS as you would on 25 (give or take a little) because there is no difference in the gear. Right now in beta (this is all what I've heard from a guild member, so take it for what its worth), in 25s, tanks are getting hit for around 117k in 25 mans and like 17k in 10 mans. What "epic" feeling is that? Granted, I'm sure they will fix part of it, but it still feels like the same gear dropping from 10/25 will either over gear 10m raiders or under gear 25m raiders.
Posted Oct 21, 10 · OP
tylerftc wrote:
In a way, 10 mans are still going to out gear the content. You have to think, the exact mechanics of the fight cannot be the same. The tanks cannot tank as much damage as in 25s because healers would not be able to heal through it. Technically, you should be putting out the same number of HPS and DPS as you would on 25 (give or take a little) because there is no difference in the gear. Right now in beta (this is all what I've heard from a guild member, so take it for what its worth), in 25s, tanks are getting hit for around 117k in 25 mans and like 17k in 10 mans. What "epic" feeling is that? Granted, I'm sure they will fix part of it, but it still feels like the same gear dropping from 10/25 will either over gear 10m raiders or under gear 25m raiders.

hmm, I suppose that could be an issue. I guess I could be accused of being very optimistic when I assume that they will be able to tune the 10 and 25 encounters to present the same difficulty. The numbers you presented above I would guess reflect a bit of beta madness but I will grant that blizz could fail to deliver on tuning. I would posit though, that the tuning problem could go either way, 10s OR 25s could end up being a joke for a given fight.
Posted Oct 21, 10 · OP
Is it bizarre that I feel that 10mans are actually more challenging than 25s? 25s might have increased encounter difficulty to match the larger number of players but I feel that they also have greater potential to muscle through encounters than 10s. In 10s you really can't carry anyone, there's very little forgiveness and even less room to rebound from huge mishaps. Even one or two people who are under-par has a direct impact on the raid's success.

I also admit that I've always been a little saddened by the fact that both Blizzard and the community treats 10s as the lesser cousin to 25s, and therefore it's players and their accomplishments aren't afforded as much respect either. I think each raid environment offers unique challenges and difficulties and I wish they were treated, and viewed, more equally.

I definitely agree with the person who said raid size should be a choice based on who you want to raid with (and how many) not what you get out of it.
Posted Oct 21, 10 · OP
I think that's partly because of the overgearing issue from 25 mans. Since people can gear up with the better stuff, it's easier to go into 10 mans and take them less seriously. But if you look at the 10 man strict guilds, there's a reason why it took awhile for them to kill LK 10. Because it's hard! I think alot of the notions about 10 mans being easier are about to go away, though, since the gear issue will not exist anymore.
Posted Oct 21, 10 · OP
of 8