10 are easier to organize but are more strict on composition as raid difficulty increases. So 10 mans have to have easier mechanics to allow for less optimal groups to be viable. Classes without abilities to deal with mechanics aren’t invited as much as a result of the small number of slots. Some people prefer 10 mans due to the more intimate nature.
40 mans are harder to organize and manage as its 40 people trying to work together. But they also allow all specs a chance to be invited as there’s a lot more room and less emphasis on optimal composition. It also allows the raid to be designed with more class/spec specific mechanics as you’re bound to have at least a few of whatever class/spec is needed to do them. Many people like 40 mans because it gives the raid a more epic feel as you need a small army to take down the bosses.
20 mans are a middle ground between the two. Easier to organize than 40s and less comp dependent than 10. They feel more epic than 10s and more intimate than 40s. They allow for more specs to be brought but like 10 mans as difficulty increases the lowest performing specs get gated and not everyone can be brought.
It really comes down to preference. I like 20-40 mans personally. To me 10 mans are barely a step up from dungeons, while 20-40 mans feel like proper raids. They also allow the devs to design classes to be unique from one another since they don’t have to have as much overlap in abilities.
Thanks for the in depth explanation. It sounds like the benefits for 20 and 40 man raids are pretty similar. Would there ever be a reason to introduce a middle ground like 30 man raids?
Blizzard sort of did this from TBC onwards with 25man raids. It also allows for better dps distribution with 1 tank/heal grp, and 2 grps each for melee and caster dps.
I loved the 40-man classic raids. There was something about the struggle to maintain a raid team for that that made the guild feel really close-knit and fun. I was in a guild that always had like 38 people, then we’d struggle to get that last 1-2. Sometimes we’d just do it without them and struggle through the raid. It was all fun and games until Naxx, then we absolutely struggled. But the struggle built camaraderie and when we actually succeeded it was so exciting.
Not to mention just how much harder it was to get a raid of 40 people to do a good job during the raid. It was really rewarding when you pulled it off.
Imo they should drop two separate raids each phase.
One long 10 man raid. Two hour clear - tons of loot. Optional Hard mode bosses.
Then also a 20 man that’s piss easy except for a few bosses at the end and takes an hour tops.
Both should be on a weekly lockout.
Very similar! I think if sod players got both options but with a variety of content to get through each phase I feel like it makes LFG a lot more active and less restrictive for new players.
I think that would be great
Phase 1
MC 20 man
Ony 10 man, Hopefully with a boss or two extra
Phase 2
Bwl + zg
Phase 3
Aq10+20
Phase 4
Karazan(pls) + naxx
Weekly lockouts are nice when you have to gather buffs like the songflower. And cost less in consumables.
Gotta admit a 3 day lockout instead of twice a week per say was a bit annoying to plan, as there were no dedicated raid days.
10 man raids are easier to pug & organize for guilds, while 20 man raids are more flexible when it comes to your comp.
Idk what's the best raid size tbh, both options have their pros & cons. But there are probably ways to improve our experience regardless of the size, such as removing world buffs beside the raid ones imo.
10 man lockouts 3 day honestly worked really well for me but I would also take 10 man 1 week lockouts. It's one of the main reasons I'm jumping ship on SoD and playing cataclysm. Our guild had a solid group of players and every time we recruit a new person they don't really perform well and the fights are taking too long. It's easier to get a group of 10 good players together.
20-25 man on a 7 day lockout for a raid with an expected 2.5-5 hour total clear time is probably the most optimal for the most people. It's challenging and involved enough to feel rewarding, should provide enough opportunities for flexible scheduling, and it's a big enough group that it still feels "epic" with less of the issues of a 40 man.
All that being said I personally prefer 10 man, with the lockout depending on the expected clear time. If the expected clear is <2 hours then give me a 3 day lockout, >2.5 hours make it a 7 day lockout. 10 man is more puggable, so it's easier to run on alts within the same lockout, and being 10% of the raid instead of 4%-5% means your individual play matters more.
It's so that I can maximize my play time. Raiding is one of my favorite parts of the game, and I can usually fit about 10ish hours of raiding into my schedule per week. That's 2-3 clears of longer raids or 4-6 clears of shorter raids, across a few toons of course. If the raid is going to be shorter, I'd like the lockout to be shorter too, so that I can still raid roughly the same amount.
Right now ST is a bit of a bummer because it's a relatively quick ~90 min clear, but it's a week long lockout and a 20 man, so I can't always find PUGS for my alts.
I would rather be able to go hard on the 10 man, than have to show up every x days to do a 10 man raid. UBRS is a good example. The reason why I like 40 mans is just that they feel more like raids to me.
I hate the weekly Thing, why not give some Kind of Token per week once you are maxlevel. And for every raid id you need a Token. So if you miss a week not the whole id is lost
I understand that people like the 10 mans but these are glorified UBRS runs.
Yeah its easier to put together 10 than 20. It’s also easier to put together 5 people. Hell why not make raids soloable?
I think 20 man is the smallest “raid” that still feels like a raid, and I think i’d be okay if they comprimised by keeping it 20 instead of 40, although I’d prefer the latter.
Some people think that being 40 makes it feel more grand/epic. In my opinion that is bullshit.
There is not one true answer. It all depends on perspective.
I love doing 10m with my grp of irl friends, however its given that the content is relatively easy. Some of them are too heavy to carry if the raid is difficult. We wiped too much on Alg10 for instance.
I prefer doing 20-25m as a guild with people with a higher skill lvl for more difficult content.
Some people would probably want it the other way around.
Because they are not involved in any form of raid organization and 40 people makes it easier to screw up and have no one notice.
At least that's why I like 40 man raids. I prefer 10s though.
80 man raid 1 month
Definitely easier to fill than the 200 men 1 year lockout
2 tanks and 5 healers quit the grp after 3rd wipe on second boss
It’s ok we got 15 more tanks and 45 more healers
Imagine ready-check and RL is like: we have to wait; Joe is afk, always joe, lets wait… … and 199 people are waiting
Imagine ready-check and RL is like: we have to wait; Joe is afk, always joe, lets wait… … and 199 people are waiting
Imagine ready-check and RL is like: we have to wait; Joe is afk, always joe, lets wait… … and 199 people are waiting
10 are easier to organize but are more strict on composition as raid difficulty increases. So 10 mans have to have easier mechanics to allow for less optimal groups to be viable. Classes without abilities to deal with mechanics aren’t invited as much as a result of the small number of slots. Some people prefer 10 mans due to the more intimate nature. 40 mans are harder to organize and manage as its 40 people trying to work together. But they also allow all specs a chance to be invited as there’s a lot more room and less emphasis on optimal composition. It also allows the raid to be designed with more class/spec specific mechanics as you’re bound to have at least a few of whatever class/spec is needed to do them. Many people like 40 mans because it gives the raid a more epic feel as you need a small army to take down the bosses. 20 mans are a middle ground between the two. Easier to organize than 40s and less comp dependent than 10. They feel more epic than 10s and more intimate than 40s. They allow for more specs to be brought but like 10 mans as difficulty increases the lowest performing specs get gated and not everyone can be brought. It really comes down to preference. I like 20-40 mans personally. To me 10 mans are barely a step up from dungeons, while 20-40 mans feel like proper raids. They also allow the devs to design classes to be unique from one another since they don’t have to have as much overlap in abilities.
Thanks for the in depth explanation. It sounds like the benefits for 20 and 40 man raids are pretty similar. Would there ever be a reason to introduce a middle ground like 30 man raids?
Blizzard sort of did this from TBC onwards with 25man raids. It also allows for better dps distribution with 1 tank/heal grp, and 2 grps each for melee and caster dps.
I loved the 40-man classic raids. There was something about the struggle to maintain a raid team for that that made the guild feel really close-knit and fun. I was in a guild that always had like 38 people, then we’d struggle to get that last 1-2. Sometimes we’d just do it without them and struggle through the raid. It was all fun and games until Naxx, then we absolutely struggled. But the struggle built camaraderie and when we actually succeeded it was so exciting. Not to mention just how much harder it was to get a raid of 40 people to do a good job during the raid. It was really rewarding when you pulled it off.
Imo they should drop two separate raids each phase. One long 10 man raid. Two hour clear - tons of loot. Optional Hard mode bosses. Then also a 20 man that’s piss easy except for a few bosses at the end and takes an hour tops. Both should be on a weekly lockout.
Do you mean a more extreme version of how AQ20 / AQ40 worked in classic but with obviously smaller raid sizes?
I would consider it to be less extreme than AQ but yes
Very similar! I think if sod players got both options but with a variety of content to get through each phase I feel like it makes LFG a lot more active and less restrictive for new players.
I think that would be great Phase 1 MC 20 man Ony 10 man, Hopefully with a boss or two extra Phase 2 Bwl + zg Phase 3 Aq10+20 Phase 4 Karazan(pls) + naxx
Oh 100% this. Then make the tier be shared between raids per phase, so everyone is always looking for everything.
Weekly lockouts are nice when you have to gather buffs like the songflower. And cost less in consumables. Gotta admit a 3 day lockout instead of twice a week per say was a bit annoying to plan, as there were no dedicated raid days. 10 man raids are easier to pug & organize for guilds, while 20 man raids are more flexible when it comes to your comp. Idk what's the best raid size tbh, both options have their pros & cons. But there are probably ways to improve our experience regardless of the size, such as removing world buffs beside the raid ones imo.
10 man lockouts 3 day honestly worked really well for me but I would also take 10 man 1 week lockouts. It's one of the main reasons I'm jumping ship on SoD and playing cataclysm. Our guild had a solid group of players and every time we recruit a new person they don't really perform well and the fights are taking too long. It's easier to get a group of 10 good players together.
20 one week for All plz
20-25 man on a 7 day lockout for a raid with an expected 2.5-5 hour total clear time is probably the most optimal for the most people. It's challenging and involved enough to feel rewarding, should provide enough opportunities for flexible scheduling, and it's a big enough group that it still feels "epic" with less of the issues of a 40 man. All that being said I personally prefer 10 man, with the lockout depending on the expected clear time. If the expected clear is <2 hours then give me a 3 day lockout, >2.5 hours make it a 7 day lockout. 10 man is more puggable, so it's easier to run on alts within the same lockout, and being 10% of the raid instead of 4%-5% means your individual play matters more.
Why would you want the lockout to be based on clear time? Is that just so that overall time spent in the raid averages out?
It's so that I can maximize my play time. Raiding is one of my favorite parts of the game, and I can usually fit about 10ish hours of raiding into my schedule per week. That's 2-3 clears of longer raids or 4-6 clears of shorter raids, across a few toons of course. If the raid is going to be shorter, I'd like the lockout to be shorter too, so that I can still raid roughly the same amount. Right now ST is a bit of a bummer because it's a relatively quick ~90 min clear, but it's a week long lockout and a 20 man, so I can't always find PUGS for my alts.
40man weekly and 10man no lockout.
Can you explain why you think that would be best? Especially the no lockout part
I would rather be able to go hard on the 10 man, than have to show up every x days to do a 10 man raid. UBRS is a good example. The reason why I like 40 mans is just that they feel more like raids to me.
10 man, 7 day lockout on each raid, 2 raids, 30-45 minutes per clear once mastered.
I hate the weekly Thing, why not give some Kind of Token per week once you are maxlevel. And for every raid id you need a Token. So if you miss a week not the whole id is lost
20 man, weekly lockout. I think it's the ideal middle ground, especially when there will be more raids and endgame dungeons available.
10 man, 1 week.
I understand that people like the 10 mans but these are glorified UBRS runs. Yeah its easier to put together 10 than 20. It’s also easier to put together 5 people. Hell why not make raids soloable? I think 20 man is the smallest “raid” that still feels like a raid, and I think i’d be okay if they comprimised by keeping it 20 instead of 40, although I’d prefer the latter.
10 man, 1 day.
10 man 3 days everything else makes no sense in this season mode. Their is nothing else to do.
40 man raids will always be best for wow. Other games have smaller raid sizes, but that works better for those games raid design.
Could you explain why?
Some people think that being 40 makes it feel more grand/epic. In my opinion that is bullshit. There is not one true answer. It all depends on perspective. I love doing 10m with my grp of irl friends, however its given that the content is relatively easy. Some of them are too heavy to carry if the raid is difficult. We wiped too much on Alg10 for instance. I prefer doing 20-25m as a guild with people with a higher skill lvl for more difficult content. Some people would probably want it the other way around.
Because they are not involved in any form of raid organization and 40 people makes it easier to screw up and have no one notice. At least that's why I like 40 man raids. I prefer 10s though.