Hi, is there some documentary reasoning why Blizzard decided, back in the days, to have raids in TBC be 25-man instead of 20-man?
Making 40-man into two 20-man and four 10-man would make a much more logical change, allowing the guilds to continue with two raids groups. And there was already plenty of experience with both 10/20-man raids.
While making them 25-man pretty much kicked 15 members of guilds from raids, as you might rotate / bench five players a week, but 15 is just too much.
Breaking guilds, making people unsubscribe, players losing friends they played the Classic with as they go away (what is the point of paying for a game you cannot play).
What was the reasoning for that decision, why did they make it? The consequences must be apparent even back in the day…
Don’t think they had many people raiding back then either.
Simply due to the high amount of numbers (40) that you needed.
You had to regear the new people over and over, if you lost a member.
It’s probably an arbitrary number in between 10 and 40 that has some compelling characteristics from both. Like, still somewhat “big and epic” while having a more reasonable amount of people to organize. Though I doubt that guilds large enough that they did 40-mans had any issues adjusting to 25 as there reasonably would have been quite a lot of people on the bench.
On the other hand, the general player base has historically enjoyed 10-man raids the most. I think 10 strikes a nice mean between small and casual and large enough to require making it a more special occasion that often requires planning (less and less so over the course of an expansion) and a type of dedication that dungeons generally do not.
All your link does is provide players follow the path of least resistance, give 5 man “raids” with same loot as 10 man and youll see 5 man popularity surprise surprise… surge. Theres no data gathering needed there kekw. Youre still misinterpreting that people would somehow like 10 man raids when the real causation is about the path of least resistance theory. Pick up a book lad
In Cataclysm, the split on heroic 10 vs 25 was roughly 50/50 in regards to number of players killing the last boss in each raid instance despite having the same loot tables.
“In MoP however, 10- and 25-man hardcore raids started dropping the same loot, and the proportion of player rankings for 10-man substantially overtakes that of 25-man raids, with upwards of 70% of individual log rankings being for 10-man heroic bosses. Thus, especially when the loot is good, there appears to be significant demand for 10-man hardcore raiding content.”
Youre not answering my question, why did 25 man raiding get gapped in MoP then as they added same loots for same hc raid sizes? And btw:
You just kinda said that 10 and 25 man raiding was equally popular, sooooo… people prefer both and not 10 man? But werent you just saying that the data says people prefer 10 man?
People tend to prefer lower amount of people for raid groups, because it’s easier to maintain the raid size.
Bigger raid size = More recruiting/ more hassle.
Smaller raid size = Less people to recruit / Less conflicts etc.
You asked Bolanira for a source (indirectly) on the comment as to why people prefer 10 man raids and here you are yourself offering your own conjecture as to why people prefer 10 man raids. Do you have a source to back up the statement that I quoted from you?
In truth, there probably isn’t one reason as to why 10 man raids were more popular than 25 man raids, but the fact that they were cannot be disputed. No doubt you are partly right in that there are people who are playing for loot and would rather take the easiest route. But I think there’s room enough here for Bolanira to be correct as well, in that people may simply prefer the smaller raid size because of the size alone. Your antagonism is unnecessary and childish.
