I disagree. Yes, if you take random recruit X in a 40-man system or a 25-man system there's no reason to suppose a different probability of his remaining or leaving after a certain period of time. But if you now assume the antecedent condition that this person has been an officer and has sustained 80% raid attendance since day one of the guild's formation, the odds on his departure are quite different. And most 40-man groups do have a dedicated core of players who have been with them from the start. And those people are, I think, less likely to quit or move to other guilds than a random player.
There's are several relevant threads on this topic. I've been using the archives here to research people's opinions on what makes for and what takes away from a strong guild.
There was a general conclusion in this thread that one of the slow and painful ways to tear a guild apart is to have a dedicated core and then a whole bunch of fill-ins. Eventually the dedicated core get tired of carrying the fill-ins and start defecting to other places. Guilds end with a whimper, not a bang.
Ignie Ferroque translates from latin to "with fire & with sword." It is a stock phrase used to describe the results of a destructive raid into an enemy's territory, whose sole purpose is to generate fear, terror, and destruction.
The simplest solution for the "just big enough" guilds will just be to stop recruiting and let attrition take care of it.
Melador> Incidentally, these last few pages are why people hate lawyers.
Viator> I really don't want to go all Kalman here.
Bury> Just imagine what the world would be like if you used your powers for good.
If it's a smaller guild that's currently having problems building a consistent 40-man each week, then the question of "1 group or 2?" is moot to begin with.
Well, my point is that there are many guilds that have rosters of 60ish, but still only really have a 15-person core. A key question for any Naxx guild to ask is, "How many people who were at your last 'first kill' were also with you when you first killed Ragnaros?"
I think in a roundabout way we're saying the same thing.
Originally Posted by Lyta
I've been trying to concentrate on studying for my Proof Methods test tomorrow, and all I can think of is your hotness, radiating out from the pixels on my monitor, seared straight into my neurons.
The other officers and I talked about this lately and we think we'll, "trim the fat," when BC comes around.
I'm all for trimming fat and I'm the last one to suffer fools. At the same time, you've got to wonder what will all the "fat" end up doing. Pugging 10-man raids? Being content to do 5-mans? PvP? Wake up and start playing better?
Is the Fat just lazy? Not smart enough? Doesn't have enough time? I don't bother to ask these questions when I'm in a group with them as busy as I am not yelling at them. But you've got to wonder that if the number of raid leaders stays relatively the same as it is today, and all these people get cut, what are they going to end up doing?
Ignie Ferroque translates from latin to "with fire & with sword." It is a stock phrase used to describe the results of a destructive raid into an enemy's territory, whose sole purpose is to generate fear, terror, and destruction.
Reform new guilds of 25 and progress thru content slower. It already happens now, some people have been in a few guilds on their server, got kicked or left for various reasons, like grinding rank14 or not liking PvE. In the end tho they still want to do something ingame when they log and got bored of PvP, so they reform a new guild, with people they met while PvPing, maybe absorb a minor guild that's farming zg once a week, then form a new guild that will run thru mc and bwl while the raid guilds they left are on naxx.
Just look at your server, there's very few servers where there's not people still in mc or bwl. Not all of their members are new players, some have been playing since release. There's very few guilds that last a long time, most fall apart and reform with new people and fall apart again etc, sometimes they become stronger from these reformations, sometimes not.
As for the OT, I'm curious to see how good the 10mans will be. After all, if they plan to reduce high end raids from 40 to 25, they could very well add very hard 10man(karazhan?) with rewards equal to 25mans. So you could run the 2 on different days with 2 teams, and maybe even trade members to some extent, and that'd be 35active people per night. The 5last could be PvPing or farming one of the 150 new rep system. If you consider they're gonna follow their current "One raid instance at the top" system and not have multiple choices, sure the question is a valid one. However considering none of those raid instances are actually opened yet or no one saw anything of the 10man(besides sandboxed videos of empty stuff), it might just be worthless to think about it. Just like crying about the hunter ap nerf when the talents aren't even out yet ^^
we ran 2 BWL raids for quite awhile. I have trouble believing that any 25-man raid will be much harder to execute than BWL was, but we'll see. Personally I don't think there will ever be a 25-man instance that comes close to Naxxramas difficulty
For the sake of guilds large enough to field two raids I hope they revamp the raid id system. We've run two MC raids, two BWL and even two AQ40 raids before (each secondary was largely alts), but none of those are remotely the level of Naxx. I suppose it depends how complex these 25 man runs end up being, but I'm not looking forward to the "A team, B team" squabbles that will likely plague the majority of guilds surviving that far.
I think people tend to discount pretty quickly is that the game is going to be completely different come expansion. People are going to slow down on the end game instance grind because it is not going to be end game anymore. People are going to be working on leveling, exploring the new areas, moving off to do the new PVP ladder full time, possibly not wanting to level at all, there is just an infinite amount of possibilities that could happen with your guild before you reach the point in the expansion that you are ready to put together an end game group.
If Naxx is any indicator, the end game is going to require a ton of consumables, and a good majority of them will need to be farmed out of whatever the UBRS/Strath/Scholo instance will be at level 70. You probably are not going to just get to level 70 and start grinding away at endgame completely successfully. At least on my server we farmed the living crap out of stuff like UBRS to get our flasks/patterns/gear etc to prepare ourselves for Molten Core.
The 80 people you have in your guild now could be around 35 or so by the time you are ready to run endgame in the expansion. Then again you could come out of the level 70 grind and your guild now have 90 people .. who knows.
I say go into the expansion looking to just have some fun levelling and taking in everything. You spent the last year and a half grinding away the latest end game instance, sticking to a schedule ... this is the time you finally do not have to stick to that schedule. You can rediscover if you really do like the game or not, pick up some cool stuff, or maybe try a new character/class/faction. Once you all reach 70 and are ready to go do endgame work on it from there, no use making plans for things you aren't sure are going to turn out the way you planned. You don't want to make your hardcore elite guild of 30 people, then by the time you reach 70, 10 of them got bored at level 65 and gave up.
The other officers and I talked about this lately and we think we'll, "trim the fat," when BC comes around.
I'm all for trimming fat and I'm the last one to suffer fools. At the same time, you've got to wonder what will all the "fat" end up doing. Pugging 10-man raids? Being content to do 5-mans? PvP? Wake up and start playing better?
At the risk of bringing server drama here (sorry, but there's no way to go ancedotal otherwise - I'll try and stick to just the facts) but after the first and second place guilds merged, taking their respective raid leader's opinion of who the few, the proud, the 20-that-lug-others of both were, some time passes, server transfers open up, and that's the end of that. The 20-that-were-lugged formed up (at the time of the merger, just to get chronology right here), recruited, and are currently the top Horde dog on the server.
As relative benchmarks for progress, launch week - one (partial) week of Naxxramas attempts netting a best effort on Anub at 50% with 30 people (5 recruits). The current top dogs have gotten one boss in Naxx down, and in the last week are one boss behind where we were in AQ40 (Huhuran versus TwinEmps corpses)
Make of that what you will as an answer to your question.
On a less objective basis, I would vaguely state that personal observations play very much to the A team B team post from another thread situation occuring.
Everybody is your brother until the rent comes due.
Any opinions on 25-man guilds endorsing raiding alts or even dual main-hood? It seems apparent that in the smaller format, being able to stack your raid as needed via geared alts would provide an advantage. Not only allowing but encouraging your 'core' to maintain and raid gear an alt may become a more common practice to compensate for attendance fluctuations as well. I realize some guilds already do this, but with each slot counting for more in TBC, does anyone else see it becoming a more prevalent practice?
One raiding group with 40+ guild members might not be all that bad, at least to start with. There are going to be quite a few people that are going to want to see all the new 5 and 10 man stuff as well as grind to 70. So during the first couple months, there should be enough to keep people busy. Now eventually the exansion will get all as does all content, and then we'll be all about progression again. Perhaps the lvl 70 hard mode dungeons will stave this off a bit, but to be honest, until we see how long it is really going to take us to get to 70, and just how hard these new instances are gonna be, this is all theorycraft as best.
Duty is heavier than a mountain, Death is lighter than a feather.
Do we really even know how long the raid-lock will be on the 25 man dungeons? If we are very lucky, it will be more on the order of 3-4 days than 5 or 7 days, which would allow a guild to run two 25 mans a week, establishing a slightly different core for each run.
Thats dreaming though.
In reality, my guild (plus friends from very close guilds) run two simultaneous AQ20's on Mondays, and until we moved MC to Wed (to accomodate BWL on Friday), we ran two ZG's on Wednesday.
Our only issue there has been that when Raid1 or Raid2 lose a few folks due to connection issues or schedules during the night, we sometimes don't have a solid pool in the queue to draw from, but that is more a numbers issue than anything.
However, I'd like to avoid having to run two simultaneous raids, if possible - like the rest of you. Its a headache to split the guild into two raid locks and have both succeed, for sure.
The other officers and I talked about this lately and we think we'll, "trim the fat," when BC comes around.
I'm all for trimming fat and I'm the last one to suffer fools. At the same time, you've got to wonder what will all the "fat" end up doing. Pugging 10-man raids? Being content to do 5-mans? PvP? Wake up and start playing better?
Is the Fat just lazy? Not smart enough? Doesn't have enough time? I don't bother to ask these questions when I'm in a group with them as busy as I am not yelling at them. But you've got to wonder that if the number of raid leaders stays relatively the same as it is today, and all these people get cut, what are they going to end up doing?
Another problem i see with trimming the fat is what if the fat is the bulk of a class? An example is the mages in my guild are all shifty, and have around equal 60% attendance. Now if we took the "core," it'd consist of 5 warriors, 4 priests, 1 shaman, 4 druids, and 3 locks. Now the problem with this is, because of instance requirements, won't bringing in 5 warriors and 4 druids be detrimental to progress? It seems to me that blizzard is shooting for class balance so that there are atleast 2 of every class, but 5 warriors would mean we're cutting out some other classes that might be necessary. I guess only time will tell.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Xi6WsB8dZcE
Raiding music that gets things done.
The best Theorycraft and Mathcraft happens after a raid and before the sun comes up.
Now the problem with this is, because of instance requirements, won't bringing in 5 warriors and 4 druids be detrimental to progress? It seems to me that blizzard is shooting for class balance so that there are atleast 2 of every class, but 5 warriors would mean we're cutting out some other classes that might be necessary. I guess only time will tell.
Well, you could suggest that the solid people roll alts from other classes? In all honesty, it's what a lot of us in my guild have done over the past few months. We had no solid mages for a while, so a few hunters and priests rolled mage alts, druid alts, etc. and even though our alts aren't as well geared as our mains, it'll help balance things a bit. As much as I would love for my hunter to be the one I push to 60 first, we've got 6 actively raiding very solid hunters in the guild at the moment, and so I'm almost positive that it's going to be the druid that is "needed" at 70 first.
Still, the race to level 70 alone is going to change a lot of things: who buys the game, how fast they level, and who is still commited to endgame at level 70. I guess I'll see how it all falls out then and go from there.
Regarding having mismatched classes (like 5 warriors, 4 druids) will not be ideal, but it should still work out decently.
That is a great thing about the different talent specs, is a 41 prot warrior and a 41 arms warrior have different abilities that are both useful in their own right, and play differently. A 45 Shadowmage and a 45 Holy Priest play differently as well, so the specs help fill in a bit.
Unfortunality, since dungeon encounter design has not been leaked, it is hard to know how much you are hurt by not having 2 of each class. I hope the design is open enough that it will not matter that much.
Also, if you have dedicated people, it would be good to get some Pallys leveled up, so that will help break up having too many of one class.
Millions of words are written annually purporting to tell how to beat the races, whereas the best possible advice on the subject is found in the three monosyllables: 'Do not try.'
Unfortunality, since dungeon encounter design has not been leaked, it is hard to know how much you are hurt by not having 2 of each class. I hope the design is open enough that it will not matter that much.
The danger there is that if you make an encounter where it really doesn't matter what class balance you bring, then bringing the "ideal" class mix will trivialize it. You need to set the bar higher so that even with the "ideal" class mix the encounter is hard - which tends to make non-ideal class mixes nigh on impossible.
Unfortunality, since dungeon encounter design has not been leaked, it is hard to know how much you are hurt by not having 2 of each class. I hope the design is open enough that it will not matter that much.
The danger there is that if you make an encounter where it really doesn't matter what class balance you bring, then bringing the "ideal" class mix will trivialize it. You need to set the bar higher so that even with the "ideal" class mix the encounter is hard - which tends to make non-ideal class mixes nigh on impossible.
This is along the lines of what I was thinking. Blizzard wouldn't have given horde, paladins if they didn't make encounters that were custom tailored to class requirements. If most instances were flexible in terms of class choice, then eliminating faction specific classes would be pointless.
Right now I see it 100% necessary for 2 paladins, a priest, a warlock, 2 hunters (all tranq rotations seem to require 2 hunters), and a warrior. That leaves 18 slots open to debate. After examining talents, it seems you can pretty much ditch shaman and rogues all together because the sustained dps from warlocks/mages seems like it'll be sky high. But who knows.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Xi6WsB8dZcE
Raiding music that gets things done.
The best Theorycraft and Mathcraft happens after a raid and before the sun comes up.
Abandon Shaman and Rogues?
Shaman can have instant heals, can really buff melee dps if they are melee speced, and have a totem that buffs spell damage. Not to mention Bloodlust/Heroism for a nice burst dps encounters.
Rogue's 30-41 talents are still being worked on, but I think a Rogue with the proper talents can beat Mage/Lock dps levels (since they can deadly poison and use rupture) and have superior aggro control. Also a Rogue currently can daze a target, which helps fire mages/warriors dps. Not to mention utility from stuns/kick.
Every class is useful, but I still hope they will not be necessary, but it seems that will not be the case.
Millions of words are written annually purporting to tell how to beat the races, whereas the best possible advice on the subject is found in the three monosyllables: 'Do not try.'
1. Guilds will try to run 2 rosters
2. Many of those guilds will fail
3. There will be a lot of drama
I think the guy from Goon Squad had it right in the last thread about this issue. It is most certainly possible to run multiple teams, but if you are not the top guild on your server and/or have been together for a very long time I do not think most mutli-raid setups will last. The top Horde guild on Tich used to run an A and a B team and despite the fact that their B team was still better than most A teams the arrangement did not last.
However, there will be so much drama and turmoil anyway due to different leveling speeds, people rerolling etc that this is just another drop in the bucket.
It probably shouldn't surprise me that the first applications of one of the coolest creature designers ever made is going to be cockmonsters and titwalkers.
Originally Posted by Zyla
I mean christ, cunnilingus is much like being a resto shaman, you spam the button and let it do the work. So long as you change targets as appropriate you don't need to put any thought into it.
They require 2, the third is just there to cover miss/fail.
edit: Flamegor does, I assume Gluth is also a 10s frenzy.
Melador> Incidentally, these last few pages are why people hate lawyers.
Viator> I really don't want to go all Kalman here.
Bury> Just imagine what the world would be like if you used your powers for good.
I don't imagine many western-minded people are considering this route. Having multiple raids is almost inconsistent with the individual-centric nature of competition this side of the pacific. EJ is one of the few guilds who can pull this off without egos getting in the way.
well, there you go :). make it 17 spots left open to be spread around the "Unmandatory" classes.
In my opinion, what is going to really hurt guilds though, who try to make 2 raid groups, is the lack of drops. An example is, my guild seems to have some of the lowest wrath drop rates imagineable. In 2-3 months of clearing, we've gotten maybe 4-5 pieces of wrath. That leaves most tanks undergeared which will prevent two successful raid groups from forming. If there are only 2-3 geared tanks, then they will be placed on team A, while team B gets the shaft. The same thing can happen to healers depending on how much stormrage/efury/xdence you get.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Xi6WsB8dZcE
Raiding music that gets things done.
The best Theorycraft and Mathcraft happens after a raid and before the sun comes up.
EJ is one of the few guilds who can pull this off without egos getting in the way.
Theyll come up and get in the way, but they won't jeapordize the guild. Another advantage EJ has is a lot of people like me who raid inconsistantly at different times each week so there will be some sort of set schedule for multiple instances, but who goes on which run will be shaken up a lot once we have the content beaten with just 1 instance. That was my experience when we did this with 40 mans and the smaller raid size just means we wont have to be scrambling for attendance for whichever run happens later in the week.
well, there you go :). make it 17 spots left open to be spread around the "Unmandatory" classes.
Or, Blizzard could just not use any 10s frenzy mobs - 20+s frenzy mobs "require" 1 and are typically well-served by 2 (one to shoot, one to cover miss/fail). Just like it's a safe bet there won't be a 4H fight (since there likely won't be 8 tanks per raid) or a Garr (not enough banishes/tanks to cover it in 25 people without stacking), there's no real reason to believe that Blizzard is dumb enough to make fights strictly require 2+ hunters when there are only 25 people per raid.
Melador> Incidentally, these last few pages are why people hate lawyers.
Viator> I really don't want to go all Kalman here.
Bury> Just imagine what the world would be like if you used your powers for good.
09/12/06, 11:09 AM
Similar Threads
