“Forum presence and accountability” someone is taking this a tad too serious 
Lol crazy how your main is a 40 man bracket as well!!! But let’s not talk about that?
Hope you have this same energy in 3 months when the player base consist of less than 10k players.
You’re also actually running with 40 people and havn’t gotten past 79% on Lillian, so how are you able to say that Lillian’s lava damage is an “integral part” of the fight’s design? Im asking for the damage to be nerfed instead of it absoutly melting your raid.
Of course you don’t have an issue with the kicks on council when you bring double the amount of kicks for what the raid is balanced for.
You claim the one shot on beastmaster is a test of individual awareness? Your entire raid is hideing behind the fence which shouldn’t be how the fight works in the first place and should be changed.
Don’t defend the mechanics when you’re also cheeseing them to where they’re not deploying properly while also takeing literally 40 people into your raid.
Your whole post is made by chat gbt.
oh look
player count naturally declines after about three months of content, regardless of the game or expansion. This isn’t unique to Season of Discovery; it happens in Retail WoW, Classic, and even other major MMOs.
The initial surge of players is always highest in the first few weeks, but as people complete their goals, get their loot, or lose interest, the numbers drop off. That’s just the natural cycle of content release.
This trend doesn’t automatically mean the content is failing—it just reflects how player engagement shifts over time. What really matters is whether the core audience remains strong beyond that initial peak.
This was already discussed—this was Monday night pre-nerf! We raid on Monday nights and also stayed late past raid time to get extra pulls in.
Your argument assumes that high lava damage means the mechanic is poorly designed, but that’s not the case. The lava damage is an intended challenge that forces players to adjust movement, positioning, and awareness—it’s not just an arbitrary difficulty spike.
- High Damage Mechanics Are Part of Raid Design
- Environmental hazards like lava are designed to force coordination and proper execution, rather than being something to simply tank through.
- Reducing the damage removes the intended difficulty, which is meant to test how well players adapt to positioning-based mechanics.
- Progression Raids Require Adjustment Over Time
- Early weeks will see higher failure rates—this doesn’t mean it’s overtuned, it means players need more gear and refinement in mechanics.
- Many high-damage mechanics in past WoW raids have felt overwhelming at first, only to become more manageable with better execution and gear.
- Avoiding Mechanics Is Part of the Skill Factor
- If every lethal mechanic were toned down, there would be no meaningful challenge in raid encounters.
- Learning to mitigate or avoid the lava damage is part of the fight’s progression—not a flaw in its design.
Calling for lava damage nerfs just because it’s punishing ignores its purpose in raid design. Players are meant to adapt, strategize, and gear up, rather than expect instant adjustments to difficulty. The damage is not overtuned—it’s a deliberate challenge.
You only need 2 - 3 players to sit on the boss to do kicks Shaman tank 1 rogue and a back up kick and your good. Stop acting like the fights are super hard and complex when they’re not. We also killed council pre nerf!!!
So your arguing that proper positioning is wrong?
- Positioning Is a Core Part of Raid Strategy
- Many encounters in WoW involve using terrain or environmental elements to mitigate dangerous mechanics.
- Players adapting their positioning to avoid the one-shot is not an exploit—it’s smart play.
- The Fight Punishes Poor Individual Awareness
- The one-shot mechanic is meant to test awareness—players who fail to react instantly die, regardless of positioning.
- Hiding behind the fence only mitigates the risk but doesn’t remove the necessity of reaction time and awareness.
- If Blizzard Wanted to Remove the Fence Strategy, They Would Have
- Developers have patched unintended exploits before, meaning if this mechanic was truly broken, they would have fixed it.
- Since the fence remains functional, its use is part of the encounter’s strategic layer, not a bug.
Calling for mechanic changes simply because players use environmental positioning ignores the reality that WoW has always rewarded strategic execution. The one-shot mechanic still exists, and individual awareness is still required, regardless of how groups choose to mitigate risk.
Your falls apart because their own guild is also raiding in the 40-man format. Scarlet Enclave was designed for 40 players, and running full-size groups isn’t an exploit—it’s a strategic choice. If mechanics are failing, the issue is execution, not player count.
- Scarlet Enclave Is Designed for Up to 40 Players
- Blizzard intentionally set the raid cap at 40 players, meaning larger raid sizes aren’t “cheesing” mechanics—they are a designed option.
- Complaining about groups using the full player cap contradicts the intended raid flexibility.
- Their Own Guild Is Also Raiding in the 40-Man Bracket
- Criticizing others for running 40-man raids while their own guild does the same is hypocritical.
- If they truly believed large raids were exploitative, their guild wouldn’t be participating in that format.
- Mechanics Are Still Functional Even at Full Raid Size
- Bringing more players doesn’t “break” mechanics—it requires proper coordination and execution.
- If a group fails to handle mechanics, the issue isn’t raid size, it’s execution.
- Raid Size Doesn’t Override Strategy or Skill
- 40-man groups still require proper mechanical execution, DPS optimization, and coordination.
- If mechanics weren’t “deploying properly”, it would be addressed in Blizzard’s hotfixes—which hasn’t happened.
Not sure what chat GBT is but it sounds like your trying to throw a dismissive statement rather than a substantive rebuttal. Instead of addressing the actual points and data presented.
Ignoring the actual discussion while trying to undermine credibility just proves a lack of real counterarguments. If you want to disagree, You need to engage with facts—not baseless claims.
Has hot takes all over the forums
is shocked when people call out his hot takes and plays the victim card
It’s okay to be a contrarian, but don’t play the victim when you appear to be wrong.
Aggrend just tweeted that the target audience for the raid has cleared 5/8 this week and that they think the numbers look good right now. I expect they will hang back and see where the number line up before they make any more changes.
Check back with chat gbt, ive actually done bosses on 20
that’s interesting given that most guilds that are 5/8 run with 30 or so.
Anecdotally a lot of guild who run with 20-25 aren’t there yet.
You contradict your position on 40-man raiding. While you claim to have done bosses with 20 players, your major progression is still within the 40-man bracket, as seen in your parses. If you truly believed 40-man raiding was an issue, you wouldn’t be actively engaging in it for your own progression.
Criticizing 40-man raids while benefiting from them undermines your argument. If you’ve parsed in 40-man content, then dismissing that format as problematic comes across as selective rather than principled. You’re participating in the very system you critique, which weakens the credibility of your position.
wut
My main raids in a 20-man, but my Ret and my Priest both raid in groups around the size of 30.
Disliking something and benefiting from it isn’t hypocritical, its just smart. If anything, its hypocritical to benefit from something and then pretend it isn’t a problem while knowing deep down it is.
1 Like
Lol
Was I not clear?
Benefiting From Something While Criticizing It Is Hypocritical
If you truly believe larger raid sizes are problematic, why do you actively participate in them?
If it were such a major issue, avoiding that format entirely would align with your stance. Saying “it’s smart” to raid in a larger group while simultaneously calling it flawed contradicts your position.
Your Own Actions Show That Larger Raids Aren’t Unplayable
You’ve called 40-man raids problematic, yet you actively raid in 30-player groups, which still benefit from the same flexibility. If smaller raid sizes were the correct approach, why not commit to 20-man raiding exclusively?
Pretending Something Is a Problem While Using It Weakens Your Argument
You claim to “know deep down it’s a problem,” yet you continue to participate in it. That makes your stance selective rather than principled—if larger raids are truly flawed, why do you still engage in them for progression?
Final Point:
If 40-man raiding were fundamentally broken, you wouldn’t actively raid in that format. Disliking something while knowingly benefiting from it contradicts your argument and undermines your credibility.
This is actually textbook hypocrisy!!! By Definition.
It isn’t really. The criticism isn’t towards people running bigger raids, its at Blizzard for allowing larger raid sizes. It’s like criticizing Blizzard for world buff meta - you’re just a fool if you don’t use world buffs, but you can still dislike them.
It isn’t. Hypocrisy is condemning burglary while embezzling. This scenario is more akin to saying that laws that punish white collar theft are toothless while you are embezzling - if anything your actions only further validate/justify your beliefs.
30-mans stink because they let you get gear too easily while depriving players of the feeling of progression. Playing in 30-mans to get gear only validates that it is too highly encouraged.
1 Like
Below is a direct breakdown of how each of your points comes off as hypocritical:
- Criticizing Blizzard for Allowing Larger Raids While Using Them
- You say the problem lies with Blizzard for permitting larger raid sizes—but when you benefit from these benefits by raiding in 30‑ or 40‑man groups, you’re essentially supporting the very system you’re decrying. If you truly believed this design was fundamentally flawed, you wouldn’t be choosing to progress in it.
- Using the World Buff Meta Analogy
- You compare your stance to that of someone who dislikes world buffs but still uses them. The point you seem to make is that you can complain about a mechanic while taking advantage of it. However, if you truly see Blizzard’s design as problematic, then benefiting from it (just as you’re doing with larger raids) directly contradicts your criticism. In other words, using the same system you’re railing against simply confirms its effectiveness—even if you wish it were different.
- Claiming That Larger Raids Devalue Progression While Relying on Them
- You argue that 30‑man raids let players gear too easily and rob them of a sense of true progression. Yet by choosing to run these larger groups, you’re actively embracing the quick progression they offer. This directly undermines your point: if the system were truly broken or detrimental to the intended challenge, you’d opt for the smaller, more difficult setups instead.
- Selective Criticism and Inconsistency
- Your overall stance—that criticizing something while benefiting from it isn’t hypocritical—ignores the natural contradiction of your actions. By benefiting from a system you’ve declared flawed, your words lose credibility. If you really believe that larger raid sizes undercut proper gameplay or progression, abstaining from them would be the consistent choice. Instead, your continued participation just reinforces the functionality of the system you claim is problematic.
In summary, each time you condemn a design decision while still reaping its rewards, you introduce a clear inconsistency into your argument. These contradictions make it difficult to take your criticisms seriously—they come off as selective rather than principled.
I was trying to educate you, the human. ChatGPT doesn’t learn from mistakes, in fact it doesn’t even understand things, it just takes tokens and looks at how they compare to one another. I’m not really interested in interacting with you if you’re not even reading the words at all.
1 Like
lol he’s trolling everyone.
1 Like
It’s pretty amusing that you’re trying to “educate” me when your grasp on hypocrisy seems to be as off as your understanding of how language actually works. Let’s be clear: hypocrisy, by definition, is condemning a practice while secretly benefiting from it. If you truly understood what hypocrisy means, you wouldn’t be trying to lecture me while completely missing the point. Your attempt to teach me about learning and understanding only highlights the irony that you’re engaged in behavior that perfectly embodies the very hypocritical double standards you claim to despise.
Below i have supplied you with the Websters Dictionary definition of the world Hypocrite.
Webster definition of Hypocrite - a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
Now i will Supply you with your quotes that are defined.
However, you continue to run in raids that exceed 20 members, despite opposing such groups.
As someone participating in the very system I critique it would strengthen my credibility as I now have experience with both 20 man and 20+man in the content.
Plug that into ChatGBT and get back to me.
As quillbot says, your post im replying to is 70% AI. So at least you changed it up a bit at the start but the bottom half is 100% AI. You’re just a troll adding nothing to the conversation at this point.
Moral of the story is the raid is overtuned for the chips and “soda” experience blizzard has classifed sod raiding to be. They will hopefully continue to make adjustments off of our feedback, which is why im giving my feedback.
What is this?
???
While you argue that your experience in both 20-man and 20+‑man raids lends credibility to your critique, your own progress tells a different story. In your 20-man runs, you haven’t managed to progress as far as groups running full 40‑man raids. If the smaller group were just as viable, your performance should reflect comparable—or even better—progression. Instead, the evidence shows that the 40‑man format is crucial for optimal progression, which directly undercuts your criticism. Your experience, rather than strengthening your argument, only highlights that 20-man setups fall short compared to the full raid size you’ve also been participating in.
It’s interesting that you’re choosing to focus on the origin of my text rather than engaging with the substance of my arguments. The quality of the argument and the evidence presented is what truly matters.
Moreover, you have provided zero concrete proof that my text is 70% AI-generated. Your unfounded accusations amount to defamation and slander, which are not only unhelpful but also against the Blizzard forums’ Terms of Service and potentially actionable. By dismissing my points with baseless statements and derailing the discussion, you stray from addressing the actual issues raised.
Your argument that the raid is overtuned for a “chips and soda” experience overlooks a key point: the lead developer is actually pleased with the progress most guilds are making—many are already clearing 5 out of 8 bosses. That progress validates the current tuning; if further nerfs were necessary, we wouldn’t see such reliable advancement.
- Progress is Evident: The lead developer has expressed satisfaction with how guilds are progressing—many have already cleared 5 out of 8 bosses. This high level of achievement indicates that the current tuning is working as intended.
- No Need for Further Nerfs: If experienced groups are making strong progress, begging for additional nerfs isn’t necessary. The challenge and pacing are balanced to reward commitment and skill rather than spoon-feed success.
- Focus on Progressing: Rather than fixating on altering the mechanics, consider getting into the raid, refining your strategy, and earning the gear through proper progression. The system is designed to test and improve your execution, so meeting the challenge head-on is the best way to enjoy the content.
If you truly believe in the need for adjustments, your own progress in the raid should reflect that necessity—but the current numbers say otherwise.
with 30 or more honestly i can say most bosses are able to be done with a bit above avg parses on most of the group (blue + for most and even a few greens on a few others) as my guild has done 7/8 with such a setup.
dont know about the last one but i will say the lack of dr on shaman tanks is a bit hard on healers sometimes and other tanks can dodge or def cap quite a bit easier.
we will see on monday and ill make a post if we are able to down 8/8 .