An important counter argument to my statements above needs to be made.
For the hardcore raider, the content may appear less difficult even though such content is in fact equally challenging or even more challenging.
The cause of this is that in any group the players can be rank ordered by their level of contribution to the whole (a function of skill, gear, class, devotion, etc). Moving from a larger group (40) to a smaller group (25) *should* result in the elimination of those rank ordered as weakest. Thus in smaller raids the per-member contribution to the whole is larger because the remaining play group is stronger.
Imagine taking the best 20 from an MC/BWL guild into ZG. The zone is trivial. From the same take a random subset of 20. The zone is instead easy to medium difficulty.
In addition to the above argument, drama is less in smaller guilds. Not merely 'less', but exponentially less.
For example, let us apply group dynamic theory: Each person brings to the raid group 'n' constraints on the group's play. These include loot desires, personality, play style, time of play, parents, girlfriends, etc. Each of these constraints interacts with all of the other constraints (including their own) and must be sufficiently resolved for the raid group to function. Assume only binary interactions between constraints (personalities are usually tertiary or greater).
For a 40-man raid group with 'n' constraints each there are (40n * (40n - 1)) = 1600n*n - 40n interactions to be resolved. For n=4, 25,440 interactions.
For a 25-man raid group with 'n' constraints each there are (25n * (25n - 1)) = 625n*n - 25n interactions to be resolved. For n=4, 9,900 interactions.
Thus for n=4, 25man is 39% as much drama as 40man.
Changing n from 1 -> 20 moves the % less than 1.
As such it can be said that there is 60% less drama in a 25man group than in a 40man group.
-Kershner
Dehmien | 60 UD Priest | Stonemaul
For the hardcore raider, the content may appear less difficult even though such content is in fact equally challenging or even more challenging.
The cause of this is that in any group the players can be rank ordered by their level of contribution to the whole (a function of skill, gear, class, devotion, etc). Moving from a larger group (40) to a smaller group (25) *should* result in the elimination of those rank ordered as weakest. Thus in smaller raids the per-member contribution to the whole is larger because the remaining play group is stronger.
Imagine taking the best 20 from an MC/BWL guild into ZG. The zone is trivial. From the same take a random subset of 20. The zone is instead easy to medium difficulty.
In addition to the above argument, drama is less in smaller guilds. Not merely 'less', but exponentially less.
For example, let us apply group dynamic theory: Each person brings to the raid group 'n' constraints on the group's play. These include loot desires, personality, play style, time of play, parents, girlfriends, etc. Each of these constraints interacts with all of the other constraints (including their own) and must be sufficiently resolved for the raid group to function. Assume only binary interactions between constraints (personalities are usually tertiary or greater).
For a 40-man raid group with 'n' constraints each there are (40n * (40n - 1)) = 1600n*n - 40n interactions to be resolved. For n=4, 25,440 interactions.
For a 25-man raid group with 'n' constraints each there are (25n * (25n - 1)) = 625n*n - 25n interactions to be resolved. For n=4, 9,900 interactions.
Thus for n=4, 25man is 39% as much drama as 40man.
Changing n from 1 -> 20 moves the % less than 1.
As such it can be said that there is 60% less drama in a 25man group than in a 40man group.
-Kershner
Dehmien | 60 UD Priest | Stonemaul