Server talk:Argent Dawn US/Guild Progression

Using this Page
Note: The Discussion page has been organized to make the conversation flow clearer; existing content has not been changed.

Please try and indent responses wherever possible, and consider splitting up new topics using headers.

Tiebreaking methodology
Why has the tie-breaking methodology changed from the raw count of bosses to one based on an arbitrary difficulty without any discussion of said changes on the relevant discussion page? Also, when making such policy changes it should be applied globally rather than just in a few specific sections to inflate the ranking of certain guilds.

Chojee 15:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I noticed a few days ago that someone, no idea who, blew away the "Using this Page" section that we agreed to add several months back per the bottom of this page. I took a stab at re-adding the section and the text, and then added the rule on breaking ties, which seemed to make sense based on how the community had been modifying this list to track content progression.  Check the history focusing on the Horde section to see what I mean.


 * Contents of the posted change (#2 and #3 are new) was:
 * Guilds are ordered on the below lists based on a count of total bosses killed in a given section.
 * Ties in total kills are resolved based on the difficulty of the content, i.e. working right to left on the table for a given section, for example: a guild that has cleared Void Reaver and Al'ar is ranked higher then a guild that has killed High King and Gruul, despite both guilds having killed two bosses.
 * Each boss in a given column is weighted the same, i.e. Vashj and Hydross for Serpentshrine, and Kael and Void Reaver for The Eye.
 * If all else is equal, the below lists should be kept in chronological order wherever possible, to recognize those guilds that got there first.


 * It goes without saying this crap would be much easier if it was all alphabetical by section...


 * --Yuma 02:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The wiki format does contain an extensive history and it's a simple matter of browing the history to examine when any given change is made. For example the section was removed by Ceran a few weeks back.  There are a few examples where the rankings were changed prior to this modification of said rules by Lupison.  My point is that if you're making policy changes instead if reverting errors, you should at least apply them globally(for example Erus Proeliator would be listed higher according to strict adherance to your rules) or else an observer might assume that you're shamelessly inflating your own guild's ranking for the 3 people that actually check this page as opposed to Wowjutsu rankings.


 * Chojee 14:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree the history is there, but I'd hardly say its a simple matter to track down where each and every change was made when people don't bother leaving comments for changes, and there are multiple pages of history. The whole concept of rankings on this page are largely worthless with Wowjutsu actively mining the Armory for information.


 * Makes me wonder why its even worth the time spent maintaining it...


 * --Yuma 16:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sure I am not alone in seeing all instance end-bosses as of higher difficulty than the bosses in an instance leading up to them. Not trying to open up the kindof debate that argues Leotheras is harder than FLK, but it seems clear Vashj is harder than anything leading up to her. This is historically true in this game. Ragnaros.. etc. Few people would disagree that Winterchill is much easier than Kael or Vashj despite of being a boss in a higher content instance. Anyway -- just wanted to get this down here. I think most groups respect this inherently.


 * More importantly is the comparison of this site to Wowjutsu. My group is a raiding organization and is nowhere possibly trackable for progression at this time with Wowjutsu. In fact, some of our members are with other guilds whose progression is listed higher by Wowjutsu, though the guilds themselves are not actually raiding higher content. In addition, one of our best geared warlocks is in a RP guild that is very tiny and will never make Wowjustu rankings.


 * Anyway, many of us love this site -- it gives historical perspective and is nice for competition. Wowjutsu is fun to look at -- but it is very inaccurate at times. This site is closer to showing real progression IMO. It is nice if Wowjustu mirrors it, but hardly important.


 * --Xenie 04:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Recent Edits of This Page
For quite awhile HotTS raiding group was ahead of Fearfulways by two bosses. Partially this was because, like many groups, Fearfulways had skipped killing Kael in TK and forged ahead. When Fearfulways recently killed Kalecgos it gave them a TIE with HotTS but Fearfulways moved themselves ahead of us (and another group) with that kill. I did not see fit to object to this recent edit as Sunwell is the next instance on progression and HotTS had not killed that boss yet. We decided to just hurry up and kill Kalecgos and then reclaim our position.

However, we did not kill Kalecgos this week but Fearfulways did go back and make a successful Kael kill (grats!), thereby cementing their current position. That Fearfulways made this kill tonight was obvious to many on the server by their presence in TK and the burning sigil in Adal's room. Never before today had Fearfulways taken credit on this page or seemed to have gone back to finish their TK instance.

Unfortunately, when I came to check the page today I found that Noite had jumped Fearfulways ahead of Dark Fist and Black Phoenix.

Dark Fist and Black Phoenix completed their progression up to, and including Kalecgos, in order of the instances' progression and difficulty. They must remain in the place they have both earned. Fearfulways can remain ahead of HotTS and ahead of House of Arathor. Fearfulways cannot be placed above Dark Fist and Black Phoenix until they have killed Brutallus.

I fixed this and put in the date for the Fearfulways' Kael kill (9/29/08).

(It is also arguable that going back with BT/Hyjal gear to finish events in TK/SSC is not a huge accomplishment -- but, still Kael can be a bastard..)

Anyway, I trust the majority of the AD people, especially those concerned with maintaining this site, will respect my edit.

Thank you,

~Donikka of The Blade and The Rose, HotTS Raid Sentinel Member.

Xenie 03:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Zul'Aman and Sunwell placement?
Obviously Sunwell progression will go the right end after Black Temple.

What about ZA? It'll be ?6? bosses, alot shorter then Kara, and will have gear on the t5 level supposedly. Should we add ZA to the big grid in between Mag's and SSC? Or should we put it on the far left end of the grid? Or should we create it's own table above Kara?


 * Sunwell would be a good fit as a new table cell. I think ZA would be good as a separate section right above Karazhan.
 * --Yuma 01:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Remove Karazhan?
What do folks think about retiring the Karazhan progress section? It seems largely irrelevant with the advent and push of 25 man content.

--Yuma 03:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Probably best to just move it to a separate page with a link, much like the historical old WoW classic content.


 * Chojee 22:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure how to go about building a separate page on this thing, do you want to take a stab at it? Perhaps in the interim we could move the Karazhan stuff to the very bottom of the page, and remove some of the irrelevant descriptive text.


 * Going to start by moving the Karazhan stuff to the bottom of the page...


 * --Yuma 15:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, its probably fine, and least controversial with the change to where it is now.


 * --Yuma 20:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Making a new page is amazingly simply on a wiki, you just type in the name of of the page that you wish to create as the web address and follow the links. So for example http://www.wowwiki.com/Server:Argent_Dawn_US/Karazhan_Progression could become a Karazhan progression page.  The actual doing so is an exercise left to the reader.


 * Chojee 22:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Alphabetical vs. Chronological
Alphebetizing the guild progression page ruins a wee bit of history. So, now I am not sure there would ever be any point in posting to it again. Yeah, I guess we shouldn't really care -- but it was fun to see progress.

Xenie 07:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The history of progression is already captured by the dates that are included in the tables, granted for 25 Man raid content and in some cases for world bosses. In the past few months I've noticed a phenomenon of people coming in and just putting their guild above everyone else, and in some cases you can't really claim who is "progressing faster" then someone else due to the now ready access of The Eye and SSC.  Better to simply use the dates in the tables, and keep this as neutral as possible, doing so will let you tell at a glance who is where and how fast.


 * --Yuma 15:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I would have to go with alphabetising it - it's less controversial, for one. 21:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The progression ranking on this page has historically been a ranked ordering based on which guild have killed the most bosses. If anything many guilds seem to underrank themselves by adding bosses to their kill count and never updating their position on the list.  Perhaps the phenomenon that you're referring to is talking about me placing Faded above Schadenfreude when we killed Lurker earlier this week.  I simply looked at the list, saw that we had killed every boss that Schadenfreude had downed at that time plus Lurker, which would make it appropriate to move us up a spot on the progression list.


 * Now that Schadenfreude has killed Alar, the question is thus brought up with the non-linear progression paths about how to assign a ranking. Without separate instance lists, the simplest solution is to just count number of bosses killed without arguing about difficultly of said bosses.  But I could really see the argument to include the difficulty of each boss.  Alphabetizing loses some of the fun competitiveness to this list, and then we have to go with sites like http://wowjutsu.com/us/argentdawn/ which have their own inaccurate methodology.


 * Chojee 00:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the subjective rating of a given raid boss makes ordering challenging, but this particular issue has been going on for quite some time, not referring specifically to, or actually noticing, this Faded item you are referring to. I see progression as a matter of answering the following questions:


 * # Who is where?
 * # Who got there first?


 * Both of which are easily answered by looking at the current list, and this alphabetized list solves the problem of any sort of subjective ordering. The dates and visual format continue to speak to these questions of progression, and cross-server transfers can get this information at a ready glance.


 * If its a sticking point, perhaps as a compromise at the top, independent of the main information, a "Top 5 Guilds" section (or such) could be created and folks can modify as necessary to rank the guilds on the server in some manner. But again, its subjective, and its likely introducing the same issue all over again.


 * --Yuma 13:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm curious as to which particular modifications to this page have been going on for some time. Being a wiki page, any errors in the ordering are generally fixed promptly, as the overall consensus will usually override the whims of individuals seeking to promote their own agenda.


 * I think people enjoy looking at an ordered list and easily determined which guilds are where in progression, the alphabetical listing serves to convey very little useful information for people that are looking for guild progression. Who is where? correlates very well to Who got there first?, as guilds tend to advance at constant rates, and thus the prior ranking did mostly convey the information that you sought.  Having separate progression charts for each instance would seem to make sense due to the non-linear progression of the BC Raiding instances.  The unwritten rule that seemed to be present was that each guild's position on the list was based on the number of bosses that they had killed(since there is no agreeable ranking of difficulty of bosses).  In the event of a tie, the guild who hit that number of bosses first would be ahead(meaning that in order to ascent ahead of another guild they would have to kill one more boss).


 * Chojee 15:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The modifications referred to are the placement of guilds above others, disregarding any sort of ordering rules, which again were never clearly spelled out. A quick review of the history of the page will produce several examples.  This could be due to a subjective valuation of a given boss vs. another, etc, or just random disregard of community standards, which again were never clearly stated.


 * I suppose the idea of an ordered list vs. an alphabetical list really comes down to a matter of preference, assuming its maintained to some degree of accuracy.


 * The alphabetical list is independent of subjective valuation of raid bosses, and presents progression in a straightforward manner while still showing who got there first.


 * The sorted list relies upon the community following a set of guidelines that need to be clearly defined, and requires quite a bit more community monitoring and enforcement of this list. Disagreements become much more of an issue in the latter.


 * Again, all a matter of preference.


 * Why don't we add a section for the 25 man content and world bosses that lists the "Top 5" or whatever guilds for each faction, and populate said section. Folks can then "see who is ahead" as the chronological list of progression that you speak of, maintained via a list of spelled out rules (perhaps you can define them clearly), and keep the remaining list in alphabetical format so that visitors curious about progression can continue to see at a glance the below.


 * I believe said compromise would likely satisfy both sides. Thoughts?


 * --Yuma 16:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Since the existing ordering was one that was progression based, the burden of proof is on you to produce such examples of not only when improper updates have been made to the page, but that these updates have persisted through the corrective efforts of the wiki-editing Argent Dawn community. While I have personally noted(and corrected) errors in the ordering of lists, the general instance that I've seen is that guilds will update their progression and fail to advance themselves on the list as appropriate, which is a far cry from the intentionally misordering guilds beyond what is accepted as reasonable.


 * Multiple people on Argent Dawn have expressed the desire)by either posting here or by reverting to the progression based listing) to retain the old ranked style of the progression ordering. Since you're the only one on Argent Dawn who has explicitly stated that you prefer the alphabetical listing, you're probably overstepping your bounds a bit by exerting your will against the majority opinion.


 * Chojee 06:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Have done likewise on fixing errors when I see them, but generally speaking I do not enjoy playing sentinel on this material. :)  Anyway, I'm cool with whatever, if that is your take on the community rules, post them somewhere so there is no confusion as to how ordering is to be done, i.e. methodology is total of the bosses is some number regardless of which boss it is.  Ranking is by highest number or timestamp.  On a clear of the entire instance, put the date, date becomes the ranking method from that point forward, counting the total number of bosses in a cleared instance as part of the aggregrate sum, or some such.


 * --Yuma 01:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The phrase Note: The above list should remain in chronological order wherever possible, i.e. don't jump your guild above everyone else on the list when you reach the next plateau of accomplishments. is listed for Karazhan, how's the general feeling by adding something to the effect of ''Specifically the ordering will correspond to the number of bosses killed in all 25 man content, with tie breaking priority being given to those who achieved any given number first. Thus in order to advance on the list a guild will need to kill one more boss than the guild above them.'' Chojee 22:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's seems reasonable.


 * --Yuma 15:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Added this comment in a section called "Using this page." It might have been there previously, in which case someone wiped it.


 * --Yuma 21:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)