Server talk:Feathermoon US/Guild Progression

Guild progression - order

Gonzie, before changing the order in which guilds are listed, it would have been a good idea (and a polite one) to discuss it on here. They were previously listed in alphabetical order - you have switched that to progression order. Wanna discuss why? -- Tsark 01:31, 8 August 2006 (EDT)

Given the lack of response, and the appearance of raid groups which are progressing in an unusual fashion (e.g. Oceania/Asia not doing MC or BWL, but doing Onyxia and AQ40), I reverted the list to alphabetical order -- Tsark 23:34, 16 August 2006 (EDT)

I would like to point out that it doesn't make sense to denote the Naxxramas end-bosses with previous boss-info, as no bosses are non required for progression into end-boss areas. (Maexxna (AF) doesn't make sense at all).

Ranking by progression also goes with the spirit of the original thread. It was designed intelligently and every aspect documented. If you wish to go against it, I think the burden falls on YOU to discuss it here. It is not polite to quote the design of 'encouraging comaraderie' while going against the fundemental nature of that spirit.

1) Naxx progression: from what I know, once you clear one wing, you have access to the end boss of any of the other wings. So clearing the spider wing to Maexxna would allow you to go to, e.g., the Four Horsemen without killing Razuvious and Gothik. Indeed, there's an explanation just above the table of raid progression in Naxx that says just about this. I admit however that my guild has not cleared a wing yet, so I don't know whether this information is true or not. If it is, then specifying the bosses killed in each wing is relevant information; if it's not true, then we can do away with the (AF) part, and simplify things. Can anyone clarify this?

- No, while the outer rim is connected, barely, through a system of canals that you can swim through (while taking damage and a tick of breathlessness if you don't have a 'lock buff) the end doors do not open until the wing is cleared up to the end boss. --Melanee 06:42, 5 October 2006 (EDT)

Well, that means that the current format is correct, as theoretically a guild can kill Maexxna, then use the end doors to move to Thaddius without killing the earlier Abomination bosses (my earlier example was wrong because the Deathknight Wing is opposite to the Spider one, so cannot be reached with the doors opening) -- Tsark 02:09, 6 October 2006 (EDT)

It means the current format is INcorrect. No matter how hard you wanted to or wished it, you cannot see Thaddius until Gluth, Grobbulus and Patchwerk are all dead. --Melanee 17:48, 6 October 2006 (EDT)

Ok, I had misunderstood the meaning of your earlier post - simplified the Naxx listing -- Tsark 03:15, 9 October 2006 (EDT)

2) Progression vs alpha order: I'm not sure I understand your comment about the "spirit of the original thread" - care to elaborate more (which thread? The Doomhammer page or the Feathermoon forum thread? What goes against this spirit? etc)? The reason I'm against listing guilds by progression is that guilds have had a tendency to progress along different directions. Thus (for example) some guilds have tackled Onyxia before killing Ragnaros, and it's not clear to me which one is more advanced (Domo-Onyxia, or Ragnaros-no Onyxia).

- I'm relating to the original Feathermoon thread, at least, in the fashion that I remember it. The progression thread that I progressed through end-game with in Feathermoon, before I transferred, was ranked based on progression. While the debate involves the comparison of the benefits of the antagonistic approach of ranking by progression and the more 'zen' approach of alphabetical numeration, the fact remains that the top guild on the list is noticed more: should not this position be a position of merit? Progression is formed on introversion and self-motivation, gauged, however, on extrovision and comparison. --Melanee 06:42, 5 October 2006 (EDT)

Things become a lot more complicated with BWL and AQ40, as Skeram tends to die before Chromaggus, but not always. Listing guilds alphabetically takes away this problem, and makes it a lot easier to find how far along one guild is. On the other hand, I understand that the current format does not help someone who wants to transfer and contact the most progressed guilds on the server. I'm happy to discuss alternative ways to format this (I'm more and more thinking about separating Horde and Alliance), but please let's try to keep discussion civil (if I may - you are coming off a bit aggressive, though that's likely to be due to internet communication than to a real intent)

- Onyxia, while not traditionally so, is more often listed with outdoor targets, since the spawn timers are approximately equal. While individual bosses of merit is an imporant thing to notice, I can hardly image a guild who would kill Razergore before Ragnaros. However, in the case in which it has happened (Aggramar), any progress in BWL superscedes MC. With AQ40 it is even LESS likely that a guild unable to kill Firemaw or Chromaggus would be able to kill Fankriss. However, any progress in such a manner should be no less than a sign of merit, as they have accomplished something more than the other guild and they should be placed farther ahead. What I'm trying to get at is, other than your Luci-Rag/Ony-Domo suggestion, which is now fairly a moot point, there will be no situations of that nature until late X-pac end-game, simply because there are no other single boss dungeons until then without heavy boss prerequisites. --Melanee 06:42, 5 October 2006 (EDT)

Finally, please sign yourself, so I know who I'm talking to :-D -- Tsark 06:27, 4 October 2006 (EDT)

--Melanee 06:30, 5 October 2006 (EDT)

Again, the most important point I'd like to make is, even though it causes friction and sometimes animosity and 'hard feelings' competition is the only way for true progression to occur, in the more 'real' facet of life or in the Warcraft world. If your only intent is to inform people of where guilds stand, all guilds, as a whole, then your format has no flaw. However, if you're looking to keep in the spirit of the idea of the thread, which is to encourage exposure to end game and to push that wall upward, a more competetive ranking would be more appropriate. --Melanee

Melanee, I disagree - both on a philosophical and practical basis. On a philosophical one, the idea that "competition is the only way for true progression to occur" has been proven wrong by many psychology experiments (let me know if you are interested/want references, and I will provide them). On a practical basis, I never wanted to supplant or substitute the FM forum thread - which in fact is still up on the FM forums, and regularly updated. You can see that we also list different bosses (the forum thread has the 20-man instances as well, but no ORBs, while this page is the reverse). More importantly, I see that most realms on wowwiki are adopting the same Doomhammer format I used for the Feathermoon one, so it's actually nice to keep this format up. Now, within this format, we still have space to discuss ways to list things, but a complete change of formatting reflect the forum thread is, imho, not warranted, and in fact would end up simply duplicating information that can be found somewhere else, while at the same time breaking the common format of wowwiki. -- Tsark 02:09, 6 October 2006 (EDT)

If you have any that -are not- studies on individuals and rather large group settings, I would love for you to provide them. On a separate note, I must remind you that the thread is entitled 'Feathermoon Guild Progression' not 'Feathermoon Guild Listing'. --Melanee 17:48, 6 October 2006 (EDT)

I will post some references on Wednesday, when I have access to my books (working from home today and tomorrow) - and I'm well aware of the title of this page, but (unlike you) I don't think that necessarily mandates one specific format. -- Tsark 03:15, 9 October 2006 (EDT)

I have done a major reorganisation, going in some ways against my earlier post. Fact is - the tables were getting too big and difficult to read, hence I:

1. Separated Horde and Alliance guilds (still need to do it for Naxx, but that's easier and less urgent, given the small number of guilds in tehre)
2. Separated the 20-man raids from the 40-man ones - especially on FM, I think this makes sense, as some groups will do one but not the other.
3. Ordered the guilds by progression: though I stand by my earlier point about competition, this *does* make for a more easily readable table. My other preoccupation (more difficult to edit) is partly solved by splitting the tables

-- Tsark 06:30, 8 November 2006 (EST)

Format

I'm not quite sure how often this is updated, but this is a wonderful idea! That said, do we want to clean up this page a bit and follow the format that is currently used by a number of other servers on this site? For example, Area 52 US has a Guild Progression format that is really appealing and seems rather easy to update. It's clean and functional (and I flagrantly ninjaed the format for the article on our guild's raid progression article when I was testing it). If I don't get negative feedback, I may take the initiative to do so. Comments? User:Cynra/Sig 13:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Cynra, I think frequency of edits is very random to say the least - basically, whenever any of the few people who regularly come here want to post information, ether on their guild or on other guilds based on the progression thread on the forums. So, feel free to come in and be bold, like the wiki guidelines ask you to! As for the format, I like it, but I would vote against having Heroics in here. Karazhan is already becoming cumbersome to edit, I think Heroics require too much editing (and most Heroics groups I have done vare cross-guild). Also, I personally think it's a good idea to have different tables for different tiers of gear: so Gruul + Mag, Eye + SSC, Hyjal+Black T -- Tsark 06:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I had feared as much. I know that we still maintain the thread on the official forums for raid progression (I recently returned to the forums after a, well, six-month sabbatical or sorts), so as long as that thread is updated every once in a while, I'll check perhaps once a week to update the article. Unless there is already someone doing that on a regular basis, in which case I'll appease my need to Wiki by redoing the tables and restructuring the article.

I'll agree with the Heroics; I thought that it was a bit silly to include that on the list for those same reasons, but I thought that I would pose that question to the community anyways. When you mention setting up tables based on tier, do you mean that in a way that's different than the current format, which relies on the type of instance being run? I think you mean separating the tables on my example such that raids that drop the same tiered loot are listed together. If we do that, we'll be increasing the number of tables on the page and is that something that we need? It might make it easier for someone with little understanding of Wiki-tables to update, though. The only difference that I had really planned on making was to include the code so that the guild's name automatically links to the guild's Armory page, since many guilds haven't taken the initiative to create a WoWWiki article. I'll play in my Sandbox today to see what I can put together and then be bold if I like the results. We can always revert if it's an issue. User:Cynra/Sig 10:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the page based on the progression thread, so if you want to change the format, go ahead :-D I did not put in a new table for Hyjal and BT, given the incoming format change, and thus did not record Catalyst's progress in there. Also, Karazhan is becoming problematic in terms of data: I think a lot of guilds are now progressing nicely in it, and we don't record it until they get to the end (and even there, I'm not sure we do: I doubt that only 12 groups are clearing Kara on Alliance, when there's already 13 doing so on Horde). I would not be averse dropping Kara completely, given data is becoming very messy. As for tables, yeah I was suggesting having three different tables(t4, t5 and t6) - though I guess, if they are readable, even collapsing everything in one is cool. Good luck! -- Tsark 06:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - the article is only as good as the information that guilds provide. I haven't started working on the tables yet (ironically, I was a bit occupied in Kara last night, haha!), but I'll have more time during the weekend to play with them. Whichever looks best (type vs. tier) is the one I'll implement, but I'll be sure to drop a line to my sandbox so people can see what the alternative would be. The goal is to have something implemented by the end of this weekend, though I'll be Gruulin' come Sunday night. There's always slow hours at work to dabble with them. User:Cynra/Sig 10:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, edited. I might try the other format you recommended later, but for now it's a little cleaner. I also fixed the problem that we had with not complying with the standard concerning the linking of guild articles; rather than link the article on the site (and reminding each person that guild articles have to follow a Guild:NAME OF GUILD (SERVER) format when they create guild articles), it now directs people to the guild's armory page. Feel free to edit what needs to be changed. User:Cynra/Sig 12:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)