Server talk:Haomarush Europe
Discussion page for Server:Haomarush_Europe
Feel free to add any notes in here about things you have changed or what changed but don't know how. Or things you disagree with or dispute.
Karazhan progression: Bah, cutting the list from 33 guilds and their progress to 18 guilds with no progression (you're either on the list or you're not) is - for lack of a better word - lame in my opinion. I think the half of the population that were actually progressing in Karazhan were enjoying that list - I know we were - and I don't understand how following four guilds in the top raid instance can be more interesting or why we can't have both. I posted this in the progression thread on our forum as well but I guess people don't care much about other people if it isn't about what they're doing themselves right now. Thanks! Rant done. Oh, and use the damn comment field when you edit, so others can see what has been done between versions. It's a pain to find deleted information otherwise. --Dreamshine 13:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- It didn't seem like the table was getting filled out anyways. The change done didn't change anything about the information on the page. Rather a list that actually shows something about progression (cleared or not cleared), than an empty table that means nothing to most people. —Pzychotix (talk · contr) 14:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- The table had been up for only two weeks when it was removed again. The level of activity and frequency of updates is not much to brag about on our server but it's there though. The table was populated with fairly accurate info at the time it was removed. I imagine (but I don't know) that it was removed following the forum conversation that went thus: "I was thinking should we cut the Karazhan progress?" "yes, no one cares anyway and it doesn't take much time or skill to do it". That just makes me wonder because so many guilds have spent so much time on it. And skill. But meh. --Dreamshine 18:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm stumped as to whether we're looking at the same table. I am talking about the Karazhan progress table which in the revision you correctly refer to lists the Karazhan progress of 33 guilds, 19 of which have not completed Karazhan. Every green block marks a boss killed, full bar means cleared. The information on their progress has been lost with the change of the table to a list that only shows who has taken all bosses (i.e. only guilds with a full bar are listed). This means that instead of having data that showed 14 guilds at 100% and 19 guilds at various other percentages the table dwindles to a list of those that are at 100%. A binary table (0% or 100%) is a big loss of data compared to the one where we could see the actual progress of the guilds still finishing up in there. I mean, the list was cut from 33 to 14, that's loss of data right there. From the list it was possible to see how some guilds would skip Illhoof, one could compare with guilds that started Karazhan about the same time as one's own and follow their success, it was exciting! If we changed the tables for The Eye, Serpentshrine Cavern, and Gruul's Lair to lists containing only the guilds who had the places cleared it wouldn't be very interesting. That's why the tables list each boss - so we can see progress. Information was removed that pertained to more than half of the guilds listed, that's data different to the current list right there. Am I missing something or do we not see the same tables? I'm a bit confused here. --Dreamshine 09:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about you, but all the tables show up as straight grey for me. —Pzychotix (talk · contr) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah-hah. I knew it. Doesn't show up in Firefox, but does in IE. —Pzychotix (talk · contr) 10:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hehe, I had a feeling that would have to be it. I'm using Maxthon myself (which builds on Internet Explorer engine). Well thanks for the chat anyway, at least I got to vent a bit. :-P --Dreamshine 10:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well it's a bit confusing why Firefox wouldn't be able to see the colors. IE needs to get up to web standards. =/ —Pzychotix (talk · contr) 14:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- As for the old tables, I certainly agree that the old, more detailed versions would be better suited for this page, rather than a list of just "cleared". —Pzychotix (talk · contr) 14:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)