Legacy Guilds Edit
I like the italics for the "legacy" guilds - smart solution! Thanks! Anaea 13:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Wow, big changes today! Are we making the decision to list progression alphabetically instead of by progression? I wouldn't complain - changing the order of those colors was getting nuts. Just wondering if that's as useful as the top-down approach... Anaea 14:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey Detail (and Aerie Peak). What're your thoughts on no-longer-extant guilds staying on the progression page? I'd feel bad removing them, as they worked hard for their achievements, but I'm not sure the spirit of the page is necessarily being upheld by having ex-guilds up there. There are currently two on the list that are no longer together, that I know of. Anaea 09:15, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
Removing guilds that are no longer together is fine.
This is absolutely retarded - adding a (2.4) section for MH/BT? Why not add a patch number of everyone who killed Kael after the nerf? Or any number of another billion examples.
If people really want to see who actually cleared SSC/TK, they can look at the next section.. there should be no other 'asterisk' next to any performance. if a boss is dead a boss is dead, unless you're willing to asterisk every other boss. What about people who killed VR before magtheridon? the list goes on and on. Removing attunements is no reason to asterisk a guild's rightly won boss kill.
rileyjt 7 April 2008
I agree - the 2.4 annotation is stupid. A boss kill is a boss kill and should be marked as such. Every patch brings raid boss changes, sometimes they even get harder... this is not an appropriate place to try to judge those changes and distinguish guilds based on the timing of when they make their kills. Ranking the guilds by the number of kills in an instance still gives an accurate idea of the guild's progression and Kael/Vashj are still listed in the T5 section where everyone can see. Lets end this squabbling - a locked and out of date progression page is useless. Many of the top guild's entries are incorrect and we don't need crap like this making our amateur server look even worse.
2.4 will stay Edit
First off it was not rightly won. Blizzard helped you which are not a big deal, but misrepresentation is. You are presenting yourself as a T6 raiding guild because blizzard let you in to the T6 instances. Rage Winterchill and Anetheron, along with High Warlord are cake fights compared to Vashj and Kael. So like the programming says guilds are listed based on Boss difficulty and progression.
I am letting incoming server transfers know which guilds killed the T5 bosses and got into MH/BT the way the game was originally meant to be played. I am sorry that you have a problem with this. If you would like to keep changing it that is fine I will just revert it back, since I built it I can do it pretty fast. If you don’t like it you don’t have to post your guilds progress.
The SSC/TK section shows which guilds killed vashj/KT. If you are afraid people don't know how to scroll down, you should be glad those people aren't trying to take up a t6 raiding guild spot.
Basehead617 03:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Basehead617
You are more then welcome to go back and kill vashj and kael. Once both are dead I will leave you in the non 2.4 guild progression. This I have no problem with. Again the programming is based on difficulty of bosses downed. I am looking for another way to program it so that it doesn't say 2.4 and I have yet to come up with that way.
--Celwine 04:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The distinction you are placing on guilds that kill a boss in BT or MH after the 2.4 patch without first getting the attunment that was required before the 2.4 patch makes no sence. There are been several patchs that have, for lack of a better term, nerfed, Kael and Lady V., yet you do to make any distanction for those. For example, the number of mobs leading up to Kael was nerfed in the patch prior to 2.4 and some of the guilds that downed Kael after that patch do not have any mention of this. Also guilds went into SSC and Tk after the attunment requirements were removed from entering those instances and yet you make no mention of that for those guilds that killed bosses in those instances without getting the attunment. Frankly to place the "2.4" distinction now is simply stupid since it have never been done in the past. Any player that is interested in whether a guild had met the pre 2.4 attunment requirement can simply look and see if the Guild had killed Lady V. and Kael. It takes no more than that. Players are not that stupid that they need you help to see this. If their eyes work they can see it.
I would like to address a couple of things presented both here and on the AP forums. Equating a Rage kill post 2.4 to a Kael or Vashj kill after they've been nerfed is illogical. This is a progression page and a guild that clears a tier level raid instance, even after one-hundred nerfs, has progressed. A guild that skips content has not progressed, they skipped progression bosses in favor of easy loot. The inclusion of a separate section or a distinction for those guilds is not unreasonable especially considering the format of the page.
The author of the page has made a very reasonable offer to guilds that wish to be considered T6 raiding guilds, go kill Kael/Vashj and your T6 boss kills will be noted without a distinction.
First I doubt most of AP's raiders would be opposed to the creation of a distinction for guilds who never attained a Mag kill while downing bosses in Tempest Keep. In fact if that is the main concern of those engaging in "revision wars" then perhaps Nikon would be so kind as to oblige them with a (2.1.2) distinction when the page is unlocked. But that is probably not the case and the 2.1.2 comparison is being used to justify the inclusion of T5 guilds in the T6 section of the page.
Now, in order to understand why the 2.1.2 comparison is a fallacy it is necessary to understand why the SSC/TK attunements were lifted in the first place. With the addition of Black Temple in 2.1.0 Blizzard had an attunement line that required one to kill: Nightbane, Gruul, Mag, Vashj, Kael, and Rage in order to enter BT. These attunements were removed in part to mitigate some of the recruitment pressure on end game guilds. Finding someone who was attuned to replace a member who left the guild or game would put undue pressure on guilds pushing content on their server. Blizzard recognized that the attunement chain could cost a raiding guild 3-4 days of their gaming week and removed the attunements to mitigate some of the pressure inherent in finding new end game raiders. This is also why they originally included BoE scrolls dropping off Vashj that could be given to guild members (or sold on the AH). Additionally, 2.1.2 was released after the Black Temple was live and many people did not have the same problem with the removal of attunemnet to T5 instances that they did with the removal of attunement to T6 due to the fact that a new raid instance with an attunement chain was already in place unlike Sunwell which has no attunemnt chain.
As Nikon stated this is a progression thread for Aerie Peak based upon the difficulty of bosses downed. Stating that all one has to do to check the progression of a raiding guild is to "scroll down" would undermine the credibility of the page to the infrequent user and to those unfamiliar with the server. Those from other servers interested in seeing how many T6 guilds exist on AP will likely to not bother with finding a guild's Vashj/Kael kill elsewhere on the page when information on T6 instances is provided in an easy to read table as soon as the page loads. Including a note for guilds who lack either boss kill, while downing bosses in Hyjal or BT, is a service to those unfamiliar with the server, the guilds on the server, and the wowwiki progression page.
For those who've never killed either Kael or Vashj it can be difficult to understand what some smaller, more tight-knit, raiding guilds had to endure to enter Mount Hyjal. This is where much of the emotionalism and outrage on the part of T6 raiding guilds (across all servers - check the Raids & Dungeons Forums) comes from. Kael has long been acknowledged as a guild killer. Indeed many who transfered to AP to join our T6 guilds were from guilds on other servers that fell apart at 5/6 3/4. This boss has cost AP some of its best raiders and best people. The misrepresentation of guilds who've never downed him as T6 guilds strikes a perticularly discordant note with many of our end game raiders.
Killing Kael and Vashj requires teamwork, communication, and skill. These kinds of bosses make guilds stronger and make players better. By working towards a kill on Vashj or Kael a guild will improve as a raid group making progression in the next tier that much more smooth. The removal of the attunements may open up some free T6 level loot to those who pre-2.4 could not have attained it, but it is my opinion that the time spent on Rage, Najentus, Supremus etc... would be better invested in a Kael kill.
I support the separation of T6 killing guilds without both Vashj and Kael kills from those who've cleared T5 content. This is a progression page not a skipping around page. If one were to go to the Aerie Peak forums and claim that by killing Rage while skipping Vashj and Kael that they have "cleared T5 content" they would be ridiculed by their fellow AP raiders as scrubs. I see no reason why those guilds should be included in the T6 section until they have cleared T5 content. Those of us who support the (2.4) designation do not do so out of malice or spite for guilds like Rival Nation; rather, we do so to maintain the integrity of the server and to support the classical definition of a progression thread.
Priska 00:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The 2.4 tag is unnecessary. The guilds that have/had already progressed through T6 content will be obvious. They'll already have many kills, if not clears, in their Hyjal/BT columns. Moreover, they'll shortly have SW25 kills logged as well. People who visit this page are smart enough to see nothing but a "W" under the Hyjal column, which will then cause them to glance to check for SSC/TK clears. This doesn't seem to be much different from guilds who did the hop from Gruul->VR.
Breue 12:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
temporary protection Edit
I've prevented this article from being edited for a period of two weeks. Come to a consensus here, on the talk page, before editing the article.
- I have stated my reasons for making the reverts. However, based on the Comment above that "2.4 is here to stay" will having a discussion here on this page make any difference if Nikkon has appointed himself the guardian of what is contained on this page and will simply do what he wants and say what he wants and then revert back to his text if anyone changes it and then have you back his position buy banning anyone that reverts the text? So much for this being a public forum if you let that happen. Just appoint one person to edit the page and close it to all else since clearly only Nikkon's opinion matters. Just remember that his view is not the only one and if you look that the thread on the server forum at Warcraft, you can see that is opinion is in the miniority.
- I'm an administrator. As long as the content doesn't violate our policies, I don't care what your server community has on the page. I am, however, tired of the revert warring going on with this article. If people violate the three revert rule, I (or another admin if they're watching RC) fully intend to come down hard on whoever is breaking the rules. None of us want to see the spam on Special:Recentchanges.
I am sorry for making the 2.4 will stay statement. Please understand I was going of a majority vote when that was put in and yes I do support it for the many reason stated above. This has always been a progression page. Also if you look at the T4 content lines you will see Magtheridon is consider higher priority then SSC/TK and rightfully so. Mag was a harder fight then most of those in SSC/TK minus Vashj/Kael. So if you want to build off your logic here the 2.4 section (due to lack of coding currently) would be the same as the T4 to T5 setup. I do not see this as a problem.
Hey, right before the page was locked, someone changed my guild's website to an incorrect URL. I'm unable to revert this change for potential applicants. If an admin could, please change Uprising's website to www.wowuprising.com from uprising.com
- Done. Once again, as a reminder to everyone. Please sign your posts with four tildes. Thank you. --k_d3 21:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok here is a thought Edit
Since 2.4 adding was a easy fix I thought it would be fine but since its not what I can do is recode the page to put TK in front of MH on the progression list to make it easy for people to see at first glance who is where. This will get rid of the 2.4 seperation and simply show at a glance that you have not killed Kael but you have stepped into MH and killed a boss. It will be setup just like T4 --> T5 content where Mag was considered higher on the kill list then bosses in SSC. It would be following the original format that I set up for this page.
- Your idea is what those of us that have opposed the "2.4" lable have been writing about. Anyone that looks at the page can see who has and who have not cleared TK, just like the page shows who has and who has not cleared Mags Lair (for the old SSC and TK attunement). There is no need for a special lable for those of us who have been presumptive enough to enter what Blizzard has chosen to allow us to enter. The people who have cleared TK and SSC are now awarded the title "Hand of A'dal" by Blizzard to show their special accomplishment, just like Blizzard awarded the title "Champion of the Naruu" to those who have cleared Mags and GL after the attunment for SSC and TK was done away with. I think the premise that those who wanted the add the "2.4" lable was that they (and yes when I say they I am talking about a few members of self described elite guilds) determine what progression is. That is a faulty premise. Blizzard is the 100%, sole and total authority on what progression is. The game is Blizzard's property. Blizzard can change the rules at any time and has done so many times. To compensiate those who advance under the old rules, Blizzard gives you a call out in the form of a title. But remember its Blizzard's game and Blizzard determines the progression line, no one else.
- With that said, Nikon, thank you for keeping this page the way it has always been. The people looking at this page are not stupid. They can see who cleard TK and SSC and who has not. The format that you suggest will make it easier for those people interested in such things to see that.
Ohdoulton 12:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Nikon: This is a reasonable attempt to find a middle way and it seems you are definately on the right path. It addresses the concerns of the top guilds on AP as well as allows for the removal of a (2.4) designation or separate section. However I am somewhat concerned that combining half of the T5 instanced with the T6 instances sets a bad precident especially since one needs the vials off of both Vashj and Kael to complete the old attunement quest. In a way it could be seen as belittling the accomplishments of those who've killed Vashj while promoting those who've downed her but not killed Kael.
Ohdoulton: WoW may be the legal property of blizzard but there has never been a blue post by anyone stating that skipping the final boss of an encounter to down a boss in a subsequent tier level ammounted to progression. They fact that they opened up a higher level Tier instance does not preclude the need to clear the lower instances before one has progressed. For example, pre-BC attunement to Molten Core consisted of touching a rock in BRD. However you would be hard pressed to convince anyone that downing Lucifron meant your guild progressed past a Hakkar or Ossirion.
As such Blizzard has refrained from defining progression and instead relegated the idea of what constitutes progression to individual server communities. Additionally wowwiki is not the property of Blizzard, it is a wiki in association with wikiagaming where a community can form standards for its own progression. That is what this debate is about separating those who've cleared T5 content from those who have not.
Moreover, you really did not address any of the reasons I objected to the inclusion of guilds who skip T5 progression in favor of free loot from T6 "bosses." What would you say to a guild like INVERSION that, inspite of the removal of the attunement, stuck it out and killed Vashj for the first time last week? They progressed despite the fact that they could have jumped content. In the opinion of most of the top guilds on Aerie Peak that is a far more commendable achievement than beating a boss who literally stands in one place and casts an AoE effect you can walk out of.
Now to address your personal sniping at those of us who support a distinction between progression and skipping bosses. We are not "self proclaimed elite guilds" we are elite guilds because we accomplished something that the vast majority of players never will. That is what defending the progression page is about. We did not take the easy way out, that makes us elite gamers. Your invective belies the truth behind your motivation: you want to be viewed as an "elite guild" without the work. You want people to turn to the wiki page and see your guild along side guilds who've earned their status on Aerie Peak. Indeed the revision war only occured because "casuals" cannot stand to admit that skipping Kael is an admission of their status as a less accomplished raiding guild.
Nikon's original offer of removing the (2.4) distinction even after a guild has downed bosses in MH/BT provided they went back to kill Kael was perfectly reasonable. The only reason one would oppose it is if they had no intention of ever killing Kael.
NOTE: Gratz to INVERSION on their first Vashj kill last week. She's still a very hard boss and you guys deserved it, now keep working hard and get the Kael kill. /salute INVERSION
Priska 17:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Nikon: I think you can cover Priska’s concern by placing both the SSC and TK line next to the MH and BT line. And again thank you for entering into this discussion and as it appears coming to a reasonable compromise.
- Priska: Please link me the site where the AP server community voted on and accepted your idea of what progression is. I have been unable to locate it or a blue post stating that progression is what the “elite guilds” declare it to be. And yes Priska Blizzard does set what progression is by making attunement requirements. Companies, like individuals, speak though their actions and therefore Blizzard does not need to make a blue post to indicate what progression is. Common sense tells one that if Blizzard opens up an instance by eliminating attunement requirements, than by default one can progress by bypassing that instance. Again, your statement is based on a faulty premise. That premise is that your idea of progression is the correct one and all other opinions of what is progression are incorrect. I do not accept your premise just as you do not accept mine. However, I do accept the rules put in place by Blizzard.
- The way this page is designed follows that logic. Look at the section between what you have called T4 and T5 progression. There are no special designations for those guilds that have chosen to bypass Mag and more right into SSC and TK, as Blizzard has allowed them to do. Those who choose to take on Mag and Gl are now awarded a title to recognize their achievement. That is what has happened in the current patch, Blizzard has awarded those who clear SSC and TK a title to recognize their achievement. What Nikon has suggested serve both the view of progression you have presented and the view of progression that I have presented.
- And yes Priska wowwiki is not the property of Blizzard. It has been designed as is a public forum where the opinions of all are taken into account. Accordingly the choice at the beginning of this discussion to unilaterally belittle some guilds progression choices by making special designations is unacceptable. While you may believe that the opinion of “most of the top guilds on Aerie Peak” mirror your opinions I do not believe this to be true. There are many people in those “top guilds” that do not support your view of special designations that were put in place.
- Thankfully this discussion appears to have come to a reasonable compromise.
(Ohdoulton 02:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC))
I can move SSC and TK to MH and BT and move SW to its own segment. This would fix the problem of having the guilds that kill Vashj or Kael pulled up with there achievements at first glance. The reason I didn't do this is because I come from a IT Tech background and I am still in the field and know a lot of people still have monitor resolution at 800x600 or 1280x1024 which would mean they would have to scroll horizontal and vertical. I was trying to get rid of that problem. I will mess with the column size and maybe get it reasonable.
@Nikon: I see what you're trying to do with the new format, but it definitely runs way off my screen on the right, so I have to use my horizontal scroll to see it all. I have a fairly small monitor though. Just thought I'd let you know! Kimmee 08:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Recommendations on format Edit
Hey, I was looking at the page and think that maybe we should pull the Raid boss index above the actual progression. I make this recommendation based on the fact that when you use abbreviations in a document you usually use the full name first and then make abbreviations afterwards. So in the current case if you did not know what bosses exist in SSC and you saw an H next to Endure you would then need to look down to see that H represented Hydross. Maybe this is just being a little too presentation oriented but I think it makes sense. Any thoughts?
There, I just finished redoing ALL of the Alliance orders (wasn't alphabetical and in a few cases was out of progression order) AND fixed the colors for alliance names (since I forgot to do it before). Any major complaints? Anasmira (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Why do we have two separate tables for Kara/Za/Gruul/Mag?
Couldn't we just combine the tables to look something like Kara/Za/ZaTimedLoot/Gruul/Mag? And you know, drop the separate opera houses thing for kara? thats a waste of a column. Theres no reason (aside from a gdisband) that a guild WOULDNT be able to take doen the other 2 events if they got one. Anasmira (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The Kara / ZA / Gruul's / Mag section appears to be out of sync between Alliance and Horde. It seems that the Alliance and the title need to be updated so that this section is only 25-man content. Or some sort of combining of all the 25-man content should be performed similar to Anasmira's comment. Onegoofy (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Regarding 3.0 Progression Edit
I thought we had agreed that 3.0 progression doesn't belong on this page.
Can we have some kind of discussion on this before I revert all edits back to the last pre3.0 one (MOF's Edit).
- I appreciate you bringing this to the discussion page, Anasmira - and for dropping a note in the forums reminding the more neglectful among us to head over and take part. :) For what it's worth, I like the asterisk idea. I think that there's no question the raid content was significantly nerfed in 3.0 (and not just in a "you get to pass Go" patch 2.4 kinda way). However, I also think we should support guilds getting the chance to check off bosses that might otherwise have stumped them; it's good for their guild morale, it's good for server morale. It would be petty to get up in arms over people enjoying what patch 3.0 has to offer them, particularly this close to the expansion. (I know I haven't looked at the level 60 progression page since the beginning of this year, and I'd imagine this page will end up the same way.)
- However, to address your concerns on the "cleared" issue - perhaps we should put an asterisk next to Cleared, or continue to list out all the bosses in a clear if any of them were attained after the patch. For instance, TK might look like "A, V, S, K*" for a Kael kill after the patch. That would still delineate the real achievements of those guilds who managed the harder kills before the patch. Whatever we choose, I think it should hold true across all guilds. Even if that means there's no "cleared" listed for AP under Sunwell. Maybe it'll encourage us to work harder next time around. ;)
- (P.S. Got some feedback from my Stewards, we'd also be fine with a complete rollback to pre-3.0. We know very well that we should not have survived Bloodboil with four stacks of the debuff on our healers. =P But for the reasons above, I think the asterisk plan is probably the more diplomatic route.)
- Anaea (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Not familiar with offically editing in the discussion...I would be for a full clear of 3.0 progression, if all guilds were reverted. I would really like to see the asterik be implemented though. The idea stated on AP forums for the entire revert, except for the two KJ kills would be a blow to the rest of the server to make our server seem like it had more of an impact in progression than it really did, but wouldn't showing everyone else's accomplishments as well as Uprising's and Exiled's kills make the server look better as a whole? (if that's the goal we were getting at) So my vote, not that it really matters, would be for a sever wide asterik implementation. -Drenthe
My opinion is get over it and forget about it, because there is just going to be another revert war if you try to muck with it. Contrary to popular believe, members of guilds actually are proud of their accomplishments pre- and post-3.0. (THIS INCLUDES UPRISING AND EXILED, SO DO NOT LET ANYONE FOOL YOU!) I don't know if the edit logs are still available, but people hammered wowwiki during the previous revert war even if they said they didn't care about indicating progression via nerfs. --Uziga
- Yeah Uzi I figured reverting would just create massive roflflowerpancakedominaiton all over so whats your opinion on just using an asterik (which is clearly more favorable- in a format Anaea described) denoting that the certain boss was killed post-3.0?
- Of course, not caring wether the 3.0 distinction is added or not is still up there. I mean, it certainly is the route with the least work lol.
- But it certainly is more logical to set a difference here, at 3.0, rather than at 2.4, where everyone was just upset that other people didn't have to drag themselves through stupid attunements. Here, we have talents intended for WotLK, and reduced boss health by 30%..
- Anasmira, Conqueror of Formatting (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I threw up a test job for the only category of raids people look at on this page (SSC-Sunwell) using Anaea's format.If we really hate it, just revert back to the last version. If there's an error, what have you, I just did it by date of the edit on the wiki, knowing that MoF's Felmyst kill was updated the day of the patch during server downtime instead of the night of.
- Anasmira, Conqueror of Formatting (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Made the 3.0 kills yellow. The word Cleared seems to break formatting. Left it in for now because its the way this page has always been done. Motion to just put the Boss Name -> Letter Tables ABOVE the progression tables for WotLK so we don't have to put cleared in and can just indicate each boss and when.
- Anasmira, Conqueror of Formatting (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Design Ideas for WotLK Edit
I'm Thinkin' 1) Date Tooltips: I just did a test of this on the Outlanders Hyjal Kills with fake dates. 2) No more alternating colors. The average user just copy pastes their stuff down, and fills in the blanks. Having two colors means someone has to always come back and bump all the colors down a notch when one guild moves up a slot. Suggestion: Just keep the darker of the two background colors or both factions (Light blue on Light blue is kinda hard to read anyway). Anasmira, Conqueror of Formatting (talk) 00:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Progression definition Edit
I believe that we should add a clearer definition to the meaning of Progression within the Aerie Peak community.
Although the current definition seems sufficient I believe that it does open itself a bit to interpretation, which could cause much confusion.
I believe the a definition of PUG player should be added to the definition. The following by Conundrum seems fitting as long as the majority agrees:
Any pug players negate credit that a guild would have received for killing a boss. Pug players are individuals that ARE NOT MEMBERS OF YOUR GUILD, and having one in your raid during a fresh boss kill will negate credit your guild would have received for the kill.
I know it seems a bit redundant as it should be implied, but I think it may be necessary given the free-for-all progression has currently become.
We could then link back to this page definition if need be.