Sorry for being absent. I was traveling over the weekend. I can speak semi-officially for <Aisthesis> on the subject of skipping the DG.

We do not feel that skipping DG is valid progression. In other words, if you go and kill Op IX and Kephess, it shouldn't be counted toward your progression. We also feel that the fact that skipping DG is *possible* makes the progression race somewhat annoying because the guilds which do this have access to gear that the rest of us don't (since we have chosen not to skip ahead).

I think we can all agree that the lockout sharing between HM and NiM is a terrible misfeature and shouldn't be in the game. Thus, exploiting said misfeature should not be rewarded.

With all that said, it's essentially impossible for us to enforce non-clearing of later bosses in the instance, so there's no reason to even have a nominal penalty for skipping ahead. I'd like to discourage guilds from doing it, since it really does violate the spirit of the progression race, but I would not be in favor of ruling against this practice as it is impossible to check.

Given the abuse that "a guild" has suffered for claiming world first by, a, skipping, and b, using a bug to defeat a broken mechanic (enraging tentacles to by pass the jump to 30% health for tantrum), I'd almost toss it back to TFB at 50 when that last fight was first broken and you had no irregularities on the inside I don't think that anyone here would be foolish enough to try to claim "progression" while skipping a boss or clearing a boss that's very clearly and obviously broken. I don't think there's going to be a change to this anytime soon however, and honestly don't think it would be fair to any of the guilds to say, until S&V NiM comes up your 75 gearing so that you can overcome this fight will be entirely... a belt.. random drop... and that's all you can do.

Progression is and should be linear. This however is the second boss, you can't gear for progression off the writhing horror alone and I don't think any of the guilds on this server should handicap themselves to the point of face bashing all week on the DG council and not getting beyond it, when they potentially could have cleared OP IX and or Kephess/TFB and the following week with a few additional pieces take another run at the DG council.

My only issue is with the current final boss fight in that you have to screw up outside, not push dps, and then go inside. When they finally fix this and the fight's working appropriately it's going to be almost laughable >.> Given that this is currently is what's needed to down the boss, then if a guild were to fraps and show a vid where they don't enrage on tentacles and burn a full 30% off during tantrum without an enrage on the inside in current gear... then I'd say props to them.

With all that said, it's essentially impossible for us to enforce non-clearing of later bosses in the instance, so there's no reason to even have a nominal penalty for skipping ahead. I'd like to discourage guilds from doing it, since it really does violate the spirit of the progression race, but I would not be in favor of ruling against this practice as it is impossible to check.

You can sort of enforce it by requiring a screen shot of the achievements screen after each kill. If someone is posting a DG kill they would not have OP9, Kephess or TFB marked off on the achievements. If they are completed you'd know that the poster had farmed bosses later in the instance.

We do not feel that skipping DG is valid progression.

I don't think there's going to be a change to this anytime soon however, and honestly don't think it would be fair to any of the guilds to say, until S&V NiM comes up your 75 gearing so that you can overcome this fight will be entirely... a belt.. random drop... and that's all you can do.

As to your first point, based on Bioware's past miscalculations (e.g. 16man EC tanks) I would be truly surprised if this is fixed within a month... or two (even though I would love to be wrong about that).

You can sort of enforce it by requiring a screen shot of the achievements screen after each kill.

While we've missed the deadline to insert our 2¢ before a decision was made, I figured I put up our stance anyway.

<Calamitous Intent> (name change pending) is of the opinion that skipping DG is fine (getting more gear, practice, etc), though rankings for progression should be reflective on time of *full* clear. We see no reason to limit ourselves on practice for the last 3 bosses, as well as better gear, since we have determined the DG fight to be mathematically implausible for us right now. We will put more attempts into it once we've geared out more and put more study into mechanics of the fight (there isn't an abundance of videos detailing a clear of the DG right now, lol).

tldr: <CI> only cares that all 5 NiM bosses die, regardless of order.

-------------------------------------------------

Two questions for clarification:

1) If a guild skips DG to clear the other 3 bosses, and finally defeats DG at a later date, does the 5/5 apply immediately on downing DG (essentially all bosses are cleared, just out-of-order), or does the guild have to re-clear Op9, Keph, and Terror to count as a full clear?

Essentially, is it 1-3-4-5-2-"cleared" or 1-3-4-5-2-3-4-5-"cleared"?

2) Since NiM S&V is coming soon, how will overall progression be ranked? Clearing both, clearing just S&V, etc? Not sure if its already been delineated how this thread will handle rankings when both NiM modes are out, so I would appreciate the clarification / being pointed to it if it has already been stated.

-------------------------------------------------

And a wild rakata of tolerance, respect, and niceness appears!

The fight is quite clearly mathematically possible if you guys are in full 72's, a few guilds have proven that already. If that's gonna be your rationale for going forward it's pretty inaccurate. That'd be a skill problem, not a gear one homie.

That said, I don't care if people skip or whatever, it's the title runs that really matter.

If a guild skips DG to clear the other 3 bosses, and finally defeats DG at a later date, does the 5/5 apply immediately on downing DG (essentially all bosses are cleared, just out-of-order), or does the guild have to re-clear Op9, Keph, and Terror to count as a full clear?

Since NiM S&V is coming soon, how will overall progression be ranked?

The fight is quite clearly mathematically possible if you guys are in full 72's, a few guilds have proven that already. If that's gonna be your rationale for going forward it's pretty inaccurate. That'd be a skill problem, not a gear one homie.

Is it possible? Yes. Is it plausible? Not really. One of our main dps can't raid over the summer due to time change and conflicts, as well as a healer, so we've recently had a tank switch to dps, a new tank brought in, and assorted in guild healers brought in based on availability. Being set back essentially 3 people's worth of gear, plus the fact that the raid team is a bit different every week, contributed to the decision to skip DG. S&V HM remains the priority for gearing up toons, and we only put attempts into TfB once that is cleared. We hope to shift our focus to TfB, and the DG, in the coming weeks.

That said, I reserve the right to change that based on how NiM S&V plays out, nerfs to TFB NiM, etc.

I'm hoping they don't nerf TfB NiM! It's nice to have a challenging raid to look forward to, for once. If anything, they should make the other bosses harder. tWH should make people cry, not laugh!

I've been giving this some thought and I think it'll have to be overall number of bosses for both, with additional weight for full clears. That said, I reserve the right to change that based on how NiM S&V plays out, nerfs to TFB NiM, etc.

Coming up with a fair numerical ranking for the bosses in the instances is a project that I will be tackling next week. "Number of bosses in each" is highly linear, and does not accurately reflect things like accepted difficulty, linearity of progression, etc. Overall, I would be extremely opposed to a system like that, both from an objective mathematical and from a subjective player standpoint.

Is it possible? Yes. Is it plausible? Not really. One of our main dps can't raid over the summer due to time change and conflicts, as well as a healer, so we've recently had a tank switch to dps, a new tank brought in, and assorted in guild healers brought in based on availability. Being set back essentially 3 people's worth of gear, plus the fact that the raid team is a bit different every week, contributed to the decision to skip DG. S&V HM remains the priority for gearing up toons, and we only put attempts into TfB once that is cleared. We hope to shift our focus to TfB, and the DG, in the coming weeks.

We've had similar issues in <Aisthesis>. We've lost our commando (parsing 2.7-2.8) for the summer. Healer churn has been hilariously terrible. Our guildmaster is actually out of town for nearly two weeks (through the release of NiM S&V). As she is one of our highest-parsing DPS, that puts a bit of a dent in things. With that said, I don't feel like we're going to give up any time soon. We went into Nightmare Dread Guard last night with three DPS from our main group and then one shadow DPS who dummy parses at 2.1k. We had some mechanical issues, but we were mathematically on track for a 40-50% enrage with one of our high-parsing DPS down for the entire second phase. We're pretty confident that the fight is doable (especially if we can get our full main DPS group all in the fight at the same time), we just need to be tight.

In other news, if you bring a shadow/assassin DPS, have them Cloak out before the last tick of Lightning Field. Zero damage. :-)

With all that said, we will be skipping ahead each week to farm gear from the later bosses after we have deemed that we're done pulling DG for a particular lockout period. None of us like this idea, but since every guild on the server is doing it, we're in a bit of an involuntary arms race as a result.

Coming up with a fair numerical ranking for the bosses in the instances is a project that I will be tackling next week.

Difficulty is a very subjective opinion, and that opinion changes with time. If you had asked last week how difficult OP-IX NiM was I would have said very difficult because it was our first week on him and it took some 20 pulls to kill it. But if you had asked this week I would have said just something like, 'tough but doable' because we one-shot it. How do you assign a value to that?

With all that said, we will be skipping ahead each week to farm gear from the later bosses after we have deemed that we're done pulling DG for a particular lockout period. None of us like this idea, but since every guild on the server is doing it, we're in a bit of an involuntary arms race as a result.

Proposed Point System

Rank bosses from 1 - 10 in difficulty (10 being NiM DG; 1 being HM Writhing Horror)

 

Bonus for clearing all bosses == Sum_bosses difficulty * 3

Bonus for clear cardinality == 10 - card

 

Instance bonus compensates for 3 ranks of deficit on all bosses. If three other guilds clear 6/7 on the instance but can't clear the final boss, your guild could still come out on top if you're first to 7/7. If four clear 6/7 and you're fifth on the first few bosses, it will depend on the difficulty of the final boss. If the final boss is hard enough, you could still come out on top, but it's not assured.

 

Boss ranks cannot be changed after they have been cleared by *any* guild. They can only be changed pre-clear with 3 votes from guilds which have pulled the boss.

So what does this mean. Well, let's imagine that we give the following boss ranks to the (unbugged) bosses in NiM TfB:

• Writhing Horror: 3
  
• Dread Guard: 10
  
• Operator IX: 5
  
• Kephess: 2
  
• Terror From Beyond (unbugged): 6
  

Now let's imagine that UWA clears the entire instance *except* for Dread Guard, and they do it server first. Their score would be (3 + 5 + 2 + 6) * 10 = 160. Let's further imagine that Anger Management comes in later and clears *everything*, including Dread Guard. Their score would be (3 + 5 + 2 + 6) * 9 + 10 * 10 + (3 + 5 + 2 + 6 + 10) * 3 = 322. Thus, the points from clearing the other bosses second, then the points from clearing Dread Guard first, and finally the instance bonus for clearing the entire instance first. The scale is tuned to reward the situation where a really good guild came late to an instance where everyone else is 4/5 and then clears 5/5.

We can pick scores for bosses based on convention (Bomb, feel free to use your judgement here). Guilds that pull these bosses and see how hard they really are should have the ability to vote on a new score. Once a boss has been cleared, the score is FINAL and can no longer be changed.

Initial boss scores can be assigned based on guild knowledge. We all have a pretty good idea of what bosses are going to be harder than other bosses in (e.g.) NiM S&V. This can be a starting point. Once guilds have pulled the bosses a few times, we can vote on new scores to refine the ranking until the boss is cleared. If a boss is cleared on the first night that it's pulled, but its score is universally deemed to be insufficient, multiple guilds corroborating the difficulty could push for a change in the score. At that point, it's Bombbuster's choice. The main thing is to ensure that we don't change a score after it has been tabulated into a guild ranking. Once the boss score has been added to any guild's score, it cannot be changed. This prevents gaming the system.

Note that this scale is designed to allow clearing of bosses in a non-linear fashion. There is no particularly strong reward for skipping ahead and clearing a later boss, since they have no special bonuses. We would use a slightly revised scale for an instance which enforces linear progression (e.g. the next hard mode). Also note that this scale only rewards cardinality for at most 10 guilds.

There are a couple disadvantages here. First, and most notably, it would be possible to rack up points by clearing multiple easy bosses, exceeding the value of a single hard boss. This is annoying, to be sure, but also a problem that corrects itself since the cardinality scalar is multiplicative (meaning that you get proportionally more points for clearing a hard boss first and the easy bosses second, rather than the easy bosses first and the hard boss second). It just means that intermediate rankings may be a bit odd. The other notable disadvantage is that there is no penalty built into the system for skipping forward and farming later bosses. In fact, the system encourages guilds to do this, since you can get points. We can impose an artificial restriction that time-of-kill information on later bosses will not be considered until an earlier boss is cleared, or we can simply allow skipping. Dealer's choice.

The main mathematical disadvantage of this framework is the linear ranking scalar causes a "compression" of the top-end of the scale. What do I mean by this? The scalar for clearing a boss first is 10, and second is 9. Thus, a guild clearing a boss first will receive 11% more points than a guild clearing a boss second. The scalar for clearing a boss third is 8, which means a guild clearing a boss second will receive 12.5% more points than a guild clearing a boss third. See where I'm going with this?

The scale is inversely quadratic as it approaches the maximum. In practice, this means that the top-tier guilds will have comparatively close points, while guilds which cleared bosses a bit later will have dramatically lower scores and be almost mathematically incapable of "catching up". Now, this may actually line up with how progression is informally tallied. I'm not sure. This is where the community needs to weigh in. It is possible to fix this mathematical flaw and make all progression ranks linearly distributed from the others, but it makes the expressions more complicated and can lead to non-integral scores (which makes Bomb's life a bit harder).

Disclaimer: I haven't done a game-theoretic analysis of this system, so it may encourage some undesirable Nash Equilibria. We have a small enough raiding community that this is unlikely to be the case, but I thought I would bring it up. If someone else wants to do this analysis, that would be great. Otherwise, if the community likes, I can ensure that the system has been designed to encourage sane behavior among selfish players, but it's a tedious analysis and I didn't feel like doing it today. :-)

Thoughts?

(side note: 16 mans and 8 mans will be given the same difficulty ranking by default, unless there's a boss which has a radically different difficulty on one mode vs another)

• Writhing Horror: 3
  
• Dread Guard: 10
  
• Operator IX: 5
  
• Kephess: 2
  
• Terror From Beyond (unbugged): 6
  

This illustrates why assigning numerical values to bosses you haven't personally experienced is so problematic, and why I am reluctant to adopt such a system.

You have OP-IX as less than twice as difficult as TWH, but it is easily many times more difficult. Likewise you have Keph as less difficult as TWH! We one-shot TWH the very first time we pulled it, with no deaths, but we've had some 20+ pulls on OP-IX with 3% being our best attempt. Only someone who has never had multiple pulls on OP-IX would rank the very easy TWH above OP-IX.

I guess what I'm saying is a mathematical ranking system is certainly feasible, but the values would have to be assigned by, say, the first 5 world guilds to clear the instance in order to be relatively accurate. I like the idea and the formula, but it only works with correct values assigned to bosses, and those of us who haven't experienced the content are unqualified to do that.

This illustrates why assigning numerical values to bosses you haven't personally experienced is so problematic, and why I am reluctant to adopt such a system.

 

You have OP-IX as less than twice as difficult as TWH, but it is easily many times more difficult. Likewise you have Keph as less difficult as TWH! We one-shot TWH the very first time we pulled it, with no deaths, but we've had some 20+ pulls on OP-IX with 3% being our best attempt. Only someone who has never had multiple pulls on OP-IX would rank the very easy TWH above OP-IX.

 

I guess what I'm saying is a mathematical ranking system is certainly feasible, but the values would have to be assigned by, say, the first 5 world guilds to clear the instance in order to be relatively accurate. I like the idea and the formula, but it only works with correct values assigned to bosses, and those of us who haven't experienced the content are unqualified to do that.

This is why boss weights can be changed by guilds who have pulled the boss. Do you really want a scale which provides the same reward for clearing WH as for clearing the DG? I certainly don't, and your post sounds like you don't either. Having some sort of difficulty weighting is the only way to represent that problem, though the exact way in which that rating is assigned can be tuned.

For example, we can rank bosses from 1 to 10 such that each rank is twice as difficult as the previous one (exponential rather than linear). I thought this was a somewhat unnecessary complexity, but it would be an option.

In my humble opinion, perhaps it would be best to avoid a numerical value assignment to each boss and simply leave ranking as they are right now, and only allow ranking changes once a guild clears the entire raid. This circumvents disagreement over boss values, skipping DG, etc. For instance, suppose we currently (Pre 2.0) have:

1. <Yoda Soda Club>

2. <Wookie Cookie Bakers>

3. <Han Solo Burger Truck>

4. <Ewok BBQ Pit>

5. <Deep Fried Mon Calamari>

Suppose <Ewok BBQ Pit> gets server first clear of ALL of NiM TfB and <Wookie Cookie Bakers> gets the 2nd on server. While <Han Solo Burger Truck> might be further in the NiM TfB raid then <Yoda Soda Club>, that ranking won't actually shift until they clear all of NiM TfB. In this example, rankings would adjust (movement highlighted in green) to:

1. <Ewok BBQ Pit> (Server First!!!)

2. <Wookie Cookie Bakers>

3. <Yoda Soda Club>

4. <Han Solo Burger Truck>

5. <Deep Fried Mon Calamari>

Essentially, ranking is based on time of full TfB clear. No ranking advantages from skipping bosses or cherry picking which boss to focus on to garner a higher point score (If one were completely ranking obsessed, under you proposed number system, the quick and dirty way to jump rank would be to skip both DG and Op9 for an easier 11 points while other guilds struggle against Op9). In addition, this preserves some style of ranking system for guilds that aren't doing NiM TfB at all, yet still actively raiding and progressing at their own rate.

Just my thoughts on how we might approach ranking. Just out of curiosity, what are y'all's thoughts on nerf to NiM TfB?

And obligatory Rakata of Niceness:

In my humble opinion, perhaps it would be best to avoid a numerical value assignment to each boss and simply leave ranking as they are right now, and only allow ranking changes once a guild clears the entire raid. This circumvents disagreement over boss values, skipping DG, etc. For instance, suppose we currently (Pre 2.0) have:

 

1. <Yoda Soda Club>

2. <Wookie Cookie Bakers>

3. <Han Solo Burger Truck>

4. <Ewok BBQ Pit>

5. <Deep Fried Mon Calamari>

 

Suppose <Ewok BBQ Pit> gets server first clear of ALL of NiM TfB and <Wookie Cookie Bakers> gets the 2nd on server. While <Han Solo Burger Truck> might be further in the NiM TfB raid then <Yoda Soda Club>, that ranking won't actually shift until they clear all of NiM TfB. In this example, rankings would adjust (movement highlighted in green) to:

 

1. <Ewok BBQ Pit> (Server First!!!)

2. <Wookie Cookie Bakers>

3. <Yoda Soda Club>

4. <Han Solo Burger Truck>

5. <Deep Fried Mon Calamari>

 

Essentially, ranking is based on time of full TfB clear. No ranking advantages from skipping bosses or cherry picking which boss to focus on to garner a higher point score (If one were completely ranking obsessed, under you proposed number system, the quick and dirty way to jump rank would be to skip both DG and Op9 for an easier 11 points while other guilds struggle against Op9). In addition, this preserves some style of ranking system for guilds that aren't doing NiM TfB at all, yet still actively raiding and progressing at their own rate.

 

Just my thoughts on how we might approach ranking. Just out of curiosity, what are y'all's thoughts on nerf to NiM TfB?

 

And obligatory Rakata of Niceness:

Interesting thought. As an extension, what if we didn't worry about rankings for this boss or that boss and instead had some sort of marker per-boss?

So, lets say that Yoda Soda Club has cleared all the bosses, wookie cookie bakers has only cleared the first boss and the last three, Han Solo Burger Truck has only beaten the first boss, but had the server first to do so. Ewok BBQ Pit has cleared the first boss, but is on a different faction from the others (Faction first) And Deep Fried Mon Calamari has only cleared the first boss. It'd look something like this:

*#* = server first

~#~ = faction first but not server

Green = go

Red = stop

1. <Yoda Soda Club> 1 - *2* - *3* - *4* - *5*

2. <Han Solo Burger Truck> *1* - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

3. <Ewok BBQ Pit> ~1~ - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

4. <Wookie Cookie Bakers> 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

5. <Deep Fried Mon Calamari> 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

It'd take a bit to set it all up. But once it is set up it wouldn't be that hard to maintain such a list.

Also, I love your made up guild names. They are awesome.

I'll see your and raise you a

After taking 2 weeks off and finding a new person for our progression team, Inconceivable is finally 5/7 S&V HM. ^^ Here's hoping the second night goes well.

Interesting thought. As an extension, what if we didn't worry about rankings for this boss or that boss and instead had some sort of marker per-boss?

(Second and third posts down on this thread) http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=635285

I like the idea, but at the end of the day we still have to come up with a progression ranking system that determines which order the progression guilds will be listed on whatever type of list we end up using.

I like the idea, but at the end of the day we still have to come up with a progression ranking system that determines which order the progression guilds will be listed on whatever type of list we end up using.

And that's definitely the concern that I'm trying to address. Fundamentally, we need a linear system. That means assigning value to one achievement relative to another achievement (e.g. defeating NiM TfB vs NiM S&V). We don't want a ranking system that equally rewards clearing Writhing Horror and Dread Guard (since they are an order of magnitude separated in difficulty), which leaves us with the need to assign point values.

Leaving the system "as is", where it simply rewards having cleared more bosses highly incentivizes non-linear boss farming. Additionally, it provides the same reward (1 point) for clearing Nightmare Dread Guard as for clearing any other boss. I am strongly, strongly opposed to any system which does not address this issue.

Would something like this work?:

 

(Second and third posts down on this thread) http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=635285

 

I like the idea, but at the end of the day we still have to come up with a progression ranking system that determines which order the progression guilds will be listed on whatever type of list we end up using.

Oooooh I really like the formatting they used there, and I think such a system could work very nicely for us too. I still think we could have rankings be dependent solely on time of complete NiM clear, and do away with constant jockeying for position while guilds are still in the process of clearing. Essentially, once you clear the entire raid, you get ranked. Figuring out boss values and numerical vs linear vs quantity is such a needless headache, since the thing that will define rankings in the long run is time of complete clear (ideally, our "final" rankings would be a bunch of guilds positioned based on when they cleared the full raid). The indicators you linked would serve adequately to inform guilds of how others are doing in the raid, without needing a complicated ranking system that will eventually become moot.

tldr: imo, no point in bothering with adjusting rankings for partial clears. also, fancy list is nice.

EDIT- forgot this:

tldr: imo, no point in bothering with adjusting rankings for partial clears. also, fancy list is nice.

And when one guild inevitably clears NiM S&V before another guild that has cleared NiM TfB, then what?

My point is that a linear scale for non-linear progression necessitates a point system. It's not a "headache" that we can just do without. It's fundamental to the problem space.

And when one guild inevitably clears NiM S&V before another guild that has cleared NiM TfB, then what?

 

My point is that a linear scale for non-linear progression necessitates a point system. It's not a "headache" that we can just do without. It's fundamental to the problem space.

If NiM ends up being tuned to be as hard as NiM DG is being for those of us with some 75's . . . (Which it should) then I refuse to belive that any guild will be able to clear NiM without first getting through NiM TFB.

And when one guild inevitably clears NiM S&V before another guild that has cleared NiM TfB, then what?

 

My point is that a linear scale for non-linear progression necessitates a point system. It's not a "headache" that we can just do without. It's fundamental to the problem space.

Assuming S&V Nim is approximately as difficult as Nim Tfb, one could just weight the two raids equally, and do ranking on completion of both. Problem solved. It's essentially what we did with HM of the tow raids, and the system seemed to work pretty well. My point with the skipping is that ultimately, the final rankings will be based on time of full clear. You add up all your points, yes, but when you get max points, your ranking is finalized based on time of reaching max points. If the max point number is 25 (arbitrary #), the first guild to reach 25 will be the top ranked guild for this round of progression. Reaching 25 obviously required finishing all the bosses. the next guild to reach 25 will become 2nd ranked, and so on. My point with bypassing the headache is that given enough time, ranking are going to be finalized on hitting 25. The score in between is essentially irrelevant.

Point systems are nice when all the guilds are in the middle of clearing raids, but starting now to set up a system is too late. With guilds at different points in the raid, any point system is subject to scrutiny ("omg <Yoda Soda Club> is trying to arrange the point system so they get rewarded extra for killing the bendy straw boss!" etc). In addition, the point system assumes that the process of progressing through these raids will drag on and on where the differences between 12 and 14 points would be relevant to progression rankings. I honestly think that the top guilds will likely be clearing out the raids within a few weeks of each other.

In summary, why I believe a point system is bad and unnecessary:

• In the long run the point system is irrelevant to rankings
  
• Creating a new point system while guilds are actively clearing paves a way to point manipulation and other unsavory competitive practices
  
• Progression is essentially linear because guilds will have to clear both NiM raids to achieve full tier progression.
  

I think the real debate should be how we will factor in the following in rankings: time of clearing both NiM raids, time of clearing both in under 2 hours, server/faction first for both first clears and 2hr runs. Is faction first clear of both raids better then clearing 2hr runs first, but not server first first time clear?

1. <Jawa Disco> (server first)

2. <Rodian Rodeo> (2hr first)

or

1. <Rodian Rodeo> (2hr first)

2. <Jawa Disco> (Server first)

I think situations like the one illustrated should be discussed and agreed upon before we end up with guilds clearing both and no set system (which means someone will end up angry). The faster we can all agree upon a set policy for ranking with concerns to the special factor of the 2hr runs, the better.

Yeesh, that ended up way longer then planned...