Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

***Official PvE Progression V2***

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > Server Forums > The Ebon Hawk
***Official PvE Progression V2***

Shakell's Avatar


Shakell
06.26.2013 , 01:05 PM | #471
<The Corellian League> is now 2/7 S&V HM.
The Ebon Hawk
Pyrrho <Beskar>
Daharel <Aisthesis>
Tessal <The Corellian League>

MrOscarMonster's Avatar


MrOscarMonster
06.26.2013 , 07:33 PM | #472
Quote: Originally Posted by Bombbuster View Post
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:
Kleric

Apfelschorle - Envii - Amandeur - Artifice
<Sanctuary>

KeyboardNinja's Avatar


KeyboardNinja
06.26.2013 , 10:11 PM | #473
Quote: Originally Posted by MrOscarMonster View Post
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.
Computer Programmer. Theory Crafter. Dragonslayer on The Ebon Hawk.
Tam (shadow tank) Tov-ren (commando healer) Aveo (combat sentinel) Nimri (df scoundrel)
Averith (hybrid sniper) Alish (lightning sorcerer) Aresham (jugg tank) Effek (ap powertech)

Ordo's Avatar


Ordo
06.27.2013 , 12:27 AM | #474
Quote: Originally Posted by KeyboardNinja View Post
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.
It ain't about how hard ya hit. It's about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward. How much you can take and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done!

MrOscarMonster's Avatar


MrOscarMonster
06.27.2013 , 03:09 AM | #475
Quote: Originally Posted by KeyboardNinja View Post
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...
Kleric

Apfelschorle - Envii - Amandeur - Artifice
<Sanctuary>

VarekRayth's Avatar


VarekRayth
06.27.2013 , 08:42 AM | #476
IMO: Server first 2 hour > Faction first 2 hour > Server full > Faction full

The two hour runs should always > a full clear, it's far harder to do than simply clearing the instance.

Bombbuster's Avatar


Bombbuster
06.27.2013 , 09:38 AM | #477
Quote: Originally Posted by VarekRayth View Post
IMO: Server first 2 hour > Faction first 2 hour > Server full > Faction full

The two hour runs should always > a full clear, it's far harder to do than simply clearing the instance.
Yes, and since we're requiring linear clearing the rankings would be fairly easy. The problem arises when we have 2 different NiM instances, like we will have in less that 2 weeks. What then? Which 2 hr clear takes precedence; TFB or S&V?

The discussion has been great and I genuinely appreciate all the inputs. I'm still open to suggestions. Here's where we're at so far:
  • Linear progression in the individual operations will still be required;
  • I'll be converting the format used to display the information, to the format used on his thread:
  • Rankings for the individual operations will be: 2 hour run > full clear > total # of individual bosses, just like it has been in the past;
  • Once S&V NiM is released and we get a feel for its' difficulty either from personal experience or inputs from the top world guilds that clear it, we'll have to hash out some sort of boss difficulty numbers so we can rank guilds that have partial clears in both TFB and S&V. Guilds that have at least 10 pulls on any particular boss can post their thoughts about difficulty here, and we we'll ask Tam to come up with a preliminary formula. If we later find out the formula isn't working or is creating too much drama (ala BCS rankings controversies), we'll toss it out and come up with something else.

None of this is written in stone. This process is constantly evolving and I want our progression thread to always be improving. I continue to welcome inputs.
Mal: Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
ZoŽ: Big damn heroes, sir.
Mal: Ain't we just.

Mannoxi's Avatar


Mannoxi
06.28.2013 , 06:05 PM | #478
Hello,

TCO Imperium has changed its name to Nova Imperium. Can you update the name and website listings for us? Thanks.

I was not clear on if we needed to clear this content again with the new tags first but its the same progression team?

<Nova Imperium>
http://novaimperium.guildlaunch.com

Eternity Vault: 5/5 SM, HM, NM 8man & 16man
Karagga's Palace: 5/5 SM, HM, NM 8man & 16man
Explosive Conflict: 4/4 SM, HM 8man & 16man
Terror from Beyond: 5/5 SM, HM 8man
EC NM 3/4 8man
TFB 55: 5/5 SM, HM 8man, 2/5 HM 16man
S&V: 7/7 SM, HM 8man
Mannoxi
Guild Leader of Nova Imperium
http://http://novaimperium.guildlaunch.com

VarekRayth's Avatar


VarekRayth
06.28.2013 , 06:45 PM | #479
Quote: Originally Posted by Bombbuster View Post
Yes, and since we're requiring linear clearing the rankings would be fairly easy. The problem arises when we have 2 different NiM instances, like we will have in less that 2 weeks. What then? Which 2 hr clear takes precedence; TFB or S&V?

The discussion has been great and I genuinely appreciate all the inputs. I'm still open to suggestions. Here's where we're at so far:
  • Linear progression in the individual operations will still be required;
  • I'll be converting the format used to display the information, to the format used on his thread:
  • Rankings for the individual operations will be: 2 hour run > full clear > total # of individual bosses, just like it has been in the past;
  • Once S&V NiM is released and we get a feel for its' difficulty either from personal experience or inputs from the top world guilds that clear it, we'll have to hash out some sort of boss difficulty numbers so we can rank guilds that have partial clears in both TFB and S&V. Guilds that have at least 10 pulls on any particular boss can post their thoughts about difficulty here, and we we'll ask Tam to come up with a preliminary formula. If we later find out the formula isn't working or is creating too much drama (ala BCS rankings controversies), we'll toss it out and come up with something else.

None of this is written in stone. This process is constantly evolving and I want our progression thread to always be improving. I continue to welcome inputs.
I agree with this. Definitely seems like the way to go, especially since it's fluid and capable of changing but still gives credit to those that clear the harder things first.

Bombbuster's Avatar


Bombbuster
06.28.2013 , 10:59 PM | #480
Quote: Originally Posted by Mannoxi View Post
TCO Imperium has changed its name to Nova Imperium. Can you update the name and website listings for us? Thanks.

I was not clear on if we needed to clear this content again with the new tags first but its the same progression team?
No need to re-clear. Guild tag updated.
Mal: Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
ZoŽ: Big damn heroes, sir.
Mal: Ain't we just.