Kleric Sorcerer Lightning: link 3129 dps Madness: link 3097 dps Overall a little irked by both parses. My latency is higher since I'm on the West Coast with worse internet to boot, and I noticed some abilities ghosting every now and then, though I doubt it was significant enough to cost more than a few dps. Lightning should be higher, but I only made two attempts at it, the first of which was abysmal. Second one was ok, though not great either. Madness parse was super weird, with a spike in damage from the opening rotation and relic/alacrity boost for the first 30 secs, and then a really weird and large drop in dps for the next 60 or so seconds. This weird drop does not follow the typical curve for madness parses, so something must have gone super wrong.

Link Kleric: Madness sorcerer (5/5/36) 3051.37 dps 8min 11sec And just for the lulz: 262.58 hps Was super lazy and didn't want to use up a stim or adrenals for a dummy. -No stim -No Adrenals -Missing an implant, relic, and 2 enhancements for BiS. I'll try and do a lightning parse later this week, and maybe another madness one with stims and all that jazz.

Never mind, I didn't realize that there are actually dates in the achievements.

<Calamitous Intent> 5/5 HM DP

EDIT: Lavain too fast.

Lightning: As a PvE lightning sorc main, the most annoying thing about the spec is pushback, especially crushing darkness and force lightning which lack the pushback resistance in the skilltree. Pushback can cause thundering blast to hit after affliction when it is still timed correctly, force lightning's last 1-2 ticks to be clipped, and crushing darkness can sometimes take upwards of 3 seconds to cast. Another outstanding issues for lightning sorcs is low defenses. Since the intended design appears to be that self healing mitigates weak passive defenses, a change to make self healing easier would be nice. Therefore, I would like to see changes something like: -Subversion now grants 45% pushback resistance (max 90%) and now includes crushing darkness and force lightning in the resistance (reduces pushback further and protects from pushback on an additional 2 key abilities in the rotation) -Something like: Conduction additionally reduces the cooldown of Unnatural Preservation by 0.5 seconds when forked lightning and forked darkness trigger. OR a change to reduce cast time on dark infusion/heal (A change like this or along similar lines would allow lighning sorcs to self heal more frequently or easily)

Guild: <Calamitous Intent> Guildmaster: Dryst Faction: Empire Purpose: Progression PvE Guild Website: calamitousintentteh.enjin.com

<Calamitous Intent> is now: 3/5 HM DF

<Calamitous Intent> is now: 2/5 HM DF

<Calamitous Intent> is now: 1/5 HM DF

Duh-oh! I totally forgot about the NiM modes. You guys are definitely right on keeping SnV and TfB higher.

<Calamitous Intent> (E) calamitousintentteh.enjin.com TFB 55: 5/5 ■■■■■ (first on imp faction) S&V: ■■■■■■■ (HM first on imp faction) DF: 5/5 SM +all old content cleared to highest applicable level While I know that faction firsts are no longer tracked, I added those notes so that the rankings for TfB and SnV could be correctly tracked. Excellent work on the list by the way! Very stylish and easy to read. Just out of curiosity, shouldn't DF and DP be listed above TfB and SnV since they are the most current content, and thus should be at the top of the list? And would it be possible to maybe put the legend at the very top, since I did have a smidge of trouble locating it, and the distance required to scroll to find it will increase as more and more progression is added? But again, those are trivial concerns, and the new list looks fantastic regardless. Props for undertaking this endeavor in such short time!

I'm with Wisteria on this. The shadowlands version is very nice. Easy to read and understand, and the separated rankings are very nice. Frankly, if we used the shadowlands format, I don't even think the order we put TfB, SnV, DP, DF in would matter much, since it's so dang easy to read. Perhaps we could add a section that tracks total progression boss kills at the bottom. This way there is still a tracking system that indicates overall progression with a simple score out of twenty. and something about niceness and whatnot:

<Calamitous Intent> vehemently denies these blatantly false and slanderous accusations!* It's true though, a lot of HM and even NiM activity on imp side is done with mixed groups, since a lot of players are attached to non PvE heavy RP guilds, prefer being unguilded, tiny guilds, etc. I think imperial side has a good raiding atmosphere, though it is very disjointed compared to the mega guild monopoly on pub side (Super jealous of the ability to field like 5 raid teams). Obligatory Rakata of niceness that is clear proof of the kindness and good will of <CI>: *<CI> admits that there may or may not have been occasions where we may have maybe acted perhaps sort of like turds. Maybe.

Not sure if this has been discussed yet, but should <Anger Management> be removed from rankings? From my understanding, their progression team was dissolved and reformed under <Aisthesis>. Since the front of this page is frequently used to assist new raiders in guild choice, it may be helpful to remove or lower them in rankings to allow active raiding guilds to be seen. Please correct me if I am wrong about <Anger Management>'s current status on progression, since I do not actively play or communicate on the republic faction. Rakata of niceness:

Speaking for <Calamitous Intent>, ranked 4th on server and 1st on imp faction, we've had a pretty rough summer as far as progression goes. Our main raid team has lost some members for the summer time to vacations, unavailability, different work hours, summer activities, etc (for instance, myself, as I am in a different time zone during summer break making raiding impossible for me). Every time a substitute is found, it takes some time to get them geared enough for NiM modes, familiar with the team and the fights, etc. The fact that we keep having to switch the group around makes it even more difficult. We believe a strong, consistent group is key for progression, and have trouble achieving this consistency over the summer. Our second raid group is also plagued with lack of consistency as well as attendance issues. We intend to solve these issues and once again have a full effort for progression once summer ends. A key issue we've had as a guild is recruiting and keeping tank mains. We currently only have 2 progression players whose first choice for a role is tanking. The rest are alts forced into tanking over their mains. When players are playing a role they don't enjoy, regardless of skill, we have issues with keeping them attending. Being forced to tank turns progression into a chore. Sadly, we just can't seem to find dedicated AND skilled tanks willing to put in a true effort to be ready for NiM progression. We're working on restructuring our recruitment from closed to open, possibly allowing out of guild players to progression teams, and other solutions. When fall starts up we intend to once again put a full effort into progression. Shameless plug: If you are a dedicated tank looking to progression raid, please submit an app to us at calamitousintentteh.enjin.com Rakata of niceness:

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...

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:

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:

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. 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!

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!

Hope you aren't too sad, but <Calamitous Intent> will not be participating in any restrictions of PTS content. While we currently have no plans to attempt NiM runs on the PTs in our full raid teams, we see no reason to prohibit individual guildies from experiencing the content if they can find groups for it. Since our main raid group has recently undergone some slight adjustments due to summer schedule changes, we plan to use any resources available to assist us on clears, including videos, guides, and experiences from the PTS. As a plus, everyone who isn't server first can add "They cheated by using PTS" as an excuse for coming in not-first place. When you inevitably try to rearrange the rankings again Tam, you'll have this to add to your petitions! And of course, best of luck to UWA on a quick clear when it lands, bring home a win for the server! obligatory rakata of niceness:

Seems excessively complex. I was thinking more along the lines of: rankings will be based off of a) Completion of both or b) Completion of one. But this all depends on what's announced whenever the next PvE content patch comes out

I think that even if it is non-linear again (NiM for both TfB and S&V in the same release, for example), pre-defining the point values and what gets counted for points will fix the problem, as Bombuster said.

<Calamitous Intent> is now: 1/1 HM Golden Fury -Faction first (I think) Proof: (link) As far as ranking adjustments go, we maintain that rankings should be based on time of completeing all tier 72 content (HM TfB, HM S&V). If it is decided that GF should be included, then we believe it should be ranked on first completion of HM TfB, HM S&V, and HM GF. Personally, I believe we should return to the faction split system, since the current list seems too republic heavy at the top (rightly so, of course). If a browser were to skim the list, they would see that our server appears to only do progression raiding on the republic side, which isn't true. Thus, I propose a list split by faction, but with server wide rankings next to each guild. For instance: -But wait Kleric! This system would favor your guild's ranking! Isn't that biased? Of course we are biased towards a ranking system that puts us as high as possible! However, everyone else's opinion is also biased towards a system that favors them. Systems that rank only off of downing HM S&V are favored by guilds who rushed S&V, guild who did all 2(or 3) first will favor that system, etc. Therefore, while possibly not for several months, we think the next ranking system when new content comes out should be predetermined. For example, if NiM S&V and NiM TfB came out in 2.2, we should decide before release whether the former, latter, or both are the standard for ranking. Otherwise, guilds who are retroactively lowered in rank from ranking system adjustments while feel slighted while guilds who gain ranking from a system change will defend the change, which is what we are seeing currently.