Guild Progression Ranking

[The_Valkyrie]

Yes, can't currently update. It's buggy and isn't accepting input currently. Clicked 16m NM and it logged a HM kill. I'll give you some time to work on it and come back later.

 

 

Hmm. Any chance you could submit a bug report? Make sure to include what browser you are using. This is the first time someone has reported this bug. Most people seem to be able to submit NiM kills ok.

[prezpat]

You might want to take a look at Cali Killed Nox they are claiming the first 4 kills as them in EV when it was Nox Imperius's kills. Just because a few of there members may have been in Nox Imperius does not mean the credit should travel with them to a new guild. I think its disrespectful to Nox Imperius. They did not down that content as Cali Killed Nox Until Feb 7th.

[The_Valkyrie]

You might want to take a look at Cali Killed Nox they are claiming the first 4 kills as them in EV when it was Nox Imperius's kills. Just because a few of there members may have been in Nox Imperius does not mean the credit should travel with them to a new guild. I think its disrespectful to Nox Imperius. They did not down that content as Cali Killed Nox Until Feb 7th.

 

That's what the dispute system is for. Community members need to take the time to dispute those kills if they feel they have been submitted in error.

[Cepheid]

You might want to take a look at Cali Killed Nox they are claiming the first 4 kills as them in EV when it was Nox Imperius's kills. Just because a few of there members may have been in Nox Imperius does not mean the credit should travel with them to a new guild. I think its disrespectful to Nox Imperius. They did not down that content as Cali Killed Nox Until Feb 7th.

 

Yeah pretty much. We took in a few Nox members including the GM so we have as much claim to those kills as they do. Kills do not carry over so dispute it on the site.

 

Thanks to <Retribution> for the site creation. Looks good.

Edited March 28, 2012 by Cepheid

[Jurugar]

The amount of effort put into this site is obvious, nice work.

 

There are some tweaks to the ranking system I would like to see. First off, why is every kill weighted the same? Why is, say, the ancient pylons, arguably the easiest boss, worth the same as tougher ones like Jarg/Sorno and Soa?

 

Also, I do believe some of the pre-nerf stuff should be counted. Pre-nerf Soa/bonethrasher were significantly harder in hard mode than they were in nightmare mode after the fix - shouldnt guilds that got the toughest kills in the game so far have that reflected in the rankings? It's still technically all part of the same tier - at the very least the hard mode kill dates should count as the equivalent nightmare mode kill dates, if nothing else.

[The_Valkyrie]

The amount of effort put into this site is obvious, nice work.

 

There are some tweaks to the ranking system I would like to see. First off, why is every kill weighted the same? Why is, say, the ancient pylons, arguably the easiest boss, worth the same as tougher ones like Jarg/Sorno and Soa?

 

Also, I do believe some of the pre-nerf stuff should be counted. Pre-nerf Soa/bonethrasher were significantly harder in hard mode than they were in nightmare mode after the fix - shouldnt guilds that got the toughest kills in the game so far have that reflected in the rankings? It's still technically all part of the same tier - at the very least the hard mode kill dates should count as the equivalent nightmare mode kill dates, if nothing else.

 

EDIT: Firstly, thank you for the comment about the effort put in to the site. We've spent a lot of time getting this to the point where it is at and we are glad it's being received well.

 

 

I agree partially with some of the things you suggest here.

 

Let me start by saying that the primary reason we have not included things like title runs and and pre nerf kills in addition to making some kills worth more than others is because it requires a bit more hands on from the developers of the website. The development team for raidranks.com is well...small at the moment (I'll add that I'm not involved in the coding aspects of this project, just creative design/consulting, and dealing directly with you cretins ;p). It's the same reason this website is "community moderated". We wanted to make something where the community would do most of the work of verification and submission. For many MMO's starting out the only ranking systems early on are threads or websites which typically only have 1 person going out and verifying all kills and dealing with disputes. These threads/sites never last for long.

 

We want something that is a bit more hands off and objective here. We completely rank Story/Hard/Nightmare mode independently in addition to ranking 16 and 8 man independently. There are always going to be people who try to draw comparisons between the different modes and settings, and those who say they should never be compared. We've decided that that's the type of subjective comparison that should be left to the users and not be dealt with by us in order to prevent falling in to these arguments.

 

This is the exact same reason that all kills/achievements/feats will likely be ranked out of the same amount of points. For every guild that says Pylons is the easiest fight in the game, there is going to be another guild that says otherwise. We don't want to get involved in all of that. We just wanted to make a system as objective as possible, and that works well, but that also allows users to draw their own conclusions or read in to the data whatever way they want. This is something that will greatly contribute to the longevity of the site since as developers we don't have to spend a lot of our "outside-raid" time working on this project.

 

As to distinguishing between pre-nerf and post-nerf kills, this is again something that is hard to objectify. For now we are going to keep hands off on this issue as well. We don't want to go in and manually add a new kill category to track every time a boss is buffed or nerfed. Creates a lot of work on our end. So unless we can think of a clever way to handle this from a coding perspective it's likely something that we wont work on soon.

 

As far as including title/achievement runs, this is something I would very much like to include in the near future, but for the moment we're just keeping it simple while we work out the bugs ;p

Edited March 28, 2012 by The_Valkyrie

[Jurugar]

I guess that makes sense, though I would still argue that the most "objective" way to rank is not necessarily always the best.

 

What do you say, then, to guilds who worked hard and got the pre-nerf kills, only to have them not counted in the rankings?

[The_Valkyrie]

I guess that makes sense, though I would still argue that the most "objective" way to rank is not necessarily always the best.

 

What do you say, then, to guilds who worked hard and got the pre-nerf kills, only to have them not counted in the rankings?

 

It's less a matter of that and more a matter of how much more points do we assign to the pre-nerf kill? What happens if the boss gets nerfed again? At what point does it become less of "progression ranking" and more of just tracking whoever happened to work through bugs/get lucky one week? Assign too many points and the system becomes inflated/inaccurate and people complain. Assign too few points and people complain. However if you leave it as it is, then by nature of the fact that the pre-nerf guild killed the boss before the post-nerf guild they are already getting more points. So in most cases it works itself out.

 

The counter to the argument is when you have a "pre-buff" situation. But now we end up in a sticky-hands on mess if we try to correct anything that way too.

 

Overall trying to handle all of the branching cases will likely lead to issues; either mechanical, or "developer burnout". We're just trying to avoid those.

Edited March 28, 2012 by The_Valkyrie

[Inzi]

However if you leave it as it is, then by nature of the fact that the pre-nerf guild killed the boss before the post-nerf guild they are already getting more points. So in most cases it works itself out.

 

This is untrue. It doesn't work with most of the KP kills. They nerfed a couple fights two weeks in. Guilds that got slightly earlier EV kills (or claim kills that weren't under their guild name) get more points even if they killed the boss on an easier mode.

 

I think end bosses should be worth more than earlier bosses. It was this way on wowprogress. So if Bosses 1-4 in KP are worth 1000, I think Karagga should be worth 3000.

 

Edit: If anything, I would separate the two raids since one came out significantly earlier than the other.

 

Edit2: I think we have a legit example to dispute some kills and I hope people take the opportunity to try out the system. Otherwise I feel compelled to go claim kills I got in my previous guild before the core group merged with my current guild. I mean, it's only fair, right?

Edited March 28, 2012 by Inzi

[Artacks]

Not that I care or anything, because let's face it, no matter how much work was put into this site, its still very un-accurate.

 

You aren't taking into account the guilds who used the extra player per raid exploit either. Technically if a guild had a kill like NMM annihilation droid before the nerf, that is worth much more than SOA HM because it was harder tuned.

 

Not only are these points in-accurate, but guilds aren't being honest.

 

On a side note, despite Nox Imperius getting these kills, a majority of the ones who carried that guild formed Cali Killed Nox.

 

I'm pretty much 100% right, not that it changes anything, but I couldn't let this go on in good faith without at least getting the brutally honest truth out in the air.

 

Good luck with the rest of the site.

 

 

Also, jurugar is right. If you aren't counting the harder kills as more of an achievement, then this whole system is hurr durr.

Edited March 28, 2012 by Artacks

[Akoti]

Can only the person who registered the guild submit the information? I go to register our guild and it is already on there.

[SageH]

This is untrue. It doesn't work with most of the KP kills. They nerfed a couple fights two weeks in. Guilds that got slightly earlier EV kills (or claim kills that weren't under their guild name) get more points even if they killed the boss on an easier mode.

 

I think end bosses should be worth more than earlier bosses. It was this way on wowprogress. So if Bosses 1-4 in KP are worth 1000, I think Karagga should be worth 3000.

 

Edit: If anything, I would separate the two raids since one came out significantly earlier than the other.

 

Edit2: I think we have a legit example to dispute some kills and I hope people take the opportunity to try out the system. Otherwise I feel compelled to go claim kills I got in my previous guild before the core group merged with my current guild. I mean, it's only fair, right?

 

As far as your point of bosses increasing in points earned per kill as you progress into the raid seems legitimate, the problem lies in the fact that the bosses don't become progressively harder as you move through the encounter. SWTOR just isn't designed in this fashion, as is evident with ALL of their PvE content from Flashpoints to Operations. Often times the entry, mid or "bonus" encounter boss ends up being significantly more difficult than the end boss who ends up being a loot pinata.

 

With that in mind, who decides how hard a particular boss is? I for one find Karagga to be incredibly easy, even with the pre-charge gravity wells. I also find SOA to be a stupidly easy fight, but one that just had an insane amount of bugs which prevented progression for a lot of guilds for a decent chunk of time. To be fair, the only fight I find mildly challenging is Jarg and Sorno and it is probably also the only fight I actually have fun on within this current tier. So based on that, I believe Jarg and Sorno should be worth more points than every other boss. Fair? Probably not and that's the problem.

 

No site to my knowledge (including wowprogress that you mentioned) includes or tracks "pre-nerf" kills or scores them differently. If you can kill it pre-nerf then you get your entry in sooner and get more points for the kill, effectively already making it worth more. It simply becomes far too much of a hassle tracking encounter changes and trying to decide how much harder they are and how to properly score that particular change.

 

Guilds who are submitting kills that were done under a different guild tag should not be doing so, the "guild credit" should not transfer and that is what the dispute system is for and it's already being used. As far as kills that were done on an easier mode, well that should be logged into that mode.

Edited March 28, 2012 by SageH

[SageH]

Can only the person who registered the guild submit the information? I go to register our guild and it is already on there.

 

Currently yes, in the near future additional functionality will be added to allow you to select "officers" which will have submission/editing capabilities, it's just still in development.

[FierasElvandar]

Kreven! You have no life!

 

Anyhow, Ghost Legion is up and running in the new tracking site.

 

We are progressing even though you ditched us for greener pastures!

[SageH]

You aren't taking into account the guilds who used the extra player per raid exploit either. Technically if a guild had a kill like NMM annihilation droid before the nerf, that is worth much more than SOA HM because it was harder tuned.

 

Not only are these points in-accurate, but guilds aren't being honest.

 

We aren't the police, and we aren't trying to be. I don't know how every single kill was accomplished, and I won't pretend to know. I also won't make assumptions and act on potentially incorrect information. If you know of guilds who exploited content then dispute it and speak up.

 

I've never believed and I continue to believe that if you are going to accurately track Normal(Story) / Hard / Nightmare mode progression you can't intermix the three just because one boss was accidentally made more difficult on another difficulty setting. Was it an achievement to down that particular boss when few or no one else could, absolutely and I'm all for you being recognized for that. The method of recognition however, shouldn't be counting HM kills into Nightmare progression. Perhaps some viable means of identifying those guilds that could, but counting points from different difficulties isn't the answer in my opinion. I'm not programming the ranking system, but that's where I stand.

[Akoti]

Currently yes, in the near future additional functionality will be added to allow you to select "officers" which will have submission/editing capabilities, it's just still in development.

 

I don't know who registered our guild (Jen'jidai on Jung Ma). No one in our guild seems to know. I know it wasn't me ( the PvE Officer) and anyone above me (my two GMs).

Edited March 28, 2012 by Akoti

[SageH]

Kreven! You have no life!

 

Anyhow, Ghost Legion is up and running in the new tracking site.

 

We are progressing even though you ditched us for greener pastures!

 

LOL... Tablet's work wonders along with subscriptions!

 

Thanks for posting! I appreciate your time and support for the site! I'll gear my Juggernaut up and tag along soon, promise!

[Jurugar]

If you can kill it pre-nerf then you get your entry in sooner and get more points for the kill, effectively already making it worth more. It simply becomes far too much of a hassle tracking encounter changes and trying to decide how much harder they are and how to properly score that particular change.

 

Guilds who are submitting kills that were done under a different guild tag should not be doing so, the "guild credit" should not transfer. As far as kills that were done on an easier mode, well that should be logged into that mode.

 

In concept that works, though the problem comes in when all the pre-nerf kills were in "hard mode", whereas nightmare mode is now the standard for tracking progression, meaning they dont even get counted in that respect.

 

Again, this goes back to my earlier point about how being 100% objective is not necessarily the best way to go about it.

 

My suggestion is still to have pre-nerf kill dates for Soa/Bonethrasher count as nightmare kill dates on the site, as they were effectively (and unanimously) harder than their corresponding nightmare counterparts. That way, pre-nerf kills wont count for more as you said, but they still get counted in a system that emphasizes "nightmare" mode kills, where nightmare mode is just a label in of itself.

 

As I said before, soa/bonethrasher prenerf in hard mode were effectively nightmare-mode encounters in every way except label. They shouldnt be discounted just to strictly adhere to nomenclature.

Edited March 28, 2012 by Jurugar

[SageH]

I don't know who registered our guild (Jen'jidai on Jung Ma). No one in our guild seems to know. I know it wasn't me ( the PvE Officer) and anyone above me (my two GMs).

 

Let me look into it and one of us will PM you. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

[SageH]

In concept that works, though the problem comes in when all the pre-nerf kills were in "hard mode", whereas nightmare mode is now the standard for tracking progression, meaning they dont even get counted in that respect.

 

Again, this goes back to my earlier point about how being 100% objective is not necessarily the best way to go about it.

 

My suggestion is still to have pre-nerf kill dates for Soa/Bonethrasher count as nightmare kill dates on the site, as they were effectively (and unanimously) harder than their corresponding nightmare counterparts. That way, pre-nerf kills wont count for more as you said, but they still get counted in a system that emphasizes "nightmare" mode kills, where nightmare mode is just a label in of itself.

 

As I said before, soa/bonethrasher prenerf in hard mode were effectively nightmare-mode encounters in every way except label. They shouldnt be discounted just to strictly adhere to nomenclature.

 

I'm honestly not trying to be argumentative, I have all the respect in the world for those that completed these encounters that were in fact much harder (I didn't). It's simply dangerous ground combining difficulties, not impossible and not likely difficult but .. dangerous.

 

Again, I'm not designing/programming/managing the ranking system I'm just voicing an opinion. Being the first tier, which was arguably nothing to write home about, I'm personally fine with going either way. I absolutely don't think any rankings that come from submissions for this tier will be indicative of the next tier, and that's comforting in a way. When the next tier goes live (Nightmare specifically) and people are submitting screen shots as soon as the kill is completed it will become much harder for some of these issues to arise.

 

Again though, what if some of the HM Explosive Conflict fights in up being harder than their NM counterparts, do we continue picking and choosing fights essentially creating a custom progression tier? It's a worthwhile debate, but given the content I don't see the point in having the developer spend the time putting in the effort when the next tier is around the corner (literally for me I can see BW from my place!).

 

Just me though!

Edited March 28, 2012 by SageH

[Artacks]

I don't see the point in having the developer spend the time putting in the effort when the next tier is around the corner (literally for me I can see BW from my place!).

 

Strokety stroke. Thats why.

 

For some people, achieving things in a game with lackluster starter content is very important (as evidenced by the people fighting for it).

 

I assume at some point bioware will implement some sort of armory, and get all this worked out. Until then, enjoy beating off into each other's eye sockets.

[Inzi]

Just to be clear because I think my ADD might have made my previous post a little confusing.

 

1) I don't expect there to be a nerf to points after a nerf to content. They SHOULD work out end the end. The problem is that they AREN'T currently on the site. I'm confident that in 1.2 they will take care of themselves, though.

 

2) I think the end boss should have a higher value NOT because it's harder, but because it should signify a complete clear. Granted this gets a little sloppy once we get Nightmare and you can do bosses 1-3 on Hard and then #4 on Nightmare. I still think it should be worth more. Again, not because it's harder. I agree that J&S is harder in 16 nightmare than Karagga.

 

3) I REALLY like that you have kept all of the rankings completely separate. 8 & 16 are completely separate, normal hard & nightmare are completely separate.

 

I think overall the site looks great and has a lot of potential to be the kind of tool a lot of us were looking for. Thanks for the hard work and for putting up with all of our needy requests

 

Edit: OH! Feature request! I'd like to be able to delete my comments on kills.... I might have gotten overzealous and went to confirm some Methodical kills and hit Submit like 43 times because it didn't look like it was "thinking."

Edited March 28, 2012 by Inzi

[The_Valkyrie]

Also, jurugar is right. If you aren't counting the harder kills as more of an achievement, then this whole system is hurr durr.

 

Give me the system for assigning values to kills that works in every single branch case and deals with all achievements and unforeseeable changes to the game in the future. How do you quantify that one kill is worth 1100 and another is worth 1150? I guess the argument that a system that at least has an objective aspect is "hurr durr" when compared to system that subjectively conjures up new numbers for every boss is lost on me.

 

I understand where you are coming from and we are considering this, but understand where we are coming from: If we start assigning points how you want it, there's just going to be someone else childishly complaining that that point system is "hurr durr".

 

You're welcome to roll your own site for your own system. It's a big internet and no one says that this is all there has to be. We're definitely not opposed to improvements, but it's a difficult path to navigate. I hope you can appreciate that.

[SageH]

I assume at some point bioware will implement some sort of armory, and get all this worked out. Until then, enjoy beating off into each other's eye sockets.

 

That totally sounds painful, and conjures images of a RedRider BB Gun.. count me out!

[Artacks]

Give me the system for assigning values to kills that works in every single branch case and deals with all achievements and unforeseeable changes to the game in the future. How do you quantify that one kill is worth 1100 and another is worth 1150? I guess the argument that a system that at least has an objective aspect is "hurr durr" when compared to system that subjectively conjures up new numbers for every boss is lost on me.

 

I understand where you are coming from and we are considering this, but understand where we are coming from: If we start assigning points how you want it, there's just going to be someone else childishly complaining that that point system is "hurr durr".

 

You're welcome to roll your own site for your own system. It's a big internet and no one says that this is all there has to be. We're definitely not opposed to improvements, but it's a difficult path to navigate. I hope you can appreciate that.

 

Only speaking of NMM. Not an HM translation.