Faction Crests (Horde Alliance)[]
It appears there is a great deal of inconsistency with the Horde/Alliance crests accompanying guild/player names. In some cases the guild name is red, indicating Horde, but it has an Alliance crest next to it. Want to take a look at it? Thanks. (fyi - I hate you STV ganker)
- Link colors have nothing to do with faction. Blue links are filled in, whereas red links are to pages that haven't been created yet. Tokro 10:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Crafting List[]
im pretty much done touching up the crafting list,
-alphabetized
-reworded the enchant names
-made all crafting stuffs link through wowwiki instead of a combination of wowhead and thottbot
-seperated tailoring/blacksmithing/etc into tables
thats about it, i apologize for the spam if some of you have it on watchCr4zyd 17:13, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Expansion[]
I went ahead and added a column for kharazan. As more end-game expansion content is started i'll try and keep this up to date. We may have to remove the old bwl/aq40 columns eventually to make room. Squar 09:57, 1 February 2007 (EST)
- That's fine. However, with an unknown number of our top 20 guilds collapsing or splitting upon the release of BC and some unfamiliarity with the difficulty of the new raid instances, I wouldn't use the Kharazan column to judge which guilds are further than others just yet. We have another alliance guild, Legacy, that's 2/12 in Kharazan and nothing else. So we can keep track of each guild's progress in the new instances if they're in the top 20 with that table, just to no decided rank effect yet. I'm also debating whether or not we should pause updating progress of the older instances now that they won't be done with level 60 members, or keep it somewhere else as legacy information, or expect there to be a guild of people that for some reason refused to get the expansion and will raid the instances as 60s, however unlikely as that would be. -Tokro
- Aye, guilds such as Legacy make it complicated. I'd say that we keep the old info but only rank guilds according to expansion end-game content; this way, new guilds will be able to get up there. In such a system it wouldn't matter if a guild went back and cleared naxx with a full raid of 70s (though they could still add it in the list). It might only make sense to make this move once some guilds get further along in end-game instances though. Squar 02:38, 2 February 2007 (EST)
- Alright, I'm pressing forward with KZ determining rank in the Top 20 chart. I expect that the guilds will start situating into their ranks or will be cleared out, and the chart will look like a triangle again within the near future. -Tokro
- Aye, guilds such as Legacy make it complicated. I'd say that we keep the old info but only rank guilds according to expansion end-game content; this way, new guilds will be able to get up there. In such a system it wouldn't matter if a guild went back and cleared naxx with a full raid of 70s (though they could still add it in the list). It might only make sense to make this move once some guilds get further along in end-game instances though. Squar 02:38, 2 February 2007 (EST)
Kazzak[]
I went ahead and removed kazzak from the other section for two reasons: 1. Kazzak, as he existed pre-BC, no longer exists. 2. No one on nath has killed Doom Lord Kazzak yet.
If you think disagree feel free to post why and revert. Squar 19:12, 11 February 2007 (EST)
- I was considering leaving it up for legacy purposes and appending DL Kazzak (or a similar name) upon downing the latest version. -Tokro
- I removed the other pre-BC world encounters. I expect a few more guilds will be downing the current ones soon, and the older encounters have even less bearing than AQ40 and Naxx progress. -Tokro
Separating Classic and BC Progression?[]
I had an idea that it may be a good idea to separate the classical progression from the BC progression, simply for a historical look as well as not destroying information (ignoring the fact that this is, indeed, a versioned wiki). Thoughts?
- Sounds good to me. Having information such as naxx/aq40 still listed on the top 20 seems kinda useless as it doesn't really help identify which guilds are further progressed. btw, you can sign comment with four tildes. Squar 02:22, 7 March 2007 (EST)
- I just feel like adding my 2cents, as far as anyone knows nobody is ever going to be seriously raiding the 'classic' instances and should be separated with the ones concerning bc.--Cr4zyd 18:21, 7 March 2007 (EST)
- As I posted on the Nathrezim forums, my current opinion is that since people seem to be clearing through KZ very quickly and we don't have other endgame dungeons progressed into yet (aside from GL), the older instances help in ranking. For example, a guild with Naxx progress would be above a guild without, if they both have the same BC progression. As BC instances are entered, I intend to clear the Classic ones one-at-a-time to make room. -Tokro
Top 20 Endgame[]
I'm a little curious as to the logic that places 12/12 KZ and 0/2 GL ahead of 11/12 KZ and 1/2 GL. Ranking completely based on once instance seems a bit irrational. Edit: forgot to sign, sorry Squar 01:42, 11 March 2007 (EST)
- Several guilds have 1/2 GL, and none have 2/2 GL. Point-wise, I've regarded KZ accomplishments as 1 point, and the first boss of GL as something like 1.1 points (not literally, but that's generally how I run it). But since 12/12 KZ and 2/2 GL seem rare, I consider the final kills worth slightly more. It's also slightly beneficial to be the first one to reach a level of progression. So that's why I put 12/12 KZ 0/2 GL over 11/12 KZ 1/2 GL in this case. -Tokro
- The reason I ask is because SoAT got put above SnD by killing the same boss after us. The only reason we don't have 12/12 is because we've been unlucky with the opera event and haven't had a chance to fight the wizard of oz encounter. Not trying to get in an e-peen fight or anything, just doesn't make sense to me. Squar 03:41, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
- I can't observe progress based on each guild's luck and other similar situations. Once Stack and Die has 12/12 it will be back on top, both because of the GL progress and the classic progression that's still up. -Tokro
- I'm moving SnD back to #1 for now for the following reasons:
- 1. A 12/12 "bonus" is irrational in a comparison of progress among various instances.
- 2. SoAT has not killed any bosses in gruul's lair. With every boss given equal weight, as it should be, this places them equal with guilds that have 11/12 kara.
- 3. According to what you have posted previously regarding using classic content to break ties SnD is higher than SoAT.
- 4. SoAT killed the boss that made them first after SnD and in fact did not posess the first cleared karazhan. Giving them a "bonus" for killing a boss after another guild has done it is irational.
- I'm moving SnD back to #1 for now for the following reasons:
- I can't observe progress based on each guild's luck and other similar situations. Once Stack and Die has 12/12 it will be back on top, both because of the GL progress and the classic progression that's still up. -Tokro
- The reason I ask is because SoAT got put above SnD by killing the same boss after us. The only reason we don't have 12/12 is because we've been unlucky with the opera event and haven't had a chance to fight the wizard of oz encounter. Not trying to get in an e-peen fight or anything, just doesn't make sense to me. Squar 03:41, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
- if you disagree revert and post some reasons why. Squar 04:59, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
- I don't count classic progression unless two guilds have the same BC progression. I don't understand your claims behind irrational bonuses and equal weight. And it's not so much the boss, it's the percentage of the instance complete, and it still means that SoAT has completed an encounter that SnD so far has been incapable of completing. In fact, no one else on the server has been able to clear all 12 encounters in Karazhan yet, where SoAT has. It seems reasonable to assume that, if their progress maintains pace, that they will have the same 1/2 encounters complete in GL that several guilds hold, because, again, if several guilds have gotten that far, it's probably not as difficult, and therefore not as valuable in my opinion for determining rank. -Tokro
- Months Behind is ahead of Stack and Die in BC progression, and got there first. I reverted the changes. -Tokro
- I don't count classic progression unless two guilds have the same BC progression. I don't understand your claims behind irrational bonuses and equal weight. And it's not so much the boss, it's the percentage of the instance complete, and it still means that SoAT has completed an encounter that SnD so far has been incapable of completing. In fact, no one else on the server has been able to clear all 12 encounters in Karazhan yet, where SoAT has. It seems reasonable to assume that, if their progress maintains pace, that they will have the same 1/2 encounters complete in GL that several guilds hold, because, again, if several guilds have gotten that far, it's probably not as difficult, and therefore not as valuable in my opinion for determining rank. -Tokro
- if you disagree revert and post some reasons why. Squar 04:59, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Guild Recruitment[]
Can we go ahead and add a section on the main page for guild recruitment? It would be nice to see what guilds are looking for what and have it easily visible and available.
- I think the sections are fine where they are. Due to the free-form nature of the tables, and the likelihood that guilds will be added faster than they will be removed, having both factions on the same page would result in a fairly sloppy and unorganized-looking front page. Players seeking guilds shouldn't mind one extra click, and with the section being on the same page as the guild listings, they are exempt from having to do anything more than scroll down to find the information about a guild that they're considering joining. One drawback of the setup is that someone skimming the front page that doesn't know the layout would possibly miss the recruitment sections, but people looking for guilds are probably more likely to create threads on our forums (and then be redirected to the appropriate recruitment table) than randomly decide to see if the front page would have information on it regarding recruitment. And seriously, there's a link called "Recruitment" under the Guilds section of the main page, what more could anyone need? ;) -Tokro
the state of hong jun/clannad split[]
Since the guild split, most of the raiders joined Clannad. We have already cleared BT and Mt.Hyjal. Hong Jun in its current shape can no longer raid any real 25 man content. So, what's the plan to edit wiki page to reflect this change? Replace Hong Jun with Clannad or put Clannd at third place? --Janz 01:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- If Hong Jun can no longer raid the content, replace it with Clannad. Hong Jun will maintain its own progression if it starts moving into the content again. Tokro 10:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)