Improved Scoring for Tier15, the Long Version


1 year ago


This topic is a complicated one that needs further explanation. Many players are posting comments without understanding the subject.

WoWProgress is the oldest and the most advanced WoW Rankings website. It was launched 5 years ago and Sunwell was the first raiding tier for it.
Our scoring system was designed for Sunwell gating. Now it seems many people don't remember what gating is.

Gating is not related to skipping bosses
When you defeated a boss, there was a gate that didn't allow you to see next one. Top guilds had to wait for new content to open every time they killed a boss.
Game developers decided when it's time to open the next boss. Once the gate is open, all the guilds that have defeated the previous one, started trying the new boss simultaneously (I'm not counting region time difference here).

Gating means that all competitive guilds start working on the next boss simultaneously
Even if you killed the previous boss faster, you weren't have any advantage on the next one.
Instead of one big race, the raiding tier contained several small races.

Point decay and counting total amount of points from several bosses was a perfect solution for gated content.


Now I'll explain why the system isn't working so well when there is no gating.

With point decay, every day you spend sitting on a boss costs you some amount of points.
There are different scores attached to different bosses.
Lets say there is a raid with 3 bosses: boss1, boss2, boss3.
They have daily scores attached: 10 for boss1, 10 for boss2, 50 for boss3.
It means every day you spend working on boss1 costs you 10 points.

boss1 and boss2 are intermediate bosses and boss3 is the final and the most complex one, which is why there are more points for it.

Looks absolutely logical, right?
Harder bosses cost more points. If you kill the harder boss faster, you get more points comparing to the easier boss kills.

Now there is a trap in this logic.

Example:
Some guild lost a day on boss1 because they made a mistake in tactics, or their key players had a birthday party, etc (the reason doesn't matter here).
This mistake costs them 10 points (1 day).

Quiz question: what is the flaw in this logic?

Part 2 is here

Comments

  1. ESMaticx
    Rating: [-][+]
    1 year ago
    All right. I like the new Scoreing.

    Kernel how can i contact you? I want to ask you something.

    kind regards
    Esmaticx
  2. Kernel
    kernel#2961
    1 year ago
    You can send us an email (contact link below). Cannot guarantee an answer though.
  3. tan
    tanthalas#2153
    Айэмсорри Депо
    Rating: +4 [-][+]
    1 year ago
    Quiz question: what is the flaw in this logic?

    They also lose 10 and 50 points from 2 & 3 bosses. Exactly what we experienced in t14 content - had ~2 weeks break at xmas/new year, couldn't catch up with other guilds, even though we progressed the bosses faster.
  4. Kernel
    kernel#2961
    1 year ago
    Bingo
  5. tresrottn
    Irsha P Town Gnome Stompers
    Rating: -17 [-][+]
  6. Ceejai
    Rating: +1 [-][+]
    1 year ago
    But he's not changing the rules mid race. This isn't a race to see who can get a quarter of the way or half way first. This is a race to see who can finish the tier first, and the final rankings will be exactly the same using this system as they would have been before: The guild that gets 13/13 first will be ranked first, second will be second, etc.

    The only difference is that now spectators can have a better idea of just how well various guilds are doing in their progress towards the final result, as before it was misleading.
  7. Ceejai
    Rating: +1 [-][+]
    1 year ago
    Though having said that, even though this is a much better representation, the penalty for skipping a boss is way too high, or even unnecessary.

    Take Vigil for example:
    http://www.wowprogress.com/guild/us/mal-ganis/Vigil

    They skipped Council and then made it to 4/13 by killing the next two bosses, including Megaera, which appears to be an even harder boss than Council in 25, yet they are still on less points than a guild that has killed council and still sits at 3/13.
  8. Jeruk
    Tanek Vigilant
    Rating: [-][+]
    1 year ago
    There are several reasons why your argument is flawed. First off the organizers are changing it for everyone (including those who already finished the 26.2 miles to fit your analogy) not just those who are still in the race.
    Second...no one has finished the race. As of right now the furthest progressed guild is 11/13 H again meaning the rules are being applied evenly.
    Third, you point out one of the inherent problems with comparing the US and EU but didn't bring it to a logical conclusion. Measuring it this way gives both the US and EU guilds a more even playing field. Both groups have a lockout of 7 days meaning they have the exact same amount of time to down the content as any other guild. TBH the US even still has a slight advantage because they will have received their full 7 day try a full day ahead of EU guilds.
    Finally this scoring addresses the previous ordering issue. For example, back when the leading guilds were stuck on H Dark Animus Blood Legion was showing as 1st even though they were third to kill H Primordius. This was because of the early advantage they received on the previous 7 bosses that the EU teams didn't even have the opportunity of matching.

    P.S. This is a game. Specifically this is a game that other people (for the most part) are playing while a majority sits on the sidelines cheering. Don't try to bring out the holier than thou ehtics card to a completely trivial issue.
  9. Alchav
    Exrier Violent Righteousness
    Rating: [-][+]
    1 year ago
    "It would be like the organizers of the Boston Marathon saying instead of 26.2 miles, it's now 26 miles exactly, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE RACE."

    wowprogress is not the World of Warcraft raid organizer. They aren't affiliated in any way.
  10. Kernel
    kernel#2961
    1 year ago
    We are not settings the rules, they set by Blizzard.

    We are changing our progress measurement system just before weekly reset.
    If you skipped a boss and your guild is strong, go kill it now after the reset.
  11. Scx
    Physcx Fresh Baked Puns
    Rating: [-][+]
    1 year ago
    Ultimately what matters is the end boss and the finish line and with the new system and old system the results are the same. The order you kill the end guy is the order you rank. What I was surprised at though was the punishment for skipping bosses as the race is progressing. Every guild that isn't going for the world 1st is going to skip bosses and it would be idiotic not to skip if skipping would let you acquire more heroic gear faster via easier bosses. It is not as if these guilds that are skipping don't consider themselves part of the race they just aren't racing for world #1... say they are trying for US top 25 or realm 1st. There is a strategy to finding the easier bosses quickly and getting as much heroic gear as quickly as possible to allow overcoming the more difficult bosses more easily.

    I think the value of each boss should be dynamic and based off difficulty. The boss that has been killed the most in 10 man is worth 100 points. The boss with the second most kills in 10 man is worth 200 points, etc. The same can be done in 25 mans based on 25 man kills. So if for instance Twin Consorts is absolutely brutal in 25 and not that bad in 10 it would be worth more for the 25 man progression than the 10 man because less guilds would have killed it relative to some other 25 man boss while 10 man guilds would skip some bosses to do Twin Consorts. The sum of all the bosses leading up to the end boss would remain the same for 10s and 25s. Thanks to guilds skipping, easier bosses get adjusted to be worth less points than the more difficult bosses. Update boss kill values at the end of the week or autmagically as the ordering for number of times a boss has been defeated changes. Also, despite it being terrible trying to compare 10s and 25s it at least does better than the skipped bosses are worth less because 25s may be back loaded in difficulty on an instance whereas 10 mans might have a harder time with the 3rd boss and an easier time with the 10th or 11th... Anyway, /my2cents
  12. Jeruk
    Tanek Vigilant
    Rating: [-][+]
    1 year ago
    "I think the value of each boss should be dynamic and based off difficulty"

    Lol apparently you've forgotten what it is like to try and discuss something with WoW players. No matter the overwhelming amount of evidence you will never get a consensus on "what is more difficult." Draztal weighed in on the forums earlier today (I guess it's yesterday by this point) in a discussion of this very thing.
    Just an example to demonstrate why that sort of point scaling would be ridiculously complex: bosses that require tight dps, healing or tanking requirements. My guild personally has been successful with healer intensive fights, decent at tank intensive fights and fairly poor at dps checks. Other guilds I've spoken to ran into a road block at stone guard and feng because of the tanking requirements but simply obliterated the next three bosses (generally considered harder) because their tanks were their weak links. The essence of what I'm getting as is difficulty is relative and when you try to ascribe points in a system with relative difficulties it's going to be messy to say the least.
  13. Scx
    Physcx Fresh Baked Puns
    Rating: [-][+]
    1 year ago
    No bias or consensus required. The deciding factor is simply which boss has more guilds killing it, not which boss did any 1 guild find easier / harder.

    Most killed boss: worth 100 pts
    Second most killed boss: worth 200 pts
    Third most killed boss: worth 300 pts
    etc,.

    or by some weighted function of the most killed boss. Below is just some arbitrary example values not following a function but just to give an idea where using the number of guilds that are killing something you can dynamically scale boss value and just make the total number of points allocated to bosses a constant and put a min and a max points to get some distribution.

    Most killed boss (1000 guilds killing it): 100 pts
    Second most killed boss (500 guilds killing it): 200 pts
    Third most killed boss (499 guilds killing it): 201 pts
    Fourth most killed boss (200 guilds killing it): 500 pts
  14. Dethkrik
    Dethkrik Impetus
    Rating: -2 [-][+]
    1 year ago
    "I think the value of each boss should be dynamic and based off difficulty."

    This exactly. Taking this current progression as an example, 10 man guilds should be getting vastly more points for killing Council of Elders or Megaera than for killing Tortos or Ji-kun. On the flip side, based on its obvious difficulty, Dark Animus should be worth more than the rest of the pre-end bosses. While everyone may not be able to agree on what is difficult and what isn't, it fairly easily becomes apparent from seeing the number of guilds that are able to down certain fights which are road blocks and which aren't.

    I think it is also time to do away with any sort of combined 10 and 25 man rankings. While some encounters may turn out equally difficult in 10 and 25, I think it is grossly unfair to both 10 and 25 man guilds that all of the encounters give the same points over both difficulties. Some encounters are always much simpler on 25 man, and some much simpler on 10 man. While it may simply be that Paragon are just that supreme, I think Twin Consorts going down after 4 hours on 10 man vs the day and a half Method and BL have spent on it without a kill is a prime example of the complexity and tuning being vastly different across the 2 raid sizes on some encounters.
  15. hororscope
    Hororscope
    Rating: [-][+]
    1 year ago
    Rather than giving 10 man guilds more points for a kill that is harder in 10m or giving 25m guilds more points for a harder kill in 25m everyone should just stop viewing 10m and 25m as being equal and start scoring them seperately. Some fights are easier in 10m and some are easier in 25m thats just the way it goes, because its nearly impoossible to tune certain mechanics to be balanced for both 10 and 25 people. A perfect example of this is heroic stone guard, this fight was vastly easier on 10 man because you literally got to skip a whole mechanic in 10m vs in 25m where you had to deal with all 4 dogs abilities at once. Or this tier a good example of a fight that was much more difficult in 10m would be heroic council where the 25m guilds were able to stack paladins and chain hands of purity on whoever was affected by frostbite/biting and completely ignore that mechanic whereas the 10m guilds actually had to deal with the mechanic properly. Both 10m and 25m have their own unique diffuculties and their own unique ways of being able to get around certain mechanics and they need to be scored uniquely as well.
  16. Kernel
    kernel#2961
    1 year ago
    Many times people asked us to set boss points dynamically based on the difficulty.

    In theory it looks good, but in practice it's not applicable. Chaning boss points will make things hectic in the beginning of the race. Guilds will be very confused if boss points are not settled.
  17. Melindra86
    Melindra#2233
    Mélindra
    Rating: [-][+]
    1 year ago
    Who cares ? The only thing that matters is the first guild to clean the whole content. Since the kills are timestamped, it is still acurate.
    So in the end, your progress will be rated correctly and you will all (us included) have a fair ranking.
  18. fireangelx
    Fireangelx UMM HELLO
    Rating: -1 [-][+]
    1 year ago
    What I don't get is why BL and Method don't split into two 10 man groups just for twin consorts, since that would have no impact on their standings given this is apparently just a race to the end. It seems like 25 mans have the unique advantage of being able to do 10 or 25, while 10s can only do 10s; yet 25 man guilds do not use this advantage.
  19. Ceejai
    Rating: +1 [-][+]
    1 year ago
    I don't believe it's possible to do that anymore, I think once you're in one mode you're in it until the next reset. But even if it was possible I doubt high end guilds would do it seeing as people see them as two distinct races now, unlike was really the established case during T11 when a few guilds did.
  20. Stingray
    Rating: +1 [-][+]
    1 year ago
    You can't flip a heroic save between 10 and 25. Once you kill Jin'rokh in heroic, your raid size for all those characters is set in stone for the rest of the week, as far as heroic kills go anyway. Neither BL nor Method want world first 10 heroic Lei Shen, they want world first 25 heroic Lei Shen.
  21. re1gn1te
    re1gn1te#1228
    Rating: [-][+]
    1 year ago
    Which will be world 2/3 because paragon will get first as always ;).
  22. re1gn1te
    re1gn1te#1228
    Rating: [-][+]
    1 year ago
    Which will be world 2/3 because paragon will get first as always ;).
  23. Queendom
    Делви
    Rating: -1 [-][+]
    1 year ago
    The one and only "race" there is -- is the World First race. No one cares about points.
    So now (as far as I understand) WoWProgress only counts timestamp of the boss kills, and this is what matters.
  24. Archidamos
    Lorac Bad Omen
    Rating: [-][+]
    1 year ago
    In my opinion, what we re talking about here is a ranking system where the guild that did the final boss first is the first team.
    Also those still during the progress, what matters for their ranking in the intermediate ranks is also the date of their latest kill. So 2 guilds a 6/13 HC would be ranked with the "who did the latest kill faster".
    I am all fine with that, but in that case you dont even need points.
    I estimate that you keep them handy in case you see "gated" content again, like in Tier 14, where the tier was split in 3 mini raids and a "time decay" point system would be meaningfull once again for the final boss of each mini raid.
    In the mean time having a page with 20 guilds all having the same amount of points is a bit missleading, or confusing, at least in my opinion. But i am good no matter what you chose.

    Point system always carries an amount of subjectivity, especially when the point rewards are not flat numbers per boss.
    Still remember lootship having more points than the bosses before it in heroic for examble. Also it is meaningless to get point decay (that is carried all the way though progress) for bosses not available to you yet. Like Asia's 2 days delay to access the same content vs US for examble.
    There is not a perfect system, but i apreciate all the info i can find in this site, it is invaluable.
    A deletion of the 10/25 fake race from the default home page though, would be the greatest change this site could bring.
  25. cassiel1
    Rating: -7 [-][+]
  26. khatian
    Rating: +1 [-][+]
    1 year ago
    I don't understand the "skipping" argument on heroics to offer less points. Heroic progression has almost never been linear (ToGC aside). Heroic progression order doesn't even match normal mode difficulty. While I understand you'll eventually get these points back for "skipping" what could be the hardest or second hardest boss of the tier (Ascendent Council anyone?), but in the mean time it'll hurt recruitment, moral and the fact that giving points back rests on the assumption your guild is going to clear on heroic.

    If you didn't have the reduced points for "skipping" (or probably following progression difficulty order), the system will still work fine. Eventually this guild will need to kill the harder boss. The only problem is if the tier ends while they picked up some "easier" kills. Same basic issue happens with the reduced point system as well though. Someone ends up in an awkward place if they don't clear at the end of the tier and "skipped" bosses.

    Please let guilds follow the natural difficulty progression on heroic and don't create an artificial scoring system to encourage us to kill bosses in a certain order.
  27. Skroesec
    Strife#1977
    Rating: [-][+]
    1 year ago
    This.

    Since when has the linear order of Heroic bosses been in any way related to the difficulty of the encounter? Elegon was vastly easier than Spirit Kings. Lei Shi was often done weeks ahead of anything else in Heroic ToES. And perhaps the best example of all: back in the day, Lady Deathwhisper was far harder than all but 3 bosses in ICC (Putricide, Sindragosa, Lich King) despite being boss #2.

    Heck this isn't even going to work as intended, because regardless of this bizarre change, a "naturalistic" order is going to emerge. Guilds will skip around and "suck up the crap rank for a couple weeks" to get gear to make harder bosses die sooner than they would if they were tackled under geared. All this does is artificially obscure the ranking system.

    If a boss would take two weeks to do under-geared but can easily be downed with some strategically placed gearing, people are going to talk about this on MMO Champion, everyone is going to do it in that order, and thus the entire system will collapse because the point of the change will have been collectively ignored. If the community at large decides Boss #3 is enough a pain of the ass you want to do 4,5,6,7 before it, everyone will do it in that order to save the total amount of time it takes to do those 5 bosses. The point of the change becomes completely ignored because people will figure "you such up the point loss for a few weeks, ignore your rank, and then rubber band back later, having saved weeks instead of doing it in the "linear order".
  28. Kernel
    kernel#2961
    1 year ago
    My comment from the previous post:


    You are doing false assumption that we are going to force someone to kill bosses in linear order.

    Again, there is nothing wrong with skipping bosses.

    It is okay if no one will follow the linear path. Then all guilds will get the same amount of points.

    But if a guild was strong enough to kill some bosses without skipping, they get more points.

    Guilds that didn't skip Heroic Council are stronger than ones that skipped the encounter.

    If you feel that skipping this boss was a mistake, come back next week and catch up.


    Now lets compare it with point decay system.
    Council would give much more points than Tortos and Ji-Kun.
    Skipping Council would reduce your points _forever_, and that's actually very strong pressure to not skip the bosses.

    So following your logic, the point decay system is worse than current scoring.
  29. Stingray
    Rating: +1 [-][+]
    1 year ago
    Obviously the whole point of the new system is so that the rankings, at any given time, reflect general progress of the guilds. (Otherwise, you wouldn't have changed it, because at the end of the tier it came out the same with both the old and new system anyway) I don't have that much of a problem with the new system really, but your "strong" argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense. By the same logic, a guild should just skip straight to Dark Animus, flip it to heroic, and start working on that boss first...because they're strong and want to prove it. Killing the hardest bosses first doesn't make sense because it typically costs you gear. Guilds shouldn't necessarily be rewarded on WoWProgress for choosing a path that isn't the smartest.
  30. Keoren
    Keoren Immersion
    Rating: [-][+]
    1 year ago
    I think that one of the advantages of the decay is that the users can by merely looking at the score form an idea of how fast a guild was able to clear the content. A consistent amount of points tells one no more than just mouseovering the X/Y (H) does, or even less. The decay allows for more differentiation between the guilds on the ladder, which I personally find appropriate.

    It is also worth noting that only unless a guild fails to defeat the final boss will their penalty from the earlier encounters be permanent. If they fail to defeat the final encounter, the decay can again further differentiate them from amongst the other 11/13 (H) guilds instead of them all sitting at 8250 points.
  31. khatian
    Rating: [-][+]
    1 year ago
    It wouldn't need to be an all or nothing thing. We're not saying go back to the decay system, but simply remove the concept of lower points for "skipping a boss".

    People can't kill an end boss this tier (so maybe would need to be re-addressed if they could) without clearing the rest of the bosses, so for the top tier guilds, the rankings will return with top kills. One guild isn't necessarily weaker they just choose to spend their time on different bosses.

    Who is your target audience? People following the initial race for first few weeks or the rest of the community after that (I'm sure you have that data).

    Removing decay is fine, but also remove the reduced points for "skipping" bosses. Rankings will work mostly fine for the initial race and be greatly improved (imo), without influencing guilds to kill certain bosses, for the rest of the world.
  32. Klaudia_Noz
    Klaudia#2832
    Faleanora The Weird turn Pro
    Rating: +1 [-][+]
    1 year ago
    I will not talk about the point system itself, it may have its advantages and may have disadvantages, too. Doesn't really matter, one will always take the system that advantages oneself.
    But right now the table is a bit misleading. Some guilds have the same points as others but are not on the same place. I know it looks this way because it is secondary sorted by Killdate, but only by reading around on the site.
    If you would add your second sorting parameter to the table, it would make things clear on the first look.
  33. Fneelis
    Rating: +2 [-][+]
    1 year ago
    Very good change, the only thing left to sort now is to have two seperates columns on the frontpage, one for 10man and one for 25man.

    10man and 25man will never be perfectly tuned, and some bosses will always be harder on one of the difficulties. So the only thing you get from keeping them in the same column is 10 vs. 25 drama, just put them into two different columns?

    I know that people will say, "just press the 25man tab", but the fact is that the majority of the people who visits wowprogress is not doing that. What's on the frontpage is the only thing people will see.
  34. Creditor
    Rating: [-][+]
    1 year ago
    you said that final score depends on time of last boss kill meaning Lei Shen or Ra-den?
  35. Krieger90
    Abravia Go Defensive
    Rating: [-][+]
    1 year ago
    The flaw is that the Boss3's score decays by 50 points, even though there is nobody working on him. The decay applies just because he is available and theoretically he can be killed in the frist day.
  36. Lachtobi
    Lachtobi Eye of the Tigger
    Rating: [-][+]
    1 year ago
    I hope the next part talks more in depth about how WoWProgress comes about their boss point and rate of decay figures. If they're not already doing it, the next logical step of fine tuning rankings would be to align rate of decay with average gear improvement - basically, we now know (roughly) what ilvl a boss was killed with and thus how gear affects difficulty (=how many points it should be worth). The X factor is of course that while gear improves over time, skill decreases over time (assuming the best players are the most progressed players), but it should be possible to make some general assessments there and come up with a reasonable curve.
  37. flyagaric
    Rating: [-][+]
    1 year ago
    With this new scoring system I dont see the point of awarding 750 points for a boss kill.
    Surely you can just award 1 point for a kill so guild son 10/13Hc have 10 points and those on 6/13 Hc have 6 points.....why is ther a need for this 750 number??
    Also if you wanted to award less points for people skipping bosses then they can get 0.5 points then.
    But i agree with a poster above...yes it will work in the long run with being able to see who killed what first as it will be in a logical order, but many people want to see how much faster one guild was than another.
    Say in 4 months time i look back and see Method and BL in position 1 and 2 with the same points...i would have to click on the guilds to actually see how much faster 1 guild killed it than the other....i mean with this way 1 guild may have killed it 30 mins before the other and be in position 1 and 2, or that 1 guild may have killed it 2 weeks after the other and still be in the same position and i wouldnt really know without investigating further.

    So tbh each way has its pro's and cons.
  38. Wyti
    Rating: [-][+]
    1 year ago
    I like the way this new system work, i really do, but i'm confused by every guild having the same ammount of points.

    Your new way of ranking guilds is definitely better, but it will take some time for people to undestand they have to look at ranking and not the score.

    So you should probably either make the score reflect the new method (i.e. redefine it using the same method the ranking is calculated) or if you want to keep it for legacy compatibility with other thing, juste hide it from us, because in it's current state it's only confusing.
  39. Jaaye
    Jaaye
    Rating: [-][+]
    1 year ago
    I havent read every reply so I apologise if i say something thats already been said but couldnt you just keep the old system (which still allows your decay) but instead of stopping the decay on a boss that has been killed where the previous one has been skipped, you keep the decay going?
    Ie $decay=true where ($bossnumber-1).status=undefeated (something along those lines)
    So if boss 8 is killed, and boss 7 is still undefeated, then the decay will still be happening on boss 8. The decay stops once boss 7 is killed.
    This will allow 2 guilds to rank properly where 1 guild skips a boss but kills it next reset vs a guild not skipping (ie stuck on boss 6) but manage to kill boss 7 and 8 next reset. Depending on the time stamps if Guild A kills boss 7 and then boss 8 before Guild B kills boss 7 in the next reset, they will rank higher. If it is after, then guild 2 will rank higher (as the points will be matched to register as if a guild killed 2 bosses on the same day) yet the time stamps will obviously show that boss 8 was killed the week before.

    Personally I dont mind either system (as my guild barely ranks under 2k) but just thought if you prefered the decay system, it should still work with the above method in place (unless im missing something).
  40. Shimitsu
    Shimitsu
    Rating: +2 [-][+]
    1 year ago
    How hard is it to just let the numbers speak for themselves instead of adding arbitrary value as you see fit? A 4/13 guild should always be ahead of a 3/13 guild. Always! If the 3/13 guild is truly better, and just spent more time on a harder boss, the numbers will work themselves out in the long run. There is not even the smallest need for you to intervene with artificial value.
  41. jehyo
    Rating: [-][+]
    1 year ago
    The ranking system should at least present the option to be 'normalized' based on the time servers come up after the patch, I believe this is a easy thing to implement and one can check the official site for when the servers are up and running, other ranking sites already do this and it is the most fair thing to do. Saying that getting the patch first is a disadvantaged because of bugs is just stupid, nowadays with all the instant hotfixes bugs barely have an impact in the early race, half a day head start is a BIG advantage and anyone who says otherwise is lying to himself.
  42. Mortuque
    Mortuque
    Rating: [-][+]
    1 year ago
    So if we skipped Council before u changed the system of rating and killed Tortos, we are gonna have -500 points on Tortos FOREVER? Or will we get the points back?
    It doesn't realy seem logical to me to penalize guilds, that skipped boss, just to get more kills = better ranking with old system and then u change the rules in the middle of week :/
    (For example, we are probably gonna lose realm first only because the second guild was stucked on the Horridon and did not skipped Council (not killed yet) after u announced the change. So when both guilds will get at the same progress, lets say 5/13HC, we are just gonna be second even if we killed all the bosses first?)
  43. Kernel
    kernel#2961
    1 year ago
    You'll get the points back once you kill Council.
  44. Mortuque
    Mortuque
    Rating: [-][+]
    1 year ago
    Ok, thanks.
  45. Mortuque
    Mortuque
    Rating: [-][+]
    1 year ago
    ***Or will we get the points back if we kill Council this week?
  46. onisuka
    Onisuka 神樣
    Rating: [-][+]
    1 year ago
    I suggested to separating 10/25 ranking in Asian regions. Since the ilvl of the gear in 25-man raid is higher than 10-man, some of the people using the gear in 25-man to kill 10-man bosses. It looks unfair, because it is easier to using +8 ilvl gear to kill the +0 bosses.
  47. meyas
    Rating: [-][+]
    1 year ago
    What the site needs is innovations like the ability to compare (which should be the main thing on this site: COMPARE) characters and/or guilds in a way where for example we can select 2 guilds and see how much more time it took guild A to kill a boss comparing to guild B, etc, this would be a great and powerful thing to have, in fact it would be best to replace the score numbers with timestamps of the latest kill.

    Also regarding the rank time adjustment by region, all I can say is that WF is WF no matter what and it should stay that way by default, however having a filter-like option to enable time adjustment can not hurt anyone.
  48. Earthblood
    Earthblood Stardust
    Rating: [-][+]
    1 year ago
    I do understand Gating System, even if WOW community seems to consider that The FK is End boss' one. Considering VHL Guilds need more than one week to kill the End boss in Heroic, it seems a smart way to select previous boss in order to benefit from stuff giving most upgrades for next reset. Gating system give privilege to linear view rather than an optimisation, why not.
    For me this grading system doesnt mean anything in a Worlwide view due to the fact you don't take in considerating that some areas can play very earlier than other. nimber of hours/mns after server opening is more representative for me, and is the real grading.

    Hope I wrote clearly, Engly is not my mother tongue.
  49. Noemi
    Rating: [-][+]
    1 year ago
    what's the point of the "Points" then? Just keep just boss kills and ladder. Same kills = same points, redundant info.
  50. Pssycho
    Rating: [-][+]
    1 year ago
    I think the system works good, however I do think the first Guild that kills the last boss SHOULD finish World #1 Rank. With this new system this is not always the case. They might have got the World First Kill, but not finish World Rank #1. This is a HUGE Flaw!!
  51. Kernel
    kernel#2961
    1 year ago
    The guild that kills the last boss first gets #1 Rank. It's always the case.
  52. HighFly
    Арканистая
    Rating: [-][+]
    1 year ago
    So, if some guild will focus on last boss and kill him first, even after skipping all the previous, they will get #1 Rank?
  53. Kernel
    kernel#2961
    1 year ago
    It's not possible to access the last boss if the previous ones were skipped.
  54. HighFly
    Арканистая
    Rating: [-][+]
    1 year ago
    As i remember, Sinestra could be killed without killing all the heroic bosses in Bastion of Twilight, Cho'gall was enough. In this tier, I suppose, killing Lei Shen is enough to get to Ra-den. But i'm talking not only about present tier, about upcoming too. Or maybe you will change the system for each tier?
  55. meyas
    Rating: [-][+]
    1 year ago
    Am I the only one that thinks Ra-den should be tracked separably of the rest of the bosses on the current tier like --- is doing? I mean even Blizzard admitted that Lei Shen was to be considered the true last boss of ToT.
  56. jehyo
    Rating: [-][+]
    1 year ago
    Wouldn't it make more sense if the score points that can be earned with a boss kill would decay every week with each reset until it reaches a minimal set amount? I don't see the point of everyone having the same score when they kill the bosses on different resets, killing in different times in the same reset is one thing but killing on different resets is a all other thing. Guilds should be rewarded properly for killing a boss in one reset with less gear than a guild who kills it on the next reset with more gear! This should also be great to rank Asian guilds that get 2 resets per week.
  57. meyas
    Rating: [-][+]
    1 year ago
    I don't think you can pull from the armory the number of resets it took to kill a boss but I suppose it could be done at wowprogress side. On previous tiers this would be pretty much useless (for top guilds) since all the bosses were always downed on 1 reset however recently this is not so much the case thus maybe having this tracked in additional to the boss killed 'X time ago' is great to simplify, in fact this can be very useful for lower tier guilds who struggle for weeks on progress, its a really good guild measure because if we were to browser by realm and saw that 2 guilds have cleared all the bosses one would assume that both guilds were pretty good even if one was ranked higher than the other, however if the number of resets it took to clear was displayed then we would have a more accurate though if one guild was way better than the other or not.
  58. Skroesec
    Strife#1977
    Rating: +1 [-][+]
    1 year ago
    I just want to point out to Kernel, re-our debate last week, that as predicted, the "standard order" for Throne of Thunder 25 Heroic is turning out to be

    Jin'rok->Horridon->Tortos->Maegera->Ji'kun->Council->Drumuru-> The rest.

    Many guilds are even doing Tortos before Horridon.

    Council is being left, intentionally, until 3 heroics after them are killed. Truly, doing "Council" first is in no way indicative of a stronger guild. If anything it is indicative with a more reckless and poorly organized one. If Guild A spends 3 weeks doing Tortos, Maegera, Ji'kun before touching council, and I get three, two, and one kills of those bosses on heroic before I go to council, Guild A will have a substantial gear advantage over Guild B, that spent two of those three weeks on Council. That gear advantage will mean a faster, if delayed Council kill, but more significantly, will mean that Guild A, with more weeks of more Heroic boss kills under its belt than Guild B by the time they get to Drumuru, will have a substantially easier time meeting its tight enrage.

    Thus the entire justification for the change has collapsed. No one is doing it, exactly as predicted. The currency in raiding is Time. You have 7 day a week guilds, 4 day a week guilds, 5 day a week guilds, 3 day a week guilds, etc. They all maximize their progression within the confines of the hours they raid per week. They will, entirely logically, sacrifice short term ranking for long term benefit. Killing more things faster sooner is always better than killing fewer things, slower. It keeps guilds motivated for one, but also it means that with more gear, they can make more of their limited time on harder fights in the future. After all, why engage Council with an Average guild iLevel of 515 when you can do it in 3 weeks with an Average guild ilevel of 523 because you killed three other heroic bosses in the interim? That's madness and any guild leader who does that is a fool.

    And considering that no guild (in the US 25 top 50) is taking WoWProgress on it's de facto mandate that to get full points, you need to clear in order, it's hard to escape the conclusion that the change in ranking method has been a comprehensive failure. People are just ignoring getting 250 points, because nobody is actually thinking and acting on "we'll jump up if we kill Council first".

    People in these threads called this from a light-year away.
  59. Kernel
    kernel#2961
    1 year ago
    Again, we don't force anyone to follow any boss kill order. It is okay if no one follows the path.

    During the first week of heroic progression there were guilds that didn't skip bosses and they were ranked higher, which is more relevant than ranking by amount of killed bosses.

    After you kill hard bosses you skipped before, your score points increased significantly which is also good for relevancy.
  60. lanost
    Rating: [-][+]
    1 year ago
    Correct me if I'm wrong but if we have an instance with 5 raid bosses and lets say boss 2 is harder than boss 3 and 4, so guild A decides skipping boss 2 and goes straight for bosses 3 and 4 successfully killing them before the weekly reset whereas guild B does not skip anything and gets stuck on boss 2 for a while killing him only the day before the weekly reset not leaving any time to kill bosses 3 and 4. On the next reset guild A feels confident with the new gear they got and decides to kill boss 2 and are indeed able to do it, meanwhile guild B makes up for the last reset and manages to kill the bosses 3 and 4. At this time both guilds would be 4/5 but guild A would be ranked higher despite having the same amount of points because guild B was punished for not skipping a hard boss on the week before thus making them killing boss 3 and 4 later than guild A. IF this is the case it is somewhat unfair that a guild that worked so hard to kill a hard boss with crap gear gets ranked below a guild that skipped it to do easier bosses grabbing the gear and come back later to kill the hard boss.
  61. Kernel
    kernel#2961
    1 year ago
    They will have the same amount if points.
    Their rankings will depend on timestamps of their latest bosskills.
  62. lanost
    Rating: [-][+]
    1 year ago
    Assume that guild B kills bosses 3 and 4 faster than guild A kills boss 2 (remember that guild A already have killed bosses 3 and 4 much before guild B) who will be ranked higher? And if guild A kills the boss 2 sooner than what it takes to guild B to kill the bosses 3 and 4 who will be ranked higher?
  63. Kernel
    kernel#2961
    1 year ago
    It doesn't matter which boss killed last, whoever kills its last boss first gets higher rank.
  64. lanost
    Rating: [-][+]
    1 year ago
    Exactly my point of this system being quite unfair for non-skipping guilds, it's like they are punished for not skipping a hard boss.
  65. Kernel
    kernel#2961
    1 year ago
    We don't force to skip and we don't force to not to skip bosses, guilds choose which boss to kill first.
    We cannot predict which path to the last boss is the most efficient for your guild.

    If a guild didn't try to game the boss kill order and just killed them without skipping, and haven't lost too much time, we assume that the guild is stronger and our rankings reflect that.
  66. HighFly
    Арканистая
    Rating: [-][+]
    1 year ago
    What means the word "last"? Is it last in numeration or is it last that scored, if the second than it seems to be fair.
  67. Aeristial
    Aeristial DarkStorm
    Rating: [-][+]
    1 year ago
    Comparing 2 guilds, how is it decided which rank they get?

    On my server, 25man Jinrokh same day.

    Horridon guild1 3 days before guild2.
    Tortos Guild1 1 day after guild2..

    With 3 HC guild 2 is ranked higher, decay system it would have been the other way around most likely, so what changed?
  68. Kernel
    kernel#2961
    1 year ago
    The sorting is done in following order:
    - score
    - time of last boss kill
  69. Minostauren
    Rating: [-][+]
    1 year ago
    Hi kernel, currently the progress of 10/25 man are wrong, my guild just killed Jinrok heroic last night on 10 man, and in progress its show as 25 man, why ??
    Same issues with other guilds doing 10man and show progress as 25man
    sorry i dont know where post this so i put it here :p
  70. Kernel
    kernel#2961
    1 year ago
    It's fixed after progress update now.
    You could update progress of the other guilds too, please let me know if not fixed.
  71. oraculum
    Poena
    Rating: [-][+]
    1 year ago
    The only problem is that guilds that wipe on earlier and more tightly tuned bosses might not pass them until nerfs and then will quickly catch up. This system rewards players who weren't good enough to get past fights without nerfs (obviously not talking about world first, but take for example how Horridon 10man blocked many of those guilds until it and council received nerfs).
  72. nanukura
    Rating: [-][+]
    1 year ago
    Why not award a more 'round number' of points per boss kill like 100 to make things easier to understand. Also I think you need to update the faq to reflect the recent changes.

    As for the site itself is still great but I feel it needs more of a community, a forum/blog/news page of some sorts. Like the videos consider allowing guilds to post screenshoots of kills and maybe allow users to comment on guild pages (if they allow) this will give more interaction between guilds and fans like wow raider .net

    btw have you considered parsing logs on wowprogress? Would be great to rank players dps, heals, etc, this info is way better to have for guild recruitment.
  73. Grendizer
    Grendizer#2508
    Rating: [-][+]
    1 year ago
    Hi.
    I am finding the scoring system a bit meaningless (since it just represents the number bosses killed). I totally get the part where in the old system a delay in boss 1 costs you on boss 2. But why not make boss 2 decay depends on the difference in time between boss 1 and boss 2?
    For example let's take Method and Envy as an example of 2 EU 25 man guilds.
    Method beat Envy to Boss 11 boss by 3 days. However they beat them to Boss 12 boss by 20 days. That means that Envy spent 17 more days on Boss 12 (that includes 2 additional weeks of gearing from 2 additional resets on bosses 1-11). Still Envy and Method get the same amount of points on Boss 12? Why?
    I think a better alternative is have Envy take a penalty of 17 days decay on boss 12 (instead of the actual 20days difference). Another alternative is have the boss points decay with every reset. So if you kill the boss on first reset (while you still have mostly gear from previous tier), you get full points, second reset you lose X points, at 10th reset(after you farmed previous bosses and have full Tier 15 gear) you lose 10X points, etc.
  74. nanukura
    Rating: [-][+]
    1 year ago
    IMO the points should decay per reset.
  75. Mastek
    Rating: [-][+]
    1 year ago
    Any plans of updating the "days a week" listing? Most guilds have false values there which messes up the real rankings. Most of the 5 day raiding guilds raid 6/7 days in reality.

    There could be some form of detection.
  76. oraculum
    Poena
    Rating: [-][+]
    1 year ago
    The current point system is supposed to Penalize skipping bosses?
    While a good system in theory, Why isn't it working when a 25man guild kills Lei Shen on 10N and then gets a 25 H. Jin'Rokh Kill without having killed 25N Lei Shen?




login register

< previous next >
< previous next >

 


WoWProgress on Facebook