A weird thing happened in the guild. Someone left it in lack of progression just after we killed the second boss, getting to WoWprogress position #13000, much higher than we ever was in WotLK, deep in the top 10%.
His detailed explanation was even weirder: I am too lenient with bad players, letting people raid who are obviously not ready. That part is unquestionably true, for the first part of the raid, we had 2 people who had very few enchants. Previously I kicked one with zero enchants and gems, green items. Is raiding with few enchants OK? Absolutely not.
But my alternative to raiding with them was to not raid at all. So we wiped several times on the Omnitron quartet, dieing to less and less mistakes. As the time passed by, 3 better raiders came online, 1 had to go, so I replaced both partially enchanted people. The quartet fell soon. So not calling the raid was definitely the good choice.
His reasoning was irrational, based on "who deserves what", instead of "what is the optimal". In the social thinking, "justice" is an important thing. People go out of their way, harming themselves just to "battle injustice". The "right" thing was - according to him - to not raid at all, as these people "did not deserve" to raid.
The optimal thing is to raid with the best available people. Please note the huge difference between this and the "freindly social" custom of carrying bad ones. Once the bad one is inside, he can finish the raid, and gets no comment on his performance. Here the bad ones were often confronted by their bad performance (in forms of Recount links for example), and also when better raiders came online, replaced.
I'm sure that this protocol is not just better for the team (we actually killed the boss), but much more motivating to the bad one. If we simply don't raid then he can dismiss it as "elitists did not even give a chance because of a few stupid gems", while this way he both see that his performance is worse than performance of the others. Also he sees that when he is replaced by someone who is prepared, the boss dies, as unquestionable evidence that his low performance held us back previously.
The "raid with the best available" protocol also allow new players to try themselves out without more risk than some wasted time. They try, see how it goes, and if it goes really badly, they are replaced. No hard feelings, no "I had to boost this moron to loot" in anyone. He tried, did not work, replaced. Next time he'll be better. Or he won't even come as he knows that underperformance is rewarded not by loot but by boot here.
If the ex-member finds his way to a high-attendance guild and can upkeep the attendance, he made the right choice. A handpicked, schedule-maintaining, class-leader-micromanaged HC guild performs better than us. But if it's not for him to raid in fixed times where he must come, no matter what happened IRL, then he made a mistake. We are in the top 10%, that means the other 90% is worse. They don't just let the bad one raid, but do it silently and would never even think of replacing him mid-raid just because a better one came online. If it is the case, he - like many other who believed the grass is greener outside - will return.
His detailed explanation was even weirder: I am too lenient with bad players, letting people raid who are obviously not ready. That part is unquestionably true, for the first part of the raid, we had 2 people who had very few enchants. Previously I kicked one with zero enchants and gems, green items. Is raiding with few enchants OK? Absolutely not.
But my alternative to raiding with them was to not raid at all. So we wiped several times on the Omnitron quartet, dieing to less and less mistakes. As the time passed by, 3 better raiders came online, 1 had to go, so I replaced both partially enchanted people. The quartet fell soon. So not calling the raid was definitely the good choice.
His reasoning was irrational, based on "who deserves what", instead of "what is the optimal". In the social thinking, "justice" is an important thing. People go out of their way, harming themselves just to "battle injustice". The "right" thing was - according to him - to not raid at all, as these people "did not deserve" to raid.
The optimal thing is to raid with the best available people. Please note the huge difference between this and the "freindly social" custom of carrying bad ones. Once the bad one is inside, he can finish the raid, and gets no comment on his performance. Here the bad ones were often confronted by their bad performance (in forms of Recount links for example), and also when better raiders came online, replaced.
I'm sure that this protocol is not just better for the team (we actually killed the boss), but much more motivating to the bad one. If we simply don't raid then he can dismiss it as "elitists did not even give a chance because of a few stupid gems", while this way he both see that his performance is worse than performance of the others. Also he sees that when he is replaced by someone who is prepared, the boss dies, as unquestionable evidence that his low performance held us back previously.
The "raid with the best available" protocol also allow new players to try themselves out without more risk than some wasted time. They try, see how it goes, and if it goes really badly, they are replaced. No hard feelings, no "I had to boost this moron to loot" in anyone. He tried, did not work, replaced. Next time he'll be better. Or he won't even come as he knows that underperformance is rewarded not by loot but by boot here.
If the ex-member finds his way to a high-attendance guild and can upkeep the attendance, he made the right choice. A handpicked, schedule-maintaining, class-leader-micromanaged HC guild performs better than us. But if it's not for him to raid in fixed times where he must come, no matter what happened IRL, then he made a mistake. We are in the top 10%, that means the other 90% is worse. They don't just let the bad one raid, but do it silently and would never even think of replacing him mid-raid just because a better one came online. If it is the case, he - like many other who believed the grass is greener outside - will return.
21 comments:
Another factor which further supports your approach being optimal is that raids in Cataclysm are much more execution-dependent than gear-dependent. I'm currently 9/12 and really those 9 have hardly been demanding of gear at all, except maybe Twilight Ascendant Council.
Continuing attempts, even if undergeared, even if not gemmed and enchanted, will give everyone practice on the execution, and that is the most valuable thing on these raids.
I'm not sure I completely agree. In some ways not raiding is the better choice in the long run, as it sends the clear message that atrocious performance is not tolerated, and because everyone suffers for the poor performance of the few, that message is propogated when management are not around. The net desired effect being that M&S are unable to stand the atmosphere of the rest of the members and either remedy their behaviour or find a new home.
This, of course, also has the effect that 'social' players who also have good performance may get annoyed at these interruptions and leave, but for the less socially inclined, this approach, coupled with aggressive recruitment of raid-ready players, ensures in-game productivity-per-hour is increased as everyone can do something more productive than participate in a wipefest waiting for geared players log in.
Having said that, back when I was a GL I had to face the reality that we have social raiders, and on the odd occasion that we were having a fail day due to these matters, I did the exact same thing as you.
Did he complain about the lack of progression and at the same time asked you why you did not call of a raid because of the lack of "geared" people? Should make up his mind in my opinion.
Also with "The PuG" he always had the possibility to start his own raid. Especially on Fr/Sa/Su are hardly any raids (most times it is old content for achievments) but still there are usually a lot of people online. And with the new raid lockout it is way easier to start on another boss.
Well but I guess that would have involved doing something, starting and leading a raid is not for everyone and it is quite often a lot more work, then just attending. But I guess complaining and quitting before even trying to change it is easier.
@Carson 63000: 9/12 is no clear definition of bosses down. #
BH is 1/1 BoT would be 4/4 BWD 6/6 TotFW 2/2 ao if you include the PvP-Boss you´d have 13 Bosses, speaking of hardmodes including Sinestra it would also be 13 Bosses. If someone referres to X/12 I always assume him speaking of ICC.
If someone thinks the PuG is not progressed for himself I´d agree with him that he choose the wrong guild. I personally see the PuG as an experiment and not my progession part of the game. But maybe I´d be a bad excample since my personal main content is PvP at the moment.
At the theorycrafting point let´s look at Patch 4.0.6(PvE [in PvP heroism is gone in arenas /cheer]):
DK:
-Blood: slightly changes
-Frost: AoE-Nerf, TH-Buff
-Unholy: clear Nerf
Druid:
-Balance: Buff
-Feral: looks like a slightly Nerf
-Resto: some changes math is still in discussion (looks like a slightly nerf)
Hunter:
-Marksman: Buff
-Survival: 5% agi nerf but still some general Buffs (slightly nerf in math)
-Beastmaster: Buff
Mage:
Some Bugs fixed. No balancing changes in math.
Paladin:
-Holy: No real changes (DP is a "bit" more useable).
-Protection: Slight singletarget Aggro buff.
-Retribution: still in math but looks like a Buff.
Priest:
-Discipline: Buff
-Holy: Buff (slight mananerf)
-Shadow: no "real" changes
Rogue:
Slight general nerf but a slight combat Buff.
Warlock:
-Affliction: no PvE-Changes (slight glyph nerf)
-Demonolgy & Destruction: no decent changes
Warrior:
-Arms: Buffing changes.
-Fury: slight Buff & nerf should balancerecording to math.
-Protection: No real changes.
Drenai: Racial heal up to 20% total over 15sec. (making it useful)
Dwarfs: Stoneform now reduces all damage by 10% and increases size (well the last was really necessary...)
Gnomes: Racial CD down to 1,5min.
Humans: CD back to 2 min.
Nightelf and Tauren: Racial is now useable while shifted.
Worgen: Darkflight down to 2min. CD and is down from CD, scales with other movement Buffs.
So they didn´t touch the arcane Mage but scaled down hunters passive stat bonus (15% down to 10%) and buffed some Hunter attacks. So skilled Hunters will outdamage the nerf getting their old dps while the unskilled hunters will scale downward... ...I think Blizzard is not impressed by diagrams.
(little addition: looked at the PTR-Patchnotes)
Oh yes and a new thing about Gems Buy red agi str and int gems up to resell them after the Patch. It will give you a horde of Gold:
"◦Meta gems with the Chaotic and Relentless prefixes now have a requirement of 3 red gems."
And new metagems are added that will drop from any cataclysm creature replacing the chaotic metagem for cloth and plate classes.
"Please note the huge difference between this and the "freindly social" custom of carrying bad ones. Once the bad one is inside, he can finish the raid, and gets no comment on his performance. Here the bad ones were often confronted by their bad performance (in forms of Recount links for example), and also when better raiders came online, replaced."
Which is exactly what happens in every other guild (the Recount links are the most obvious example). So, yeah, you replaced some raiders, after several wipes. Again, what's so different from other guilds that actually raid? You're even starting to get some drama, with people leaving for several reasons.
@Anonymous: "what's so different from other guilds that actually raid?" Nothing.
The point is that social guilds (with 90% of the players) do not raid.
I´m not sure everything said by me was told to you by the way I said so Glotan. Therefore:
Let me start of with my opinion of The PuG. This guild is doing a great job for a no attendance raiding guild. Meaning no one is "forced" to join the raids which are being planned on the calender. Having killed Halfus and Omnitron while indeed, enough guilds havn't even starting trying them due to the lack of players, gear etc. This makes The PuG indeed, a great guild.
However. Forcing no one to join the raids, sometimes leaves us inviting people which are obviously not ready to raid."Are those first 10 wipes worth it?"
The PuG is known as the anti-social guild. "we see it as our job, The PuG's are our collegues". That been said, The PuG does not suffer from M&S chatwise, roflwise etc. But they sometimes stil do raidingwise. (this can be learned!)
Hint: Tankspot
We have found numerous of people dying on the same things, simple things as;
- Not running from slimes
- Not running from worms
- Not knowing boss fights
Based on the fact that we are indeed no socials. I think we are being to soft with mistaken people on actual tactics. Non prepared raid entering, this is unnacceptable. Everyone mistakes at some point.
(If I do not function in a raid someday, replace me! make me study this fight from the inside out.)
It's horrible to see people being killed on slimes, after an actual +10 wipes.
However knowing that enough guilds on different realms made their way trough actually more bosses, as "Carson 63000" said ; some actually reached 9/12!
This added to the fact that I think that I am ready / have the time. To actually start raiding more often. I have indeed decided to let The PuG behind me (for now)
This was a desisscion where I have been thinking about for a while now. It was a hard one I must say. Knowing that The PuG does not alow M&S, no "roflcopter lolmachines".
I have indeed no doubt that I wil make my return to The PuG someday.
Till that time, I wish you all the luck with any progress you guys are making. I will surely remain a blog follower.
The major difference between The Pug and a normal raiding guild, is that you're no more different than anyone else.
There is no loot council, no DKP that's worthless come next expansion, nor is there any "You must raid x days a week".
There is also no set gear requirement, except that you're able to pull your own weight.
That means that the only REAL requirement you got, is to be able to read up on or develop new tactical behavior depending on the situation you're in. In other words, not being a useless M&S.
The problem is - if you are even close to mentaly stable, semi-social person, you will never join Hardcore Raiding Guild. The only way I see for me to be a part of hardcore raiding guild is to quit my job, leave my wife and forget about the kids.
In PUG we do raid, we do better or worse, some of the members are better, other are worse, but the good thing is - you get feedback.
You were raid kicked for doing less dps than a tank or you were raid kicked for not being able to heal properly due to lack of skill and knowledge of your class (despite of a good gear)? I'd say that there is more good than bad in it. In this environment you at least have a chance to get better and thus enjoy the game more!
You know what you did wrong, you now have basis on which you can improove.
You know you have to ask someone to get better at your class or to read more or to practice more ... in result guild as a whole gets better.
I think that's very important factor. In social guilds the attitude is: We can't kick him he's our friend!
In above environment bad's stay bad's and are carried by people with some brain.
In PUG it's:
hay man, you are in our guild, you came to the raid you did wrong the following stuff. Because of that you will get raid kicked. Go learn from your mistakes and we will invite you again to give you seccond chance - no problem.
@Flex "In some ways not raiding is the better choice in the long run, as it sends the clear message that atrocious performance is not tolerated"
This works in Raiding guilds, but I don't believe the average Social sees the message so 'clear'ly:
Repeatedly failing due to lack poor performance = "I need better gear and/or class buffs"
RLs not holding raids to prove a point = "elitist idiots, I'll gquit to somewhere where there's progression"
"The point is that social guilds (with 90% of the players) do not raid."
I don't think this is true. I bounced around several social guilds in wotlk and most of them raided. They did so quite poorly but they did so, usually once or twice a week. They were often still wiping on Saurfang (despite buff and being overly geared) or doing Naxx and ToC, but they were raiding. I think you vastly underestimate the number of people who raid.
This is not to say these people are functional raiders or in functional raiding guilds, but you can go to almost any guild and get involved in raiding...at least in my experience.
I do think you are walking a fine line between meaning what you say in your guild's rules and bending or breaking them for the overall good. I will bring anyone into any raid as long as their spec is legitimate and they are gemmed/enchanted correctly. I've found some really good players that way. However, I will pug someone outside the guild before letting someone raid with us who's not gemmed/enchanted with proper spec. This is in our rules and if I let it go once it becomes a slippery slope that I really don't want to deal with.
Now I understand your rules allow whoever is leading the raid to be as permissive as they like so you're not really breaking any rule. You personally tend to have an attitude of "this is what I accept and I'll accept nothing less" so I can understand why someone would be disappointed with you letting someone into a raid that seemed very clearly to not be taking it seriously. There are super cheap gems and enchants so I don't accept the "can't afford it" excuse. If you want to show me you're serious about raiding, I want to see gems and enchants in every possible slot, even if it's a BC gem/enchant. And I don't mean serious as in HC, I mean serious as in "I want to come raid with you guys." To me, it means something if a gem/enchant is missing. It means, "I'm too lazy to be serious" which translates into the overall way they play as well.
@Trelocke
So to address the original point, are you saying that you would rather not raid at all than to carry someone without enchants?
It doesn't seem like you're contradicting the "raid with the best people available" protocol.
@Bernard
My personal (and guild) raid requirements are more strict than "raid with the best people available." Okay, maybe strict isn't a good word. More black-and-white. I've taken people into raids that wouldn't have been given a chance elsewhere, but they were prepared.
But to answer your question directly, I would rather not raid at all than carry M&S. In my opinion someone without gems/enchants in some or all spots that wants to go on a raid is the S of M&S. There is no good reason not to be gemmed/enchanted. Therefore they are, in my opinion, a slacker. And in my experience, this often translates into how well they perform during a raid.
I'm not saying the idea to run with the best available over not running at all is wrong. That's a personal preference. But I can understand why someone would be disappointed with Gevlon for running with what some would consider M&S. Albeit a more mild form than most, but M&S just the same.
Frankly, I'm a little confused. I always thought that your position was that a guild is very little more than a shared tag and a group of like-minded people. If raiding with few enchants is unacceptable, and there are people not in your guild who do have the enchants, why not substitute those 3 unenchanted raiders for pugs?
If you don't believe in the social "guild loyalty" factor, this seems to me to be the logical choice.
Gevlon, this post COMPLETELY undermines the whole point of the PuG, which is not to have to deal with M&S.
Starting with YOU HAVE UNENCHANTED RAIDERS?
It's OK to have unenchanted raiders as long as you get to raid? "Raid with the best available" protocol? How is that different from a traditional PuG, if your guild is still full of M&S as you define them? Maybe it's OK because they're YOUR M&S? That's a social attitude.
And this: You are mystified that "People go out of their way, harming themselves just to "battle injustice"."
And the injustice in this case is you. You aren't enforcing the rules you set up fairly. Your Lord of the Flies experiment at letting others police themselves, as long as they don't use emoticons, type "lol", or have a name you didn't like, has failed.
They should have been kicked when their performance was found to be suboptimal even if that meant breaking the raid. Not having the burden of carrying M&S is the main reason for joining the PuG. Carrying them until replacements can be found because there's no better option available is what happens in practically every other guild and makes the PuG indistinguishable.
@Trelocke - I think the 90% was directed at the number of Cata guilds with even 1 boss down compared to one of the later tallies of ICC with at least 1 boss down, which will ideally be a fairly consistent userbase to draw from.
There might be some drop off from the 2 million who didn't buy the expac the first day, but a significant portion of the userbase has full access to the content, and simply isn't (for whatever reason).
Gevlon will hopefully clarify if I misinterpreted though.
@Bristal: are you high? The slackers were dealed with, they were all replaced when better ones came up. They were NOT carried to loot or achievement. They were simply used to help us practice movement. Think before you write.
Also, no one in the raid were forced to carry them, they could have left the raid on their own without consequence.
@Daniel: I had my fair share of trade pugs and NEVER AGAIN. Even if you find someone who is not useless (like a benched raider), he will litter the chat and leave after the first wipe.
You can only go to /trade if you want a warm body for a sure-kill farm like Algoloth.
"The point is that social guilds (with 90% of the players) do not raid."
That means that your "join us, we're in top 10%" argument moot? If 90% of the players are in social guilds, and social guilds do not raid, then, by definition, every raiding guild is in top 10%.
So, basically, you're saying "join us, we're a raiding guild" with an extra social-oriented twist.
I´d suggest saying: "We are an active raiding Guild without social drama or duties. Join, come online when you want to and raid when you want to. And yes we downed shit already, so it works."
Short point: "Why not a raiding guild with zero drama?"
While I'm usually one to criticize Gevlon, I think he made the right choice in this situation.
Sure, lacking enchants and gems is a pretty obvious sign that someone is lazy/poor/ignorant, but there is always the infinitesimally small chance that they can perform well even without the enchants. By giving them the chance to prove themselves and not worrying about personal opinions of right and wrong, Gevlon acted differently from the majority of guilds out there.
By taking these players, like Gevlon said, they were able to get a few boss attempts in that they wouldn't have if they had waited for better players. Even if you wipe every time due to the bad players, the good players at least get a chance to perfect their movement, rotations, and strategies for that boss.
The only thing the good players lost was time and gold for repair costs (and flasks/potions/food if they used them). And you could argue that their time wasn't wasted because they could have always left if they wanted to. On the other hand, social players would be pissed that their time was wasted wiping and that they had to spend a few gold on repairs. I can't count how many times I've been on raids trying to down hard mode bosses and there would always be a person or two that acted as if we should have downed the boss on the first try, and the fact that we didn't was a personal insult to them.
Post a Comment