Greedy Goblin

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Is The PuG HC?

I get more and more comments claiming that The PuG deviates from its original purpose and changes into a standard HC guild. I'd like to point out the differences.
  • The obvious: attendance requirement. There isn't a single HC guild that does not have attendance requirement. There are dedicated raid times and you must be present on X% (usually 80%+) or you are demoted to "friends and family" or kicked. Here not coming to raid have no other consequence than not being in the raid.
  • No spots. In HC guilds there are certain raiding spots, filled like jobs. The guild has 2-3 dedicated tanks, 6-7 healers, 15-20 DD in raider rank. It's often further specified like 2 priest healer, 3 paladin healer, 2 druid and one shaman healer spot. While there is a bit of rotation (typically DD have to sit out when many comes), but in general, that spot is yours until you lose it permanently. The guild recruits into that spot. In The PuG the raid is formed ad hoc. Just because you use to tank, it doesn't mean you get in today or not asked to go DD. I'm notorious giving newbies a chance and ask the veterans to sit out. Usually they get in after a few wipes when the newbie paid enough fail fee. The fact that you had been present since day 1 and never missed a raid, doesn't guarantee you'll get spot today (makes it probable though as after wipes the weakest link is replaced).
  • Unlimited chances: in a HC guild you get in as trialist. You either prove yourself and earn a permanent spot or you are out (maybe accepted as friends and family if found a fun guy). Here, if you mess it up big time, you are removed from the raid, but it doesn't mean you won't get a spot tomorrow. Of course if you mess it up again, you get nothing but further 300G fees and another replacement. But the is always another day and another chance to get in.
  • Chances for newbies: due to "veteran's gold", bringing newbies to the raid is encouraged (until the point it becomes a wipefest). Can you imagine a HC guild raid going to farm with half the raid never seen Halfus?
  • No gear requirements. HC guilds demand applicants to have "good" gear. "Good" depends on the position of the guild, a HM 6/12 guild usually wants full epic, but even a 10/12 wants you to "prove your dedication" by having 2pT11, BoE epics, darkmoon trinket. Here we only require 333 blues, enchants (maelstrom not needed) and gems.
  • Absolutely no achievement requirement to get in. HC guilds expects you to have "experience" at least a bit lower than their own. If you want to get in a HM guild, 11/12 normal is absolute minimum and even 6/12 guilds demand some bosskills. Here only your pot share depends on having killed that boss or not.
  • No fixed raid leading: while I lead most of the raids, it's not a rule, merely me being very active in my own guild and being a healer which is the most needed role in Cataclysm. Anyone can lead his raid, and in practice, 10% of the raids are already without my lead. Imagine a HC guild raid lead by some random member.
  • No application process: you just whisper to an inviter and you are in. You can only be rejected if you haven't read the rules or have silly name. We even accept lvl1-es.
  • A HC guild is about raiding and only about it. People are expected to raid and do their best to help the guild. Here no activity is demanded. If you are just fishing, fine. If you are leveling up and gather herbs, fine. And especially you are absolutely not required to make any sacrifices "for the guild". Imagine that a BoE drops in a HC guild that could be a good upgrade to a member and one simply outbids him (via DKP) and sells it on the AH!
  • No voice chat. With voice chat raiding is much easier as the raid leader (and maybe others) can compensate for fails by micromanaging people (run here, run there, use this, use that). Here we prefer slower raids with more wipes but refuse to spoon-feed morons and slackers. This way people are forced to improve (or be replaced).
  • DPS is not an issue until it becomes wipe source. If you don't stand in the bad (stand in the meteor though) at Valiona but do tank-level DPS, it's not a problem. I assume you focus more on not failing than pressing buttons. You'll be better with practice. In a HC guild you'd be out in a second. Of course I replace low DPS people if we wipe because of enrage but only that case (or soft enrage bosses like council).
The only similarity between us and a HC guild is performance required to stay in the raid. But low performance is not casual. It's M&S. We don't need that. If you think performance is HC, you are the M&S.


Squishalot said...

Casual guilds don't kick players from raid for failing. Important point to note.

Grim said...

How casual are we talking? If someone fails too much any guild will kick him from raid or just stop progressing - I doubt that many guilds are so casual that they are happy just farming Halfus for all eternity.

Anyway, Gevlon noted this at the end - that's the only similarity between The PuG and HC.

Okrane S. said...


Well in this post Gevlon proved that they are not a Hardcore Guild.

I dont think you can call them fully casual either.

I'd say mature guild or serious-casual guild would be a better description.

Anonymous said...

says who? Gevlon is arguing that any reasonable definition of casual should include his guild. You are assuming a definition of casual which automagically excludes it.

This is known as the logical fallacy 'begging the question'.

Skeddar said...

As I just started playing again (after many years!) this is the perfect guild for me. I expierienced a lot of hate for not wanting to travel round the world to help a "friend" do some random elite quest. All I ever said was: "Do something else if you can't figure out a way to do it on your own."
Also, you mustn't forget that you profit from the guild perks without having to contribute anything at all (if you don't want to).

If someone gets kicked from a raid because of repeatedly failing it is in fact his fault. If he paid the fee twice and didn't notice that he's not up to the task ahead it's just a matter of preventing your loss and the others frustration.
Always remember: Only you can prevent getting kicked (by good performance or offering to be substituted if a specific fight doesn't suit you).

Ðesolate said...

"Casual guilds don't kick players from raid for failing."
Aw some actually do. And "failing" has a wide spectrum that this sentence makes no sense itself. And generalizeing the raiding behaviour of ALL casual guilds is quite ignorant.

If you take any bonehead with you, you will achieve nothing. Try to carry one or two people trough the defense system. Have a "fun" time.

"If you think performance is HC, you are the M&S."
Interesting thing is that this applies to so many situations...

Azuriel said...

The ultimate test, honestly, would be for you to just not raid-lead for a month. Or until 4.1 or whenever. I understand there were a few other people (the 10%) who were leading raids as well. But as one of the points to be proven (or falsified) per the original PuG rules:

There is no need for dedicated leaders if the goals are properly set and feedback can be provided by the system and peers

Anonymous said...

Fail guilds don't kick players from raid for failing.

you don't have to equal casual with bad players.

Anonymous said...

@Squish: Social guilds don't. Casual ones do.

@Gevlon: "more wipes but refuse to spoon-feed morons and slackers"
Not quite goblinish behaviour. What do you care about spoon-feeding M&S if you get bosses dead for it? Why do you "pay" with your time for the "greater good" of getting rid of them?
Especially if you invite them again the next day.

Najtrok said...

Social guilds don't kick players for failing. Casuals that take raiding serious enough to demand performance do.

But to another point:
Not that I would condemn your "no voice chat rule" but you miss an important point:
Yes it is possible for anyone to look at every timer. Thus the job becomes equally harder for everyone. But consider this: Healing is much harder than DPSing. So if a DPSer that does nothing else announces timers and abilities, I can concentrate on healing. So VC balances the difficulty (removing some from me) while giving healers the possibility to concentrate more on their raid frames.

Now you could call me Moron or something if you so desire. But I am not. It's just if you are healing encounters (esp. HC), then you would not like to have to watch at everything. I just imagine things like Nef. While I heal a kiting tank that takes MASSIVE amounts of damage sometimes, I would still have to be aware of Nef's HP (for the crackle). The announcement simply isn't early enough. So my DPSer tells me "crackle in 4%" and I pop anything I need, save my CDs for then and start spamming the tank. Such situations just got a lot easier, despite being still pretty challenging).

Cyren said...

To be fair on the runs I've attended I've yet to see someone be kicked from the raid group.

The debate of the nature of 'our' raid environment and the 'experiment' are worthwhile. Even though the raid times don't fit my schedule etc, I've found that transfering from a 'regular' guild to the 'The PuG', I'm actually raiding more and seeing more content due to the attendance rules (or lack of them).

Riptor said...

Voice Chat (VC) becomes a crucial factor in raiding when there are neither bossmods nor tactics available. I agree with your policy that for normal Bossfights nowadays you do not need a VC as every single normal Mode has been mapped out, put up on youtube, etc and its just a matter of “doing what you were told”.
Najtrok has a valid Point. Especially in hc Encounters the Healers can not have the Boss in Focus all the time and thus rely on others to call out certain events. I however disagree with the simple Statement “Healing is much harder than DPS ing”.
Granted, most DPS play the game in “Press Buttom – receive Loot” but being a good DPS requires so much more. It is for example always the DPS Job to monitor Boss hp and to initiate Phases at the right Moments. A good DPS on one hand knows an encounter back and forth in order to see and call out every eventuality mid fight and equally knows what has to be done if such an event is called out. There is for example e vast difference between “slow DPS” and a complete Dmg Stop (in which by the way the Tanks DPS has to be calculated in). Prime examples for good DPS are Maloriak, Chimeron, Ascendant Council and Nefarian. There, if the DPS Section is actually good, Phases are no issue and the Fight can be shortened by a great Deal, while the Healers and Tanks get a good 10 Second Warrning before switches.If you have killed Nef already, think how many Crackles you get in P1 and how many are mathematically possible). This raid responsibility has to be paired with a very competitive Nature of the DPS Players. If a DPS is not competitive in his gameplay and is always aiming at the highest possible Dmg Output he/she has little to no chance in a hc Guild. This split of Focus Gevlon mentioned is not possible in a true hc environment. If your Dmg is lower because you have to focus at not failing you are just not that good or no hc material.
DPS is challenging if you try to do a proper Job. You have to do more Dmg than 99% of all ranked Players while fulfilling more Tasks than a Raidleader in other Guilds.

Healer24 said...

"The only similarity between us and a HC guild is performance required to stay in the raid"

That and the insane amount of rules that you've created that didn't exist in the beggining. In the end you have moro similarities than differences. The thing is that you're not heroic (clearly proven by your slow progress when compared to real heroic guilds) but you aren't casual either.

But answer me this: why do you people play a game the has so many socials aspects if the end you really want to turn them all off? There are plenty of single player games where you can control parties of NPCs. They never ever talk to you and when they fail it's always your fault.

Jumina said...


As Gevlon once put it. You play with others in order to learn. There is nothing you can learn from group of NPCs. So the single player game became boring in a short time.

On the other hand there are M&S who also can't teach you anything. These are people you also don't want to play. This is why all guilds must have rules.

HC guild keeps small stable team of good players in order to be able to progress. There is easy process which excludes M&S. Application and officers. Bad application = no invite. Bad performance = officer says "x is useless" = bye kick.

Gevlon is trying to create casual guild which invites almost everyone who is able to read. This means the first test is easily to pass for anyone who is not a moron. Now he must protect the raid from slackers. He must have more rules than HC guild because there is no easy "bye kick" process.

@Ventrilo, Teamspeak:
Voicechat is not M&S serving. It's really good tool for tactics discussion's and helps to coordinate the fights. On HC mods you sometimes must change tactics during the fight. This is where voicechat helps. I just don't know how it works in an international guild.

Babar said...

The word casual is getting thrown around a lot. I'm in a casual raiding guild. All of use know some of the others in real life, though I don't think someone knows everyone. We raid twice a week for 4 hours each time. In other words, casually. However, when we do raid, we expect good performance. This means everyone is expected to have proper specs/enchants/gemming/glyphs, flasks and food buffs at all times, know tactics etc. If people are unavailable for raids, they are expected to post so in our afk forum.

We started raiding at the end of January, and we're already 10/12, with Cho'Gall likely going down this week. This is casual raiding for me. Most of the members are former hardcore raiders that either don't want to or don't have time to raid more than twice a week, so they raid casually.

I'm not entirely sure how I'd define a raiding guild where people show up whenever they want, don't gear or spec properly, and come completely unprepared. This seems to be what most people think a casual raiding guild is. I'm not sure I'd even call it a raiding guild.

Anonymous said...

No, it looks more like softcore. The level that's not quite hardcore, but is more core than social or casual guild. Casual << Social << Softcore << Hardcore. That's the level of 'core' that guilds have.

Anonymous said...

There are many dictionary definitions of the word casual. The one that makes the most sense to me in this context is "Occurring at irregular or infrequent intervals; occasional".

This seems to fit most people's definition of the casual guild which is one that raids or requires you to raid less often (infrequent intervals) and/or less consistently (irregular intervals) than the traditional 'hardcore' guild.

Of course, like most dichotomies, it isn't actually a binary either/or but rather a continuum. Starting from the guild that does no pre-planning of raids ever and has no attendance requirements at one end, up to the HC guild that requires raids 7 days a week until all content is cleared on the other end.

Endless debating of what makes a guild casual vs hardcore is one of the blights of the wow community. We don't need 'casual', 'softcore', and 'social' labels to put them into nice little bins. Each guild is what it is.

Riptor said...

Babar, what Region is your Guild located in?

Anonymous said...

With you also offering gold for getting the arena rating in a guild team achievement, do you still disallow voice chat in that scenario?

I can understand that in raids, where the tactics are more or less static for the entire duration, everyone is supposed to know the fight and be prepared for all eventualities.

However in pvp disallowing voice chat is like actively gimping yourself vs. other teams. Wether or not you call it spoonfeeding, Voice Chat has a lot to offer (if not being a critical requirement of) serious arena pvp.

Babar said...

Riptor: We're all from Norway, so we raid on the European servers.

And I like the word softcore really. Guess I should start calling us that!

Lighstagazi said...

Gevlon is well aware that Voice Chat helps a lot in difficult situations. He didn't disallow it because "it doesn't do anything, don't bother" but instead because he feels it inhibits the long term growth of himself and/or his guild members, and thus changes how well his political goals will both succeed or fail, and how they will be perceived.

Assuming there wasn't a significant language barrier, if Gevlon turned on Voice Chat for a few days, he'd probably clear several bosses quite quickly. But then he loses a level of granularity on perceiving individual skill of his raiders, and might be instead interpretting a good leader.

I also think he isn't trying to create a guild of leaders, nor followers. It's supposed to be a guild of people who are relatively self-sufficient. Letting someone coddle them on Vent is directly against that, and it could be a lot of work to determine who is being coddled and who actually uses it as a tool.

Though, he could take it one step further, and ban DBM for "coddling people", but it just happens to be where he draws his line in the sand.

@Anonymous 22 February, 2011 17:26
He's gimping himself against other raids, too. Not that it matters for an arena team; the rule is "No voice chat Gevlon knows about", not "No voice chat at all".

Squishalot said...

To all the people talking about casuals getting kicked:

Let's go back to the original purpose of the guild. Again.

1. Behavioural rules to keep the M&S out.
2. No need for job-like approach to raiding.
3. No need for dedicated leaders as feedback will be given by peers.

Let's address these points. Again.

1. Gevlon claims the rules work. Up until about a week ago, I agreed, until Gevlon started labelling mistake-makers in his raid as M&S. By definition, this means that there are guild members who are M&S, and therefore, this goal has failed.

2. Despite what you might think, there is a job-like approach to raiding. What are characteristics of a "job", as opposed to any hobby you might have?

a) Key performance requirements.
b) Requirement to be available when you commit to it.
c) Reward for meeting performance requirements, penalties for failing.

My girlfriend has a casual job at the local court. When she is called up, she has the option of attending or not. If she chooses to attend, she is required to show up, for the duration of the day. While she is there, she has to follow certain rules, or else she will be punished for it. If she succeeds enough times, she'll get a good working reference from the solicitor she's working under. Is this a job? Yes.

(X) has a casual position in the PuG's raid. He has the option of attending or not. If he chooses to attend, he is required to show up, for the duration of the session. While he is there, he has to follow certain rules, or else he will be punished for it. If he succeeds enough times, he will be rewarded in GDKP gold and/or loot from bids. Is this job-like at all, to anyone?

Compared that to (Y) in the casual social guild. He and the others talk about raiding, but nobody ever shows up. And even if they do have enough for a raid, someone eventually makes a mistake, they wipe, they have a laugh and commiserate "oh, we'll get him next time", and disband and move on. No penalties, no commitment. No result either, but it's casual/social - what do they care? Is this job-like?

3. In the last week, we heard of a couple of raids successfully downing a few bosses without Gevlon's leadership. In the two months before that, we've heard of fail raids and ninja'ed fail raids. There is little demonstration so far that the PuG can consistently down bosses under different leaders. So this is far from having been proven.

I'd like to go back to a quote from the announcement of the PuG:

Gevlon's words: "I want to prove that PuG got it's bad name not from being without hierarchy but from the complete lack of skill or even human decency of the available playerbase. I want to prove that if people wouldn't be M&S, there would be no need for organizations and obligations."

It's very clear that the PuG has plenty of obligations (and yes, performance is an obligation!). If you are not M&S, you would perform in the first place, and such rules wouldn't need apply! So by instituting all these rules, Gevlon is essentially saying, "I don't trust guild members not to be M&S", which is why he has imposed all these fail-penalties and obligations. He doesn't trust people to commit to taking a raid spot for the entire 90 minute raid session, so he imposes rules to enforce it.

The PuG is a competent raiding guild. However, it fails to demonstrate the value of the points it started out to prove.

Anonymous said...

Wow, thats a lot of comment. and a lot of logical errors. I'll just take a few:

1. you are still begging the question. You provide your own imaginary example of a 'casual/social guild' and apply that as the standard by which to determine if the pug is hc or casual. But 'what is hc' is the very question being asked here. As you can see from the many comments above there is not a broad consensus on what 'casual' means and it seems no one here agrees with your extreme definition.

2. the 'obligations == performance' argument is a strawman you have set up. Gevlon never meant that 'no obligations' means you can stand in the fire and do 5k dps. he meant attendance obligations and 'communist collective style' obligations.

3. Gevlon has specifically addressed your 'I thought there were no rules at all' argument long ago. There is no formal application process. anyone can join if they can pass the pug's equivalent of the turing test. so yes, there will be M&S in the guild. it is inevitable. so there must be rules to weed them out.

one thing we can agree on: it will be hard to 'prove' that fixed leadership isn't needed. being a raid leader of any kind clearly requires a level of confidence and effort beyond what being a normal raider requires. that is where I suspect a new system will be needed. there probably needs to be more incentive attached to being a raid leader.

Squishalot said...

@ Anonymous - are you talking to me?

1. Learn what 'begging the question' means. Gevlon says that people who fail are M&S. People in his guild are failing. Therefore, his guild contains M&S, and has failed in its first task.

2. Gevlon specifically said 'no job-like approach'. Irrespective of whether you should perform or not (based on your own sense of personal satisfaction, honour, or being bullied into it), he has outlined a job-like approach to raiding by providing a list of fails (i.e. KPIs). A non-job-like approach would be to say "come along, and we'll see how we go".

3. I wasn't talking about rules to enter the guild. The rules I refer to are the raiding rules, not the guild application rules.

To be clear: "The behavioral rules of the Ganking project work and perfectly capable to keep M&S out."

The behavioural restrictions on guild chat, communist collective to crafting and other such guild rules that apply to raiders and non-raiders alike are what is supposed to keep out the M&S. If you believed otherwise, you would be wrong.

Gevlon said...

@Squishalot: EVERYONE fails sometimes, due to mistakes. M&S fails all the time because of his internal errors.

Also, leeching is rationally optimal behavior everywhere, where tolerated.

Anonymous said...

I most certainly was talking to you. I'm not sure you are talking to me because what you wrote has nothing to do with what I posted. Begging the question is when you take as an assumption the conclusion which is under debate. Gevlon attempts to define some characteristics of an HC guild and show how his guild is not that.

You are assuming a 'casual' guild is what you define it to be: a guild with no requirements of any kind, whatsoever. You aren't making an argument to support that claim, just a bald assertion.

Baked into your definition is that Gevlon's guild is not casual. Therefore you are assuming an answer to the question and then using that as the basis for arguing that Gevlon's guild is not casual. This is begging the question. Look it up.

The definition of casual vs HC is the very question which must be answered. You must make an argument as to why your definition is the correct one. Riddled through the comments are definitions different than yours. One guy raids 2 times a week for 4 hours with (it sounds like) fixed people and an obligation to attend. Yet, he things that is casual. Why are you right and he is wrong?

Squishalot said...

@ Anonymous: My primary criticism of Gevlon's guild is that it fails in its goals, irrespective of whether it's casual or HC.

You should note that my response to you didn't contain the word 'casual' anywhere in there. I'm not making any assumptions about what casual guilds are or not. I took quotes from Gevlon's stated aims of the PuG and responded directly to them.

@ Gevlon: if that's the case, you should be keeping records on how often they fail from week to week. Failing repeatedly each week, by your definition, is M&S.

If you are arguing that leeching is optimal and that guild members would (or should, even) leech given the opportunity to (i.e. lack of raiding rules), then it's clear that any true PuG is doomed to failure, and that there is a requirement for organisation and obligation. I fail to see how you can rationally come to a different conclusion.

I couldn't care less that the PuG is or isn't turning into a HC guild. What I'd like to see is you being more accountable for the fact that the way you're running the PuG violates the principles under which it was formed.

Anonymous said...

don't change the subject. there are lots of topics and claims in your posted. the one I am specifically addressing is when you stated: "Compared that to (Y) in the casual social guild. He and the others talk about raiding, but nobody ever shows up. And even if they do have enough for a raid, someone eventually makes a mistake, they wipe, they have a laugh and commiserate "oh, we'll get him next time", and disband and move on. No penalties, no commitment. No result either, but it's casual/social - what do they care? Is this job-like?"

you are specifically claiming a definition of a casual guild. this is one kind of casual guild. there are dozens of other points on the spectrum where most observers would consider casual. Gevlon's guild is one of those points.

You can certainly claim that the Pug is less casual than the hypothetical guild you posited. It does not make Gevlon's guild hardcore, which is all he is claiming.

Anonymous said...

As for your arguments against Gevlon, I still claim this is a strawman. You are crediting Gevlon with a much stronger claim than he ever intended to make and you are doing it based on a few selected phrases which you are interpreting. IOW, you are not making a philosophical argument, you are making a technical argument about his wording and phrasing. He could rephrase his statements and his core point would still stand.

You know Gevlon does not really think that the Pug can succeed with no 'performance obligations'. he has stated so repeatedly. The fact that you can interpret some of his posts as saying that is of no consequence.

In fact, no raid can EVER succeed with 0 performance obligations in the face of any random behavior. One person is always capable of intentionally causing a wipe, over and over again (chain pulling as many mobs as possible). If that person is tolerated then there will never be a boss kill. There are degrees above that where a person might be tolerated by some very lighthearted guild (a warlock who stands in the fire while wanding the boss), but not many. And so on up the chain. This has nothing to do with Gevlon's "core principles" of avoiding a job like approach.

TLDR: Claiming that there is any such thing as a raid with no performance obligation whatsoever is dishonest and not worth discussing.

Fidtz said...

The PuG is a guild.

Most of the comments seem to be confusing Gevlon's RAID with the PuG guild.

You can join the PuG and just fish or cook. You will never get kicked unless you talk crap in guild chat or otherwise violate the GUILD rules. There are no raid or dungeon performance requirements to be in the PuG.

Any member of the PuG could lead a raid with none of Gevlon's raid rules. They might be able to come up with a better set and would benefit from the lack of drool in the membership of the PuG.

Squishalot said...

@ Anonymous: "you are specifically claiming a definition of a casual guild. this is one kind of casual guild."

You must be a new reader to this blog. The "laugh about it and 'we'll get him next time'" attitude is one that Gevlon uses to describe casual social guilds filled with M&S. I don't see this as an unreasonable comparison.

"You can certainly claim that the Pug is less casual than the hypothetical guild you posited. It does not make Gevlon's guild hardcore, which is all he is claiming."

You're blind, because my comment was that the casual social guild does not have a job-like approach to raiding, whereas Gevlon's guild does.

"IOW, you are not making a philosophical argument, you are making a technical argument about his wording and phrasing. He could rephrase his statements and his core point would still stand."

No it wouldn't. The core point is that intelligent people can PuG and succeed, and that PuGs fail because of M&S. The idea is that by excluding M&S from the guild, a group formed by guild members will be a successful PuG. However, no trade PuG raid will have raiding rules to the extent that Gevlon has instituted, both for his raid and for all raids (e.g. GDKP 300g penalty). Therefore, the guild's raiding is completely against the philosophy of the PuG's setup in the first instance.

"In fact, no raid can EVER succeed with 0 performance obligations in the face of any random behavior."

Of course. The point is that excluding M&S from joining the guild is supposed to reduce the need to have performance obligations, because people will perform according to feedback from peers. See the PuG's original page.

"This has nothing to do with Gevlon's "core principles" of avoiding a job like approach. "

How do you think employers ensure success / performance from their employees? Punishable performance indicators are a job-like approach, no matter what way you look at it.

@ Fidtz: "Most of the comments seem to be confusing Gevlon's RAID with the PuG guild."

I acknowledge that. My primary argument is that we need to see evidence of raids being led by others without the job-like rules in order to prove the original principles of the PuG guild.

"Any member of the PuG could lead a raid with none of Gevlon's raid rules. They might be able to come up with a better set and would benefit from the lack of drool in the membership of the PuG."

Exchanging one set of job-like rules for another set of job-like rules is defeating the purpose.

Fidtz said...

I think you are equating "better set of rules" with "job-like rules" to try and make your point.

Starting from the decent player base another RL might decide his rules are (exaggerated to make a point too!):
"I will invite on the night and pick at random from guild members to form a decently composed raid. We will then have a crack at some raid bosses. Let's see how it goes."
That might work now and will certainly work as Cata progresses and gear inflation catches up with us again.

Squishalot said...

@ Fidtz: I take your point. If that happens, then I'm all for it.

Anonymous said...

Hardcore, casual, social, softcore. These are meaningless, ineffective words. The PuG has progressed because it rewards success and taxes failure. The means are different than the "HC" guilds which Gevlon describes, but the results are the same: dead raid bosses.

Squishalot said...

@ Anonymous: "The PuG has progressed because it rewards success and taxes failure. The means are different than the "HC" guilds which Gevlon describes, but the results are the same: dead raid bosses."

It's achieved raid progression. It's achieved nothing towards progression in its goal, however.