Somehow, something last night went awry.
What was meant to be a discussion on Guild organization, quickly turned into a debate about progression, and what the best path is. Out on the table was an organization structure much similar to that of a high end raiding guild: multiple raiding teams, including organization amongst healers, dps, tanks, etc. On the surface, I understand where players think that the top end players will be only raiding with themselves, leaving the others out in the cold...this was not intended to be the case.
Progression
When we speak of progression, we speak of multiple layers:
*Heroics (OS, VoA)
*Tier 7 (Naxx, Emalon)
*Tier 8 (Ulduar and beyond)
What was discussed by Kallion, Stone and myself, was a system designed to maximize the overall efficiency (and proficiency) of the players wanting to raid--creating 10 man groups consisting of 2 core veteran players, along with a group of similar gear level and experience. This would provide for a well run raid, but still allow a group to grow and learn to play together as a team.
What we particularly liked about this idea, is that not only does this establish consistent groupings and raid times, but it also helps move the group down the path of progression. Raiders will gear up together, learn to strategize on boss encounters, and synergize much the way that the Ulduar group did just merely months ago. Doing so also gives the aforementioned raid leaders more responsibility (and flexibility) over their group and times that they raid--and will generally get players into the raids that may have otherwise been left out.
What we typically want to shy away from, are farm runs in which 7 uber geared raiders are carrying others for gear. While it may be fine for alts of players that know the fights--there is a point when it becomes detrimental to player development. We want raids to be organized and planned (and fun =), but we don't want them to be AFK fests (dying on heigan and waiting for loot, dying on grobb and waiting for loot, dying on thadd and waiting for loot... you get the picture).
On Raid Scheduling:
It isn't as easy as one may think. Its easy to calendar a couple of raids. Difficult to get people to show, frustrating when they don't, and even more so when someone is left out. During my brief stint as a raid coordinator, I got to see this firsthand. And, believe it or not, players will send feedback to you both good and bad. Thankfully, most days were filled with good mail messages--but there were days with bad. Players that were left out, players unhappy about a loot roll or decision, etc. For this reason, the multiple group format was an attractive way to get other players involved in the whole process--there are some leaders out there in H&G, that we're aware of, and it would be nice to watch them take a team and make it successful.
Perhaps the ability to paint this picture clear is what was missing last night. Either way, merger or no merger, if you care or if you don't, this message needed to come across the right way; the way it was originally intended. If it was perceived as elitist, or seemed as though we were leaving players to fend for themselves, I do apologize. I think that one of the attributes that makes Honor and Glory as unique as it is, is our willingness to help our guildies-- heroic runs, gems, chants, general knowledge, levelling runs--and I would hope that no one would ever assume that that would ever stop.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Wait, people gave positive feedback on raid schedules?
ReplyDelete/me runs off to steal your people
I'll try once more, Chris... how does estabalishing 10-man teams alleviate the issue with scheduling? To make the teams work, we will have to figure out when people can raid and put them together based on that. So we still have to figure it out. Why not try some initial scheduled events and see what happens as a means to start to clarify who can raid when?
ReplyDeleteAs far as having other members take on more of a leadership role... why not just ask them? I'd be willing to take some of that on, but no one has asked me too. And -- to be honest -- I'm not comfortable doing it without an understanding from the other guild leaders that I'm going to be doing that.
You guys took this to the nth degree from a planning perspective. I think taking a staged approach where we can learn some things and slowly move people in a direction might work a lot better.
However... on a related topic: if we're going to be retaliating against people we've known and run with, nothing's going to work, 'cuz there won't be enough guildies left to make it a problem that has to be solved. This thing with Deathgrip needs to get fixed.
Scheduling will alwyas be an issue. There's not going to be a right or wrong way to go about it: Ask about availability, make groups, hope for the best. I understand what you're saying about throwing out different raid times and seeing who shows, but then again, what if someone's on outside of their normal availability? What happens when someones not on that wants to raid that time? This method has been tried and tried. I tried it, Kall tried it--its not coordinated enough, and if we're trying to base multiple scheduled raids from the data gathered here, its not eficient. Its easier to have people announce their own availability, one by one, and then create groupings.
ReplyDeleteAs for leadership roles--thats what we want to do. We want to ask for leaders to step up and lead--we haven't expected people to just up and do it before now, which is why we're bringing it up in the meeting. Remember, this was all just talk...nothing set in stone, nothing put into motion yet.
Staging is all fine and good, but not efficient by a "see who shows up" method. Staging should be:
1. Get Raid Times
2. Establish Raid Leaders
3. Form Teams based on time/gear/composition
4. See how it plays out
If there's a simpler way to be more organized, I'm just not seeing it, so I apologize. That's not to say, that if no one really cares about scheduled raids, then we can just continue the impromptu sessions that we've had. Schedule one, first come, first served.
Personally, I would like to see more structure--but if thats not what people want, than so be it.
As to the Deathgrip situation, I'm a little out of the loop on that--I spoke to Nick last night. We talked about what went wrong, and how a mere idea became so conflated. Nick and I are friends, and we'll continue to do things together as we can, merger or no merger. I feel bad about Amorgan and firesong leaving--but if there was any bad blood beforehand, no one said anything to me about it, so unfortunately, there wasn't a whole lot I could do to resolve anything. I wish them both the best, and will continue to look for them should we be short a man (or woman).