On the last question about whether or not there should have been another raid to help hold us over, I think the issue isn't so much the amount of content but the spacing of it. Specifically that DS came out WAAAYY too soon. I mean they knew ahead of time that there was only going to be 3 raiding tiers this expansion (I'm not sure but I think I remember it being said that 3 tiers per xpac was the intended norm and that Wrath was an exception and that ToC only happened because they weren't ready to put ICC out yet).
So if you look at a 2 year expansion cycle, or even knocking a few months off of that for an "accelerated release schedule" and you should still be looking at 6 to 8 months within each tier, but let's look at the patch dates:
4.0 came out in 12/10
4.2 came out in 6/11, that's 6 months that we spent in T11, which is a good figure if aiming for the 1.5 year expansion, but a little early if it's going to be closer to 2 years.
4.3 came out in 11/11, that's only 5 months that we had of T12, they're clearly jumping the gun as this is less than what we should have for a 1.5 year cycle.
And for the next comparison, even if we get MoP in September (which seems the earliest we'll probably get it) that would be 9/12, which means 10 months of T13. That's twice as long as we had Firelands for, nearly as long as T11 and T12 combined!
If 4.2 had been pushed back maybe another month to 7/11, and Firelands extended another 2 months too so that DS didn't come out until 2/12, then we'd currently have only been playing with DS for 5 months, and another 2 or 3 months wouldn't be nearly as bad (in truth it would probably be perfect since it would put us where we are now, but with MoP already coming out).
Now part of this may have been a result of them planning to have already released MoP by now so they released DS so soon because they didn't know that MoP would take this long, but my point is that if the tiers were spread out more evenly it wouldn't seem as bad as when we go from a 5-month tier into a 10-month tier. If you're going to have 3 tiers in an expansion then each tier should take up a third of the expansion's life cycle. 8 months per tier for a 2 year cycle (what we've gotten in the past), 7 months per tier for a 21 month cycle (what we're probably looking at this time), or 6 months per tier for a 1.5 year cycle.
You're giving them too much credit. We already know - from the ICC situation - that they have no issue with leaving the last tier of an expansion sitting there for nearly a year. (Or more?)Now part of this may have been a result of them planning to have already released MoP by now so they released DS so soon because they didn't know that MoP would take this long
Found them. Well, I think I expressed my views on this in a previous thread. All for it, I just don't agree with your points Agg, I think that so long as the FoS is achieved while content is current, it is still something that a very small percentage of raiding groups will be able to achieve (even with the advantage of a higher gear level), and as such is worthy of a FoS.Originally Posted by Aggathon
I've read your posts on it, and I don't understand your anger.
I'm not against the FoS achieve thing. I think it's a step in the right direction, in a way. The problem I see with it will be this:
1) Guild runs normal. Gets gear.
2) Guild runs heroic with debuff/buff/nerf/whatever..... gets gear
3) Guild run heroic without buff while in full set of BiS..... claims awesomeness.
It'll be apparent to those who raid, just from the date of raid completion, etc, what the real story is, but there will be people who will "game" it.
But again, that's why I advocate very strongly the unforgiving heroic mode. No raidwide nerfs. Only boss specific nerfs/fixes to correct mechanics that are not working right. Leave it intact as the competitive mode raiding.
No one tanks in a void.........
That could be solved by making it impossible to earn the FoS if you've already killed a given boss with a nerf in place.
The Pancake... your dates are a bit off.
4.2 Released on June 28th 2011, and 4.3 released on November 29th, 2011 and cata was released on December 7th, 2010.
[Today 09:38 AM] Reev: The older I get, the more I think those Greek philosophers were just annoying hipsters.
If you're going to factor in achievements, I would say that you get a feat of strength regardless the first time you clear it... and that feat correlates to the % debuff you were at when you got the achievement, it's a 1 stop shot. If the first time you clear it you were at 10%, then you get the 10% feat of strength, not the 0% or the 15%, just the 10%. Then there's a separate secondary achievement that is for doing it without the debuff on at all. I feel like this solves a lot of the problems.
[Today 09:38 AM] Reev: The older I get, the more I think those Greek philosophers were just annoying hipsters.
One nice thing about 10 mans - you only have to farm the instance for 10 weeks to get everyone their mount XD
DANGER....... RADIOACTIVE TOPIC...... DANGER...... RADIOACTIVE TOPIC...... DANGER..... RADIOACTIVE TOPIC...... DANGER.....
No one tanks in a void.........
Some faulty logic here. Seems to be going:
1. You get more gear as time goes on
2. Killing it at 5% with only a couple months of gear is harder than killing it at 0% with several months of gear
-- THEREFORE --
3. Killing it at 0% with several months of gear is meaningless
The jump from 2 to 3 is incorrect. It certainly isn't as prestigious as getting the 0% kill before the nerfs are set into place, but killing it at 0% with several months of gear is still quite a bit more difficult than killing it at 30% with several months of gear. I don't think anyone is going to get that feat of strength several months after the top guilds and go "yeah, that's basically a world first." No one's going to pretend they're Blood Legion just because they turned the debuff off. It's just kind of its own thing -- we turned off the debuff and got the feat of strength.
As to the other bit about blanketed nerfs feeling lazy, that I can definitely agree with. Targetted nerfs just feel better for lots of reasons I've talked about at length in the past.
Targeted nerfs (or perhaps better described as "fine tuning that should have been done prior to release") are not going to happen. The introduction of the FoS achievements is pretty conclusive evidence of that. Unless something is horribly broken in a given encounter, there will be no targeted nerfs. That's simply the way it's going to be. We must suck it up, hardcore and casual alike.
So that means it will be "put up or shut up" time for people who don't like the blanket nerfs. If it's all about the challenge, turn off the debuff, and you'll be rewarded. If it's all about the race to clear content, keep the debuff in place.
Decide which matters more, and move in that direction.
But I maintain that the FoS should only be rewarded for killing a boss if it hasn't already been killed with the debuff on.
Otherwise, feat of strength?
After it's ridiculously outgeared?
Not much of a feat.
Yeah, feats of strength are nothing more prestigious than achievements without achievement points or a place to put retired achievements (levelling unarmed combat to 400 is hard yo!) so you don't need to remove stuff from people.
While I completely understand and empathize with Aggathon's anger here I do believe the feat will not be all bad. It's going to represent a new kind of race. Currently the race has always been first to 8/8 heroic or whatever but now we can add another race, first to FoS. It will most certainly be tracked/dated on WoW progress and may wind up being the race that matters most more so than 8/8HC. Sure Paragon will get it in exactly the same amount of time but my guild, which didn't get 8/8 until 15%, would actually take longer to get the FoS than 8/8 HC. The simple truth is this will extend the progresson race and give the majority of guilds something MORE to do than currently exists ... this is specially relevant to all of the hard mode guilds that just don't put in the time or have the skill to beat a tier in under a month. In the end "server first FoS" could very well become the new prestige thing to brag about and if that's the case then it's perfectly fine. Honestly there is no logical difference between saying Guild XYZ is worse than guild ABC because XYZ "geared up" for 4 more weeks before getting the FoS than ABC ... than saying the same thing except saying "for 4 more weeks before getting 8/8HC". Its the same functional statement and means the same thing. Again in a world where blanket nerfs are a given (and that's a sad, distasteful world for those of us raiding since vanilla) ... the FoS is a boon, as lore rightfully puts it: A new tier of content.
I concur that the blanket nerfs are terrible ... absolutely terrible ... and I will do anything I can to convince blizzard of this and hope they come around but this FoS is actually a boon if we are to live under the yoke of blanket nerfs.
RIP Stormrage Horde ('05 - '11). Turaylon Horde since 11/11 where there's actually people
GM of Neolutum (always recruiting, PM me)
You're right. The jump from 2 to 3 is false. It might well be meaningful for the people doing it. Of course, #2 might be completely false also. "A couple months of gear" for some raid teams could very well be full BiS, as opposed ot sveral months for some groups. The problem is that, gear isn't really taken into account. Not completely anyway. One can assume that Paragon.... or Blood Legion... when they are doing world firsts, are likely in pretty good gear. Consider.... Paragon was problably well decked-out after the two months of raiding Firelands, right?
There's a couple things that come into play that cause problems.
1) Time - when was it done in relation to.....
2) Nerf/Buffs/Debuffs - changes in the content...... in relation to
3) Gearing - Gear changes are even more important than ever, due to the increases in stats and how they affect gameplay. A raider in normal t12 gear is just not going to have the output of a raider in t13. You MIGHT..... see a player from a world-first guild able to match up the difference against Joe Average.... but for competent raiders (true progression heroic raiders)..... no way.
Right now, all that is really taken into consideration for "scoring" is who killed what the fastest. It is ENTIRELY POSSIBLE to create a scoring snapshot for each raid. Basically.... factor in all the raid's gear + any applicable content mods + the date. That's not how things have been done though, so you see a very subjective scoring scale.
Consider this..... which would be the greater feat? Guild A downing 8/8H as a world first..... vs. Guild B downing 8/8H using only t12 Heroic gear for all players without any nerfs, but 6 months later?
I COULD (didn't say I'm going to) argue that Guild B's achievement is actually more impressive, but the thing is.... there is no recognition given for this. The community doesn't care.
The same is somewhat true of progression guilds. Say two guilds down a boss, 2 days apart. Collectively, everyone assumes the first guild with a kill is "better". However, the guild with the second kill might actually have had to overcome a poor gear set-up. Maybe due to RNG, they've missed out on 3 or 4 bosses worth of useful gear ("Oh boy... more mail caster gear..... yay!")
All that said..........
I'm ok with an achieve for doing things with the buff turned off so long as that achieve is only awarded DURING that tier. In other words... you kill Heroic Rag in t12 with the buff turned off DURING tier 12.... congrats. You do it in tier 13?..... Too late. Too bad, so sad.
The achievement should only be achievable DURING that raid's active tier (unless Blizzard implements a gear score limit for that achieve also).
No one tanks in a void.........
.....you are aware that those are the dates that I stated in my post, right?
Cata released December of 2010, which is 12/10, just like I said.
4.2 released June of 2011, which is 6/11, just like I said.
4.3 released November of 2011, which is 11/11, just like I said.
so......yeah.....
oh, lol I thought you were saying 11th of November, 10th of December... I WAS TIRED OKAY!!! lol.
[Today 09:38 AM] Reev: The older I get, the more I think those Greek philosophers were just annoying hipsters.
plain simple answer to the ones that hate this FoS: don't get it! all this FoS does is give raiders that are bored something challenging to do
don't say DS w/o nerf but in full BiS gear is easy cuz it's not the first 5-6 might not be that challenging are but no way spine w/o nerf will be easy if you didn't kill him before the 20% nerf or so. and don't forget that a lot of tactics can be ignored now with the 25/30% debuff that you're group isn't used to.
this FoS will just be at the bottom of your to-do list you have for a patch
clear normal check
clear Hc check
get glory achieve check
get the FoS let's get that!
no1 will post this FoS with a date on it from far into the patch and claim they're as good as paragon
@warri - that's my point. The FoS does not fix the deficiencies inherent in blanket nerfs to hardmode content. I don't WANT to be paragon because I have a life and a job where I can't take that much time off whenever a content patch drops. I don't think that means I'm of inferior ability though, so when blizzard just blanket nerfs the entire instance on a timetable, I get robbed of accomplishment because I can only afford to raid at most 9 hours a week instead of 16 or 20 or 40+.
[Today 09:38 AM] Reev: The older I get, the more I think those Greek philosophers were just annoying hipsters.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks