Damage Control

I'd like your feedback and comments on these prior to making them official. While I don't want this to sound too "hardcore" I think it's time we clarified our intent a bit more and used the guild ranks as leverage. I'm interested in your thoughts on who should get to repair, how we can rate performance, if you like the attendance percentages, what other roles we need, the names of the ranks as well as anything else you think should be clarified or added.

Thanks in advance for the input.


Guild Master -- Responsible for a portion of each role described below

Officer -- Responsible for guild management (bank, people, roles, recruitment, trials etc) Other specific roles will also be introduced for clarity.

Recruitment Officer
Performance Officer
Companion Officer
Other?

Lead (I don't like this name) -- Responsible for participation in Loot Council, Raid Management and other specific tasks based on the roles below. The persons must consistently maintain the highest level of standards (from core raider status below) and are given those priviledges as well as extended responsibilites for things like rank management, performance rating, raid leadership, raid invites and various other important responsibilites that make the guild run smoothly.

Role A -- Attendance/Loot Tracking/Raid Scheduling
Role B -- Strategy
Role C -- Class needs/leads (TBD)*

*I'm thinkning something along the lines of key people who know how we as a guild benefit for certain personal upgrades. (i.e Knowing person A can benefit much more from item X as opposed to person B)

Core Raider -- 80% Attendance (with mandatory AFK status)

High Performance/Awareness
Willingness to adjust to Raid needs/requirements
Automatic Raid Invite

Raider** -- (60% Attendance)

** I would expect that same levels of performance and the willingness to step in/out as needed. Not a downgrade in terms of what a core raider is just a status that everyone may not seek to maintain. The "Core Raider" title should be reserved for people fully commited to the guild and it's needs.


Member -- Does not mean you can't raid. You might have asspirations to raid or have missed out on raids due to RL changes etc

(Needs some work)

Non-Raider / Friend / Retired

Alt

Recruit

Companion Officer? Sorry you may be able to convince Than to do that for you, but not me.

On a serious note here is my feedback.

1) Mention how many of each rank there will be ideally. E.g. Goal is 1 GM, 4-5 officers, 4-5 leads, etc.

2) What are the standards for performance?

3) When you say Automatic Invite for Core Raider you should have a caveat that if there are 30 core raiders on, obviously there may be some exceptions.

4) Lead can be called "Guild Executive Assistant" or "Guild Assist" or "Guild Manager"

5) You say 60% for Raider and 80% for core raider. However it should be stated that beyond attendance performance is also a factor. meaning you could have 90% attendance, but always wipe the raid by dropping defile over and over in the same place.

6) Will people be rewarded attendance for showing up but not getting invite? Should there be rules on this to prevent abuse? Meaning I show up to get counted then log off for rest of night; but when I'm needed later on in the evening I'm not around?

7) I'm sure your working on a set of performance criteria but it shouldn't be related to DPS and HPS meters solely. I think ranking like that solely causes things like Kinetic Bombs to hit the ground more often.

8.) AFK status should be mandatory for ALL raiders. But if your a core raider and you do not post one (except extreme emergencies) then its grounds for demotion in my opinion. AFKs are not hard to post, the internet is everywhere takes 2 seconds.

9) How long do recruits stay at this rank? We should update our website to state such.

10) I bet you stopped reading by now.

11) Should specify how periods of player inactivity affect ranks and how it affects being kicked from the guild. I'll all for people leaving the game with the chance at coming back, but they should either be demoted or eventually kicked to keep things clean. We all have seen people get hacked who have been afk for months.

12) Anyone with significant bank access should be required to have an authenticator.

Add more later...

#2684944 Xentin wrote:

3) When you say Automatic Invite for Core Raider you should have a caveat that if there are 30 core raiders on, obviously there may be some exceptions.

Still gathering my thoughts, and will post more later... but I personally think that this shouldnt be possible. The "Core Raiders" and everyone ranked higher should be given an auto invite. I like that, based on attendence and performance. However, I think the numbers of people in those positions should be limited to around 20, to prevent too many "auto invites" from going out.

Just tossing out hypothetical numbers here, but lets say....
1 GM
4 Officers
3-4 "Leads"
10-12 CORE

Like I say, just a quick thing that stuck out right away... more will likely follow soon

Actually that makes sense bean

OK a few questions about it...

1. Will there be a lead from each class or just a general healer/tank/dps lead?
2. Obviously what are the requirements for performance?
3. How soon will these be put into effect?
4. How about Elder instead of Lead?
5. Will this just be a renaming or will the DC upper tiers be shaken as selcouth/grimmus/adobo get demoted?

6. Inu for telling people "you sucked ass this raid " officer.

Asspirations.

Oh god.

(I encourage Moldy to delete my post to hide his shame).

Role A -- Attendance/Loot Tracking/Raid Scheduling
Role B -- Strategy
Role C -- Class needs/leads (TBD)*

*I'm thinkning something along the lines of key people who know how we as a guild benefit for certain personal upgrades. (i.e Knowing person A can benefit much more from item X as opposed to person B)


2 things concern me about this leads business, will i have some melee individual yapping in my ear all day about how to play my class? ( ungggh Dbagger you aren't doing exactly what i'm doing you fail OMG) or will it be a loose lead in that our goal is to accomplish "A" and you know your class well enough that I don't need to play for you?

The other is that shitty/lazy/innatentive/focus fire players will always benefit the most from upgrades, it compliments their playing style. I could bring up Ulduar and tanking pieces but i'm sure you all have heard me bitch about it. My point is the person always on the disco balls still deserves the shiny loot becuase of their competence as a player, and not just the boom boom damage it will give a tunnel dps'r.

That said for the most part I'm happy with how things have been divy'd out and I understand that this new restructuring is ment to alleviate the strain on our wonderful officers (except couth, he's a bitch and killed me tonight). So I urge caution, in making these types of decisions, and i hope they will be founded on feed back from players to the leads/elders/rapists or whatever you call them.

P.S. I would like to petition that a select few of us that bring flavor and sexual terrorization to the guild receive a special rank (I'm initially think of katsah and myself) The names I propose are "Assholes" or "Truth-talkers"

Remember all I <3U






"from behind"

only 10-12 core raiders? I would think that there would be more people deserving of that rank, seeing as we are pretty far into hard modes

#2686055 Ceelo wrote:

only 10-12 core raiders? I would think that there would be more people deserving of that rank, seeing as we are pretty far into hard modes

Based on attendance, there aren't many people who make the 80% cut actually.


Also stop getting caught on the "Leads" title. Everyone keeps saying class leads. Its not class leads. Moldy just is fucked up and doesn't know what to name it. Its more like an officer without officer chat or any real officer privileges. However the "Lead" helps out with the guild more than a core raider would.

10-12 core was a rough hypothetical number, but I believe it is fair, given all of the information at hand.

1). Moldrid suggested 80% attendence as a benchmark for "Core Raider".

2). Core raiders do not include those ranked above "Core Raider"

3). This rank was a special title boost, and invite status increase for the people who show that they have the most dedication, and ability to help the raid. Im sorry if real life prevents you from making 40% of raids (in a general sense, Im not talking to anyone in specific) but that is NOT helpful for the guild, and excludes you from core raider, as I understand it.

If you add all of this together, and remember that I keep track of attendence (as well as many other things as Milk or Razok will be happy to remind you) I can tell you that excluding GM, OFFICER, and the people I know will be "LEADS", there are 8 people with attendence above 80% who would remain eligible for that view of core raider.

Remember also that Moldrid pointed out that regular raiders are still raiders, and are as valued in every sense, except they have not been able, or willing, to be as available for the guild.

Ranks:
1- GM (Obviously)
2- Officers
3- Guild Assists (Core raiders that are 1- Trustworthy, 2- Go above & beyond requirements)
4- Inviter Alt (Optional, letting above 3 ranks stay on their alts to invite people without having 3924 officers listed in the guild)
5- Core Raiders
6- Raider
7- Member
8- Alt
9- Friend and family (inc. alts of this rank)
10- Initiate

Break down is simple:
Invites/Promote/demote: 1-4 (limit kicks to 1-2, only recommend demotes in case of 'oops promoted to far')
Listen Officer Chat: 1-4
Edit Public Note: 1-4
View/change officer note: 1-4
-------
MOTD: 1-5 (let core raiders change MOTD)
Repair: 1-7 (or 1-5/6 enabling 6/7/8 on raid nights)
Speak Officer Chat: 1-8 (i.e. can post 'want <link>' but cant see replies.. or "Pseudo did it")



Guild bank:
Recommend:
Tab 1 - Complete freebie in/out for all
Tab 2 - Freebie 1-8 for Glyphs/mana pots/etc.
Tab 3 - Core raider or up to withdrawl (feasts, flasks, etc)
Tab 4/5 meh, who cares, probably epixx and stuff.. Just recommend Members & up can *SEE* just in case they see something that's an upgrade/need.


Repairs:
I don't personally like variable numbers (members get 50g, core raiders get 200g) as the cost varies greatly by armor type. If a dk member/alt shows up for a raiding night he'll end up paying 2-3x what a clothie does, and if he's wiping and progressing with us he deserves the same treatment

Only issue i ever had with guild repairs is peoples mice gravitating towards 'guild repair' on off nights.


Guild Assists (Rank):
Just your 'lead' people basically. People who do some of the dirty work, and help out the officers & guild as a whole, whom you'd also trust to use the 'invite' privilege responsibly if someones new toon needs an invite.
You could also swap this rank with Inviter alt rank if you don't want GA's to see officer chat, or don't want more inviters.
Idea behind the rank is to promote (literally) the people in the guild whom are not officers but act like it and try to help other guildies out, organize events, help recruit/screen, help run the show basically -- but perhaps don't want or there's no room in the officer's lounge for.



Just my 2cents

Guild Master -- Given.
Officer:

Recruitment Officer
Performance Officer
Companion Officer
Other?

I like having defined roles for the officers. Something that people can take control of and keep responsibility for is a great idea. Not only to be sure the job is getting done, but so that if people have concerns, they know who the go to person is on said situation.

Lead (I don't like this name) -- Responsible for participation in Loot Council, Raid Management and other specific tasks based on the roles below. The persons must consistently maintain the highest level of standards (from core raider status below) and are given those priviledges as well as extended responsibilites for things like rank management, performance rating, raid leadership, raid invites and various other important responsibilites that make the guild run smoothly.

I like the idea of leads. From how this is being explained, it makes me think that leads are kind of like raid officers, as well as officer support, and overall guild support. Would expect them to be not just high attendance people (as we have lots of those), but people who bring a bit of knowledge to the table, as well as helping out the guild/guildies as they can. As with officers, the idea of having specific leads to help out with tasks is nice.

Core Raider -- 80% Attendance (with mandatory AFK status)

High Performance/Awareness
Willingness to adjust to Raid needs/requirements
Automatic Raid Invite

I like this. I agree that Core raiders should be limited to a certain amount to make room for and give opportunity for other raiders to fill slots. I can see the concerns people would have as far as making up attendance to move from a regular raidier to hold a coveted core raider spot- that said, I don't think being a core raider should be so easy a spot to attain. It's not just about being there to get the loots, these are the people who are overly prepared for raids, research fights beforehand, have excellent raid awareness etc etc.

TL:DR- Raid Backbone.

The rest of the ranks I like to think of as any organizational setup. Members are able to raid if needed, and can work up to being a raider if they show the promise and drive to do so. Once a raider, again, if someone wants to move up from there, it would take hard work and dedication to achiev that role.

With the officer and lead roles, I'd like to think that this will provide the guild with some people who would be able to help people on the road to achieving their personal goals. Such as... if a member wants to be a raider- the attendance person would be able to help them keep track of their attendance- having a person who monitors raid performance, could help give feedback on how said person performs in raids, and what they need to maintain to reach that raider goal. The same goes for moving from raider to core raider.

Alts/Friends/ETC

These are given ranks that will help people see who is who, pretty straightforward.

Overall, lots of stuff to discuss here- I am really a fan of most of this- or should I say, the potential for a better working system. Taking some pressure off the people who are already running the show would be great for them, and for helping the guild.

(So tired. More thoughts to share and respond to later)

With the amount of info xentin and bean are spilling I think they know more about this than the rest of us.

#2686904 Antipally wrote:

With the amount of info xentin and bean are spilling I think they know more about this than the rest of us.

I'm sleeping with the GM. And he likes pillow talk.

#2687436 Xentin wrote:

#2686904 Antipally wrote:

With the amount of info xentin and bean are spilling I think they know more about this than the rest of us.

I'm sleeping with the GM. And he likes pillow talk.

I frequently read Xentin's diary.

How many consecutive weeks of 80%+ attendance would be required to advance from raider to Core Raider?

If I know Jbean's attendance sheet, because we have discussed it before, it is based on overall attendance per tier.

Meaning for Tier 10 content (ICC), your attendance has been tracked since the beginning of the tier. It would depend on the individual and how much you missed on how long it takes to get back to 80%.

It doesn't matter if you make 10 straight raids over the past 3 weeks, but if you missed 10 raids earlier on in the tier, you overall raid attendance would be 10 missed + 10 made = 50% attendance.

I could be wrong, but that would make the most sense.

#2689106 Xentin wrote:

If I know Jbean's attendance sheet, because we have discussed it before, it is based on overall attendance per tier.

Meaning for Tier 10 content (ICC), your attendance has been tracked since the beginning of the tier. It would depend on the individual and how much you missed on how long it takes to get back to 80%.

It doesn't matter if you make 10 straight raids over the past 3 weeks, but if you missed 10 raids earlier on in the tier, you overall raid attendance would be 10 missed + 10 made = 50% attendance.

I could be wrong, but that would make the most sense.

This late in Tier 10, that doesn't give any incentive for non-Core Raiders to make a greater commitment to raid. The purpose of this new system should be to encourage more attendance and performance, not to reward those who already have demonstrated it.

#2689451 Jeynus wrote:

#2689106 Xentin wrote:

If I know Jbean's attendance sheet, because we have discussed it before, it is based on overall attendance per tier.

Meaning for Tier 10 content (ICC), your attendance has been tracked since the beginning of the tier. It would depend on the individual and how much you missed on how long it takes to get back to 80%.

It doesn't matter if you make 10 straight raids over the past 3 weeks, but if you missed 10 raids earlier on in the tier, you overall raid attendance would be 10 missed + 10 made = 50% attendance.

I could be wrong, but that would make the most sense.

This late in Tier 10, that doesn't give any incentive for non-Core Raiders to make a greater commitment to raid. The purpose of this new system should be to encourage more attendance and performance, not to reward those who already have demonstrated it.

No incentive for non-core raiders to raid? How about helping your guild? Or being considered for loot or even a raid invite over another person?

The purpose of this system is to make guild roles more transparent. They are not necessarily new jobs or duties for people. People who want to raid should always be working on attendance and performance to max what they can do. Its not about demonstrating it once..its about demonstrating it consistently. If you are consistently demonstrating you contribute to the raid and guild you will be rewarded. We (officers and old timers) can tell when we are carrying extra baggage in a raid.