You make a valid point. The flip-side, and the other purpose to the design, was to give raiding alliances some credit for their efforts. It has been achieving this but I could probably be a bit tighter with the criteria.

In any case, you are not the only one that has made this suggestion - I am currently reviewing the thresholds for GuildOx. With 3.1 just released, now is a good time to make the adjustment. Give me a day or two to work it out.

Yes and as a fellow Proudmore dude i quite understand we have raids that combine for 25 man stuff. This is why i suggested 5 and 12 specifically and not a higher value. I figure if some guilds do it on our server then other servers may do this also. Perhaps at least 5 and 10 is better. Although i don't think i'd go lower than that.

Is there a progression site that just lists boss kills? I used to like wowprogress but it's tracking by achievements only now which is fine but maybe something simpler is needed.

The game has changed though and achievements along with hard modes actually matter in terms of progression especially with this new tier of content. The old paradigm was centered around only killing the bosses in any given dungeon and the race was who could get through the quickest. Seeing who kills Yogg-Saron or Algalon first really won't tell you very much about the guild or the quality of gameplay. Seeing who is able to do the majority of achievements and hard modes tells you a lot more in regards to actual progression.

I feel almost the opposite. I wish that the default state for sites like WoW Progress and Guild Ox would be the achievements pane rather than the murky '25 Man Progress' pane. For some though, speed of initial kill does matter so I can completely understand why that is the default and I am not totally knocking it for that reason. I end up looking at each individual guild's page anyway.

In any case, if you really want to only see progress in terms of date of boss kill without Achievement weight, I suppose WoW Jutsu would be closest to that. They were anyway for the last tier. They haven't updated for Ulduar yet last I checked. If they stay with the same model they used for Naxx, Malygos and Sarth they will be one of the few sites that doesn't weight achievements in with the ranking. Considering that the achievements and hard modes matter quite a bit that would be sad.

The raid game in WoW has changed, boss kills alone do not measure progression any longer.


The defining achievements of the Ulduar push, for example, are going to end up being Algalon, Heroic: Glory of the Ulduar Raider, and Alone in the Darkness.


Alone in the Darkness, specifically, is something that at this point I think fewer guilds will accomplish than ended up killing M'uru.

May be bordeline redundant but I understand there will be achievement tracking I only wanted to know if there was tracking site showing which guilds had killed certain bosses in the instance on my server. guildprogression.com was what I was after.

Wowprogress tracks by progression and achievements desperately. They use achievements to determine when you killed a boss. If you get the Gravity Bomb achievement, it means you killed XT. Other than the gimmick achievements, most of the individual bosses don't have their own achievement so the sites can only track by groups. The "main" page in wowprogress is tracking hard modes that drop more loot, and kills, not silly stuff like the Ulduar version of "Spore Loser".

Does anyone know how wow.guildprogress.com determines who gets credit for 'first kill' between guilds who killed the boss on the same date? Their FAQ indicates that first kills are given more credit than second kills and the data comes from Armory which just tracks date not time. It seems to me that this could create a problem for closely ranked guilds.

They use a tie based on highest available rank. For example, if four guilds killed a boss on the same date, they'll all be ranked 1. If 3 guilds killed the same boss the next day, they'll all be ranked 5.

Also, guildprogress manually assigns rankings 1-20, to sort out guilds that all killed yogg-saron in the span of 2-3 days last week. The others are simply assigned a tie.

In the event of a tie, the tie is broken by whomever achieved the previous milestone sooner. Right now, the only three milestones are yogg + 4, yogg + 0, and Algalon, in ascending order, and of them, only the first has been achieved (hence why we have ties now). Ties after this are broken by their point system.

I'm curious about what others think of their new 'milestone' system and how it works in Ulduar's non-linear progression order. You could make a case for Algalon determining rankings, but is yogg +4 helpers a more significant milestone than, say, completing all 4 watchers on hard mode? Also, while the milestone system works for, say, the top few guilds on every server, my guess is that most guilds will only be able to hit the first one, followed by a large gap of guilds somewhere in between Yogg +4 and Yogg +0, with varying numbers of hard modes completed. I'd be willing to bet that most guilds who can do Yogg + 0 will also do Algalon.

I don't think that there's any doubt that once we get to Icecrown whomever kills Arthas on his hardest mode first will deserve the higher ranking (followed by Arthas on normal mode), assuming the instance is more linear. That is, the goal of the whole expansion, is it not?

Arthas will be designed for everyone to kill (like Yogg), so he won't define top guild rankings, Algalon analog will. (my bet is Mal'ganis?)

Back on topic, milestones are flawed. Easymode Yogg doesn't even drop top notch loot, he's just last in easyboss line; why should Yogg easy be more important than say Hodir hard? Hodir hard gets you closer to Algalon, and drops better loot.

Ah looks like GuildOx - WoW Guild Progress and Achievement Rankings was indeed changed. Changed by Polar as he said he would? Seems much better now.

This should take care of pugging and be fairly accurate without disregarding guilds that work together for 25 mans. Very well done.

Thanks for the positive comments! I also did a major overhaul on the site appearance to make it look a bit less spartan. You may have noticed the other subtle change in that I am starting to give the 'Achievement' rankings some precedence.

Feel free to share your comments - I read this thread regularly. More GuildOx improvements are coming.

No problem dude. Requiring 10 for 25 mans seems reasonable. I guess my only concern is 10 mans. You show it as needing 7. I don't know if this is a good number or not. I'm not sure how many small guilds work together for these or even if they do. So that one is more a big question mark. I do prefer 7 vs the old value of 3. Less counting pugs is a good thing. There may be no perfect number for 10 mans. Trying 7 for now seems a reasonable number. I guess just check the e-mails and see if you get any complaints.

About the progression rankings themselves. This one is a bit more complicated. Basically if you clear a wing per se you move up on the ranking. wowprogress does it the same way more or less. As i don't see a blizzard achievement for just an individual boss kill i can see why this was chosen. It makes perfect sense. However it isn't really an indication of progress in our usual sense. Old way was i got 8 bosses and you got 9 bosses. 9 bosses being the more progressed. Now it's i got 2 wings and 8 bosses and you got 1 wing and 9 bosses. Except now the 2 wings and 8 bosses is the more progressed. This again is more a Blizzard thing. It's also self correcting as time goes by and guilds clear the wings as they should have previously. So while it's not a perfect solution i don't really see any other way to track progression.

I haven't checked the individual achievements for either progression or achievements. Kind of just glancing over them a bit. Better than wowprogress. The site looks good. I have only 1 real complaint. Blame it on my eyes. When i select an individual guild the tabs to shows just that guilds progress and achievements needs to some how stand out more. Maybe a bit of space between the tabs and the stuff below it. Maybe a bit more border to the tabs themselves. Also either separate the tabs from each other more or make them overlap a bit to differentiate between tabs. Help i blind man out who hates wearing glasses here. But don't make my eyes bleed in the process. Keep it as is if bleeding eyes is the only other alternative.

I don't see a problem with requiring a wing cleared for progress. Maybe it's not the way done in vanilla or TBC. But it's the same way it's done by most sites in WotLK naxx. For example, you don't get any brownie points for just killing patchwerk, anub, razuvious and noth. You need to clear an entire wing. The alternative way is to guess guild progress by gear, like in the now defunct wowjutsu. It's completely inaccurate because of all the alternative ways of getting gear now - emblems or emalon for t8, boe drops. Not all guilds bother with progression ladders. If yours does, there's no reason to not work your way ticking the achievements off.

The wing achievements do list the bosses killed so datamining individual boss kills are possible however I agree in the long run however wing achievements make more sense. Remember ulduar won't be cleared as fast as naxx so we could be stuck in this state for a few more weeks

I think many should bother with it. The main purpose of ranking is to help with recruitment. That is it's priority. After that it's nice to know where your team stands. Know if you suck or not. Also helps to track your achievements. For the top 200 or so raids or maybe even a lot more than that it's to show they're the best of the best. Bragging rights, etc. I don't have a problem with that. It's all in the spirit of competition. Accuracy is important in showing who's on top and for recruitment. Right now guildox looks to be the most accurate place that fulfills this requirement. You get a fuller picture of how each guild is doing and what exactly they are doing. Having both 25's and 10's progress and achievements is what really helps paint this overall picture. Really helps narrow down your choices of which guild you want to join. This points to filling the other purpose. That is to enjoy the game and get the most out of it. Which in reality is the main point of even playing. So this isn't just about you or your guild. It's about others as well. We get a new recruit who knows exactly where your guild is at. They know what the guild is doing. They would be a better fit because they can find a guild that fits what they're looking for. It's about others looking at your progression and achievements. Not really about you looking at them. Except to track them to help fulfill the above.

Given that both Steelbreaker and Runemaster Molgeim both drop the Archivum disc necessary to start the questline for Algalon, perhaps you should track both of these achievements either separately or together for progression's purposes?

I'm not sure what wowprogress.com is using for a qualifier outside of achievements, but guild alliances(5-10 guilds running together) are showing some really funky results, especially when only 2 people raid in from a particular guild.

Comparing GuildOx and wowprogress I find one of the biggest differences is that GuildOx does not rank progression based on 'partial' steps of the hard mode bosses. For example: Freya +1, Flame Leviathon +2, Yogg-Saron +2... In the current state of progress in Ulduar this seems to produce an inaccurate ranking system as many guilds are working towards the 'final' hard mode one step at a time. Hence many guilds are ranked as 'equals' when this may not quite be the case.

To be fair, GuildOx does track the partial 'hard' modes, but only under the achieve ranking system, which includes everything. This also seems to produce a ranking system that is not useful in terms of 'progress' as it includes many other gimmick achievements that many guilds will just skip to save time (for now). Though I accept the point that the achievement ranking is simply that, there for achievement ranking. I question the lack of partial completions for hard mode bosses. I expect that by the time the top 100 guilds have cleared all content they will be fairly accurately ranked, but it is during the progress to that point that I find this ranking system will be inaccurate and hence I would resort to the wowprogress ranking system.

GuildOx basically rewards the same amount of points for every hard mode (1) which is......inaccurate to say the least, not to mention not accounting for partial hard modes. I find the rankings to be a lot more flimsy than wowprogress's despite its flaws.

Needing 7 players for a 10-man achievement is relatively harsh (but better than 3). It would be acceptable if there were only single-boss achievements. For the multiple-boss achievements (e.g. The Antechamber of Ulduar) it means that a group consisting of a small guild plus friends from other guilds will have a hard time to get the achievement counted. During progression it is unlikely that you clear a whole wing in one night. Say you kill the Assembly of Iron in night 1 and Kologarn plus Auriaya in night 2. Then guildox.com will only count the achievement if at least seven guild members were present both on night 1 and night 2. If you run with a few friends from other guilds, it won't count (most likely). IMO, the minimum amount of guild members needed for a multi-boss-achievement to count should be lowered to 5 or 6.

Basically these kinds of problems all have a common source: How do we measure the progress of guild alliances? Instead of automatically creating progression ranks for guilds why not introduce a web interface to define raid groups where you can specify the members? A player would only be able to be a member of one 10-man group and one 25-man group.