Even disregarding alliances and raids taking non-guildies along the tracking of multi-boss achievements is lacking.
10 guys from one guild can kill the first three watchers on wednesday and six of those return with four others from the same guild the next day to kill the last one. And even continue to clear ulduar.
Only 6 players will have finished the keepers of ulduar, and still only 6 players will have finished the secrets of ulduar. While it was in fact only members of the same guild that cleared all of ulduar they will not be attributed the achievements.
Seeing as often the same people are unable to play on certain days and the habit people have of clearing first X bosses on first raid day, this problem can remain unfixed for quite some time. It can be even worse if the core of members present on both days drop to say 5, or 4.
Raid alliances are something that is quite tricky to account for. You get a very fuzzy line between raid alliances and pugs. If you have seen the flame mail I have received over allowing pugs to earn achievements then you will start to appreciate the challenge of it all. I have taken a harder line on pugs with GuildOx, but this results in raid alliances (and some smaller 10-man guilds with high roster rotations) suffering a bit more.
If anyone has any suggested solutions then I am all ears.
How is the US Armory these days? Lately the EU Armory has been total garbage, sporadic updates on some characters and others not even updated the last week. It frustrates me a bit, trying to get hardmode achievements recognized by GuildOx / WoWProgress. They probably get ignored because only a few people have them, but that's probably done under the odd assumption that they were pug'ed which is most likely not intended.
It should be considered to ignore such limitations on un-puggable achievements and just register them once a few have them. The poor performance of the EU Armory has made me realized how much we depend on these sites, because we really need the profile towards potential recruits.
There is no such thing as a "un-puggable" achivement. We did Heroic: I Love the Smell of Saronite in the Morning and I guess you could have that on your list of un-puggable but we also had a few alts with us that are not guilded with our main guild. Admittedly it was only 3 or so, but still proves my point.
I think this is an armory issue and it shouldn't be fixed by the ranking sites.
There is no such thing as a "un-puggable" achivement. We did Heroic: I Love the Smell of Saronite in the Morning and I guess you could have that on your list of un-puggable but we also had a few alts with us that are not guilded with our main guild. Admittedly it was only 3 or so, but still proves my point.
I think this is an armory issue and it shouldn't be fixed by the ranking sites.
Alts do not count as PUGs, they're still competent players who know what they're doing, know the encounter and you are used to playing with them - no, it doesn't prove your point. A PUG is not just a PUG because they have subpar gear, a PUG is a PUG because people don't know how to play together, they do encounters differently and most of all their skill and awareness is often questionable. Now admitted, a raid alliance might be able to pull off a hardmode but I would say it's unlikely.
Granted, I don't think it should be fixed by ranking sites but the EU armory has been horrible for a good while now and by proxy GuildOx/WoWProgress are horrible. So I guess it's a matter of how poor performance you are willing to accept from the armory sites before you try and make workarounds.
Guildox now offers an additional "10 man achievements strict" ranking in addition to the 10 man achievements ranking. Nothing is documented about this so far.
From the result, this looks to be an achievements ranking intended to exclude 25 raiders that also do 10 mans.
Our guild would fit this profile, but is currently ranked extremely high. I think we do ok for only 2 evenings per ID, but not THAT good. Are there really so few guilds that only do 10 mans? Or are the criteria currently perhaps too strict?
I wonder if Polar could drop a few lines regarding what the strict ranks intend to do? This would allow giving some feedback.
From the ranked guilds from our server it looks like the algorithm sets an upper amount of characters in a guild that can have a 10 man achievement for the achievement to be counted for the strict ranking. Is that so?
Originally Posted by Pewsey
Many of our snakes are 3m+ in size. They'll just take the lawnmower off you and beat the shit out of you with it to make you tender, then bite you and eat you.
Guildox now offers an additional "10 man achievements strict" ranking in addition to the 10 man achievements ranking. Nothing is documented about this so far.
From the result, this looks to be an achievements ranking intended to exclude 25 raiders that also do 10 mans.
Our guild would fit this profile, but is currently ranked extremely high. I think we do ok for only 2 evenings per ID, but not THAT good. Are there really so few guilds that only do 10 mans? Or are the criteria currently perhaps too strict?
I wonder if Polar could drop a few lines regarding what the strict ranks intend to do? This would allow giving some feedback.
From the ranked guilds from our server it looks like the algorithm sets an upper amount of characters in a guild that can have a 10 man achievement for the achievement to be counted for the strict ranking. Is that so?
It's a combination of outdated statistics and odd rules, I think.
It doesn't count us as a 10 man guild, most likely cause most people in my guild have done 25 man Naxx pugs. At the same time the top "10 man guild" on my server has done 25 man Sarth + 3.
Guildox now offers an additional "10 man achievements strict" ranking in addition to the 10 man achievements ranking. Nothing is documented about this so far.
From the result, this looks to be an achievements ranking intended to exclude 25 raiders that also do 10 mans.
Our guild would fit this profile, but is currently ranked extremely high. I think we do ok for only 2 evenings per ID, but not THAT good. Are there really so few guilds that only do 10 mans? Or are the criteria currently perhaps too strict?
I wonder if Polar could drop a few lines regarding what the strict ranks intend to do? This would allow giving some feedback.
From the ranked guilds from our server it looks like the algorithm sets an upper amount of characters in a guild that can have a 10 man achievement for the achievement to be counted for the strict ranking. Is that so?
The aim of the '10M Strict' ranking is to give the true 10-man raiders something to brag about. I appreciate that a majority of 10-man raiding is done by toons that also run 25-man content and receive higher ilvl gear from such runs.
The intent is to list the ranking of true 10-man raiding guilds, excluding those guilds that regularly run 25-man content. As you can probably guess, we need to allow a little for pugs since it is totally unfair to expect 10-man raiders to never set foot in a 25-man instance. By the same token, we don't want to list those 10-man guilds that regularly pug the latest content (and yes, there are 25-man Ulduar pugs happening).
I decided to throw it up there for the public to view while we finalize the rule set rather than work on it behind the scenes. I am extremely heartened by the flood of positive feedback that I have received so far.
Special Note - it is truly beta - meaning that I am still tweaking the rule set. It will definitely change a little more over the coming days/weeks. The current rule set compares your 10-man progress with your 25-man progress and looks for guilds that have progressed more than 2.5x as far in 10-man. However, this is filtering out some 10-man guilds that have participated in a few 25-man Naxx pugs and have not yet managed to clear through to 10M Yogg-Saron yet.
Edit (Update): We now simply look at your 25-man progress and allow up to 9 progress points. Any guilds with 10 or more points are excluded from this list.
Happy to hear if you like the concept (or otherwise).
I like this idead very much. To comment on our situation:
We raided 25man instances pre 3.1 and switched to 10man when Ulduar hit. We occasionally participate in top-guilds' twink raids. We do quite good in U10, but we don't even show up in that rating.
You might want to look into our ratings to verify your ruleset because I think that we do fit it's intentions quite well.
I appreciate that a majority of 10-man raiding is done by toons that also run 25-man content and receive higher ilvl gear from such runs.
...
Happy to hear if you like the concept (or otherwise).
As a concept, this is just fabulous.
Many 25 man raiders do not appreciate how large the difference in gear can be between a BiS decked out 25 man raid and a 10 man raid of the same level (at least for the T7 gear level), while at the same time telling everyone how 25 man is so much harder than 10 man. The exactly same people then get in a fight about how they just need that upgrade of 10 spellpower to be competitive.
In Ulduar, it can be seen in many places how much of a difference gear makes. Throw a few Ulduar tanking pieces to your MT and see how much of a difference in mitigation and HP pool that makes.
Leviathan (semi) hard mode makes a special case for illustration. An ilvl 200 (+) player has about 500K HP on his chopper, while an ilvl 213 (+) player has 700 HP (the actual numbers may be a bit smaller or larger). That's a world of difference when trying for 2+ towers.
As for the results, the methodology seems good - better than I anticipated. As for our server, the results are also probably correct. The guilds ranked above us on the normal ranking are in fact all 25 man guilds, so that would fit. But as for other servers, either the rules really are too strict or it's just that most serious 10 man raiding is not done as a raiding guild. Maybe it's necessary to reduce the number of characters needed for an achievement by 1 for the strict rating (but only for the strict rating).
Last edited by Hegen : 06/04/09 at 2:57 PM.
Reason: Typo
Originally Posted by Pewsey
Many of our snakes are 3m+ in size. They'll just take the lawnmower off you and beat the shit out of you with it to make you tender, then bite you and eat you.
I like this idead very much. To comment on our situation:
We raided 25man instances pre 3.1 and switched to 10man when Ulduar hit. We occasionally participate in top-guilds' twink raids. We do quite good in U10, but we don't even show up in that rating.
You might want to look into our ratings to verify your ruleset because I think that we do fit it's intentions quite well.
I was hoping there would be more comments on this beta feature while I was waiting for my new account 'mute' to expire... but a couple quick comments.
A brief reply to Tim, I would disagree that you should show up in the rankings at all, your guild really isnt the target demographic that this beta seems to be reaching out towards. It is understandable that guilds come and go, 25man groups downsize etc. But given your previous 25man Naxx experience, you had a huge advantage over guilds that historically have focused on 10man content. My opinion would be that the ranking isnt about racing through 10man content while not doing 25man content of the same tier, but progressing in 10man content while not having the advantages of the previous 25man tier gear.
There is certainly the argument that every player had access to 25man Naxx gear, even on my low pop server if you had some connections or a huge amount of time you could pug Naxx25 for a couple months leading up to 3.1. But if we are viewing 10man content as an independent progression path (which seems to be Blizzard's stance) a strict ranking should attempt to recognize guilds that have been historically focused on 10man content and are progressing without a gear advantage.
I will counter the handful of posts above that would like to soften the cutoff and instead recommend the filter be stiffened from 9 25man progression points to 7 points. I have selected this based on what would be required to obtain a full 7pc T7 Valorous set and ilvl 226 weapon. On my low pop server the #1 & #2 guilds in the strict rankings have cleared 25man Naxx, Sarth +1 and Siege (did not clear Maly). The #3 & #4 guilds have 25man OS or no 25man progress. The top 2 guilds will drop off the ranking if they complete the Antechamber section of Ulduar or go back and kill Malygos, but for the time being they have a substantial lead over those guilds I would consider 'true' 10mans.
A little information about my guild and server. Uldaman (US) is a low pop server with a single Alliance side guild in the top 250US ranking and a couple other guilds of both factions in the top 500. The number and quality of pugs (particularly for 25man content) is very generally very poor and the better guilds are constantly looking for recruits.
Our guild has always been a 10man content guild (even in TBC), we have only 18 members who have a character at the level cap, and most members have at most 1 capped alt. We are unlikely to obtain 25man progression points through pugging for any but the easiest content (see Sarth +0) where our most active members will pug a main and their alts over time. Our MT and 2 primary healers avoid 25man pugs and as such are geared in 10man gear other than maybe a lucky Archavon/Emalon/OS pug drop. I think there are 3 or 4 members that have cleared 25man Naxx in pugs.
Even with a very complex ranking system someone will be the exception and get left out. I would rather the beta focused on 'true' 10 man guilds using mostly 10man gear from the previous and current tiers. If you are a guild with the time and server resources to pug 25man content and/or have the depth of roster to obtain the 25man progression points from pugging... you can race the other 25man geared guilds in the normal rankings. They may gain some benefit from 25man gear earned concurrently, you have the benefit of using all of your raid hours in the 10man content while they are split between 25man and 10man
I understand where you are coming from Threestars, but I strongly disagree with your implementation. I believe 25-man progress limit for the "strict" list should be kept at 9, even as I see the value of making sure the strict list excludes those with scale-tipping gear advantages.
Full disclosure: I am in the "opposite" situation as you are. My 10-man guild (only 11-12 main raiding toons active at any time) allied with another 10-man guild and ran extremely successful 25-man PuGs on our server. We led these pugs through Maly 25 and Sarth+1, leaving us with 9 progression points on Guildox in 25-man.
We have no intent of running, or pugging, Uld 25 now that there is hard mode 10-man content. We 9-man FL 25 weekly, because it's just that easy. That gear is fully available to your 10-man guild as well. Just because the instance is labeled 25-man doesn't mean you can't do it with 10. We've cleared Sarth 25 with 10 people before.
My guild is the #4 horde guild on my server (even amongst the 25-man guilds) and the #1 10-man strict guild by a huge margin, according to Guildox. Mulligan, Kul Tiras US.
Anyway, my point is that Tier 7 doesn't count. It's so easy to pug and has no hard modes. So instead of trying to block out people who pugged 25-man content in the 6 months waiting for Ulduar, instead focus on guilds that aren't doing Uld 25. For another thing, you get gear by clearing Uld 10 that is better than Naxx 25 gear, so whatever gear deficit you are so worried about is trivial and extremely short-lived, honestly. The real gear deficit to worry about is separating real 10-man guilds from the 25-man hardcore guilds that rip through 10-man mode in near-full 226 armor and 232 weapons. You'll get caught up to the 213 people from running Uld 10 for your 219s so fast it doesn't really matter.
For instance, look at my character, Bwnsaw. Look at my 213 gear. All of those pieces, except maybe a ring can be replaced by better Ulduar 10 pieces which are fully available to your guild. Is the gear advantage really that big that you think my guild should be excluded from the 10-man strict list, FOREVER, no matter what we do in the future, because we started Uld 10 in 213 gear, mainly because we were bored with Naxx 10? I just don't want to be compared to guilds that are currently clearing Uld 25, because that gear difference makes Uld 10 trivial.
At the same time, I agree that the next tier would be a good place to start excluding guilds that ran Uld 25 heavily, simply because Uld 25 is much less puggable and you will not spend 6 months sitting out there as the "only" content the way Naxx did. But like another poster said, it's not fair to expect 10-man guilds to never pug any 25s just to stay on the list. IMO, upon 3.2s release the limit should be lifted and instead the list should exclude anyone who has killed the Keepers, cleared Uld, or completed any hard modes in 25-man. That way it won't exclude guilds who pugged the first few bosses in Uld. They won't have a significant enough gear advantage to make a difference in progress, imo.
Basically, I'm saying that Tier 7 is very different from Tier 8, and also that the real danger to the list's integrity is guilds that are clearing the current tier on 25s, not the people who already cleared the previous tier in 25s. In the next tier, you just aren't going to see 10-man guilds that pugged their way to full BiS 25-man gear, so it will become a non-issue anyway. It's just a quirk of how tier 7 turned out.
I can definitely see where you are coming from. If we had been able to find a good 10man guild (or even a bad 25man guild) to pug 25man content with, we could be in a more similar position to your guild. OS and FL are certainly examples that can be undermanned and undergeared (FL doesnt actually incur a progression point though).
I also understand the separation between Naxx25 and Uld10 gear can be narrow. I think my point still stands... the 213 T7 provides set bonuses which the 219 gear doesnt, and there is a distinct difference between progressing through Siege and Antechamber with the guild in 4pc 213 gear and progressing through the same content with the dozen 219 drops so far distributed between individuals. Because ranking also factors in the date when progress/achievements were made I think this is important.
Short term there will definitely be some people who are unhappy with where the cut off is set. Looking ahead the line should be clearer given that Ulduar is less likely to be pugged. I think it will be easier to set a number after another content release and also acknowledge that there are other elements that could be tweaked in the formula (specifically the numbers required for individual progression in pugs to activate guild progression). Both of our guilds are in a position where this impacts us very little anyways, given our short rosters. Guilds with sizeable rosters and active alts may cry foul and want the numbers for pug participation pushed up much higher.
For my guild, any ranking is a nice feather in our cap... but as we only raid 2 nights a week (total of 6-7 hours) we have no illusion that we will be pushing any serious guilds on our server or in the big picture in the rankings. Even with a couple guilds I would consider '25man' above us... it is easier to evaluate our standing in the beta list than sort through the full listing (we are 3rd in 'strict', probably 4th soon if we dont work more on Keepers... but in the 20s in the full 10man progression listing).
follow up after re reading some of the above posts.
moving ahead the number will need to be revised anytime a new batch of content is released
between undermanning Naxx 25 content, backtracking with pugs to pick up more difficult achievements like Sarth+3, and the eventual pugging of Siege it is reasonable to expect in a few months we might see the number move up 2-5 points and in the process give a much cleaner demarcation of those guilds who focused on 25man Ulduar compared to 10man Ulduar leading up to 3.2. Maybe my view is clouded by the lack of 25man pugs on my server and our groups small raid schedule (with 6-7 hours a week we could easily clear Naxx10, EoE, Sarth+1 and Vault... but we didnt have scheduled time left over to arrange a partnership run in 25man Naxx and dont expect our members to make time to do it on their own. A big recruiting plus for us is our minimal raid schedule, even if most of the guild is online 15-20 hours a week. Maybe a guild who raids 4 nights a week for 3 hour sessions and can do both Naxx resets should be ranked higher for the time commitment... I dont hold anything against them but dont feel like we should be penalized for sticking to just 10man content. There is plenty of gray area to be found... even just pugging OS and Vault I had enough EoV to get the vendor boots before we stepped in Uld10, and spend enough time online and working the AH that I purchased the 25man Naxx BoE bracers and belt (plus DMC:Greatness)... I can agree that iLvL cant be the only determining factor.
Anyway, my point is that Tier 7 doesn't count. It's so easy to pug and has no hard modes. So instead of trying to block out people who pugged 25-man content in the 6 months waiting for Ulduar, instead focus on guilds that aren't doing Uld 25. For another thing, you get gear by clearing Uld 10 that is better than Naxx 25 gear, so whatever gear deficit you are so worried about is trivial and extremely short-lived, honestly. The real gear deficit to worry about is separating real 10-man guilds from the 25-man hardcore guilds that rip through 10-man mode in near-full 226 armor and 232 weapons. You'll get caught up to the 213 people from running Uld 10 for your 219s so fast it doesn't really matter.
For instance, look at my character, Bwnsaw. Look at my 213 gear. All of those pieces, except maybe a ring can be replaced by better Ulduar 10 pieces which are fully available to your guild. Is the gear advantage really that big that you think my guild should be excluded from the 10-man strict list, FOREVER, no matter what we do in the future, because we started Uld 10 in 213 gear, mainly because we were bored with Naxx 10? I just don't want to be compared to guilds that are currently clearing Uld 25, because that gear difference makes Uld 10 trivial.
Yes but your guild started Ulduar10 with 213/226. The fact that there are better pieces available in Ulduar10 doesn't change the fact that a pure 10 man guild will have to farm those out for months (since most of the upgrades are in hard modes) before they get to the point that you started at. It gives you a significant advantage in how quickly you can kill bosses in Ulduar10 and the point of the site it to measure how quickly that happens, not just that it does. Sure eventually an equally skilled guild of pure 10 man raiders will eventually catch up to you in gearing power but it will take them significantly longer (and thus they will be ranked lower just because you did T7 25 man content).
A question for the people in the thread who have been involved in the admin/making of these sites, or may be otherwise familiar with how they are made.
I've been working on a website project involving some statistics gained from armory data. Everything is in place - the script that scrapes 21,000 US guilds and their players within; a host for it, with a cron job to schedule scrapings.
But my IP keeps getting blocked from the armory by blizzard. So far I've tried:
1) Putting it on a dedicated IP so I can be sure it's not other people's traffic with the same host; and
2) Simply throttling it's speed. I've reduced it down to 1 guild per hour now - it's still running without ban, but will take about 2 years at this rate. Any faster and it seems to get blocked.
So my question is, how did you guys get around it?
1) Use proxy servers - all the free ones I've seen have no reliability (is there a good paid source somewhere?)
2) Contact blizzard to arrange a deal / exception / etc.
- Tauren Druid (Realm first Naxx/Malygos)
- Gnome Mage (Realm first Sarth +3d)
- Nelf Druid (new main - progressing through Ulduar)
Wowprogress.com and GuildOx.com would look a lot more accurate if they were to filter out those hundreds of guilds who got the bugged Hodir Hardmode Achievement, for example remove any of those kills if Yogg-Saron wasn't (or isn't) killed yet.
Edit: These bugged kills only happened on May the 14th so shouldn't be to hard to filter.
In a lesser extent this also goes for those who got Orbit-uary by kiting the boss behind the Wall and avoiding any beams/adds that way.
Edit (Update): We now simply look at your 25-man progress and allow up to 9 progress points. Any guilds with 10 or more points are excluded from this list.
A feedback regarding the 10M Strict Ranks:
On our server, the guild leading this list is surely not a 10M guild. The guild on top acutally is part of a 25M raid alliance that has cleared Ulduar 25M already. They hardly have any 25M achievements in your list, because they're part of a raid alliance and do not meet the 25M requirements to get the achievement counted. I'm pretty sure they have more than 9 progression points in reality. Are you checking for 25M progression points with the 10M rules? (i.e. at least 7 members earned the achievement on the same day or 8 members in total)
I'm not sure if it is your intention of 10M Strict Ranks to get those guild counted running the instances with 25M equip.
Yes but your guild started Ulduar10 with 213/226. The fact that there are better pieces available in Ulduar10 doesn't change the fact that a pure 10 man guild will have to farm those out for months (since most of the upgrades are in hard modes) before they get to the point that you started at. It gives you a significant advantage in how quickly you can kill bosses in Ulduar10 and the point of the site it to measure how quickly that happens, not just that it does. Sure eventually an equally skilled guild of pure 10 man raiders will eventually catch up to you in gearing power but it will take them significantly longer (and thus they will be ranked lower just because you did T7 25 man content).
This was likely only be an issue for Ulduar content though. The gear reset coming with 3.2 will make everyone able to obtain base level 226 gear from conquest badges dropping everywhere.
I honestly think that there just might not be quite that many solid 10-man guilds out there.
My guild started Ulduar10 with a handful of people (3 out of a roster of ~15 total) in 213/226, and the rest in 200/213. You can check my armory profile on the left, I was one of the ones in 200/213 gear. We were 8-10 manning OS25 with no drakes pre-3.1 for the 213 items. Does that make us "not" a hardcore 10-man guild because we did that? I'd say it's the exact opposite - we did it because we could. Two members of my guild run with weekly alt Uld25 raids from the top 25-man guilds on my server. Does that disqualify us from being a 'hardcore 10'? How many members would it take to disqualify us?
Besides... there will always be some carryover when a new patch rolls around. What if current hardcore 10 guild A got better luck at hard mode drops than B? They've got an advantage. What if they got *more* hard mode drops than B? Advantage. At some point, you have to draw the line.
It might be worth updating the 'leeway' each time there's a major patch with a (potential) gear reset. Ulduar will likely become much more commonly pugged once 3.2 is out, and my guild's been 4-6 manning Flame Leviathan 25 for orbs and badges for weeks already.
Back to the discussion of GuildOx 10man strict ratings.
Let me start by saying our guild has always been and will always remain a 10man guild. In BC we were only able to do Karazhan, and at a later point ZA. In WOTLK we conquered naxx10 as a guild and pugged naxx25 on occasion like many other people. Ulduar was no different for us. We worked to complete Ulduar10 without a scrap of gear from Ulduar25. Afterwards, a small handful of us have since pugged uld25 like many others. This has always kept us on the strict 10man list as deserved.
Allow me to get to the point. Recently, the new 3.2 rules for strict 10man rankings are considering our guild (as well as other guilds known to be 10man guilds) to be 25man guilds. Here is the criteria that GuildOx uses: "...if your guild pugs Coliseum 25 then you will be excluded from the strict rankings when a total of 10 players in your guild participate in the Beasts of Northrend 25m normal kill." To me this seems too limiting. I don't think pugs should count for 25m credit. I think this will filter out many true 10man guilds that feel like pugging toc25 in their spare time. It happened to us. Only about 5 of us on our mains and alts have pugged ToC25, yet since that comes to 10 players, we are now ranked against real 25man guilds. I think true 25 man guilds will have far more than 10 people with credit for the first boss. I propose increasing the required guild members to have killed a ToC25 boss to 20, and possibly increasing the requirement to down more than just the first boss.
Let us also consider the true purpose of the strict rankings. It is to exclude people that are going into 10mans with a significant gear item level advantage from 25mans.
Yet,
Triumph badges from the heroic daily, the new vault boss, and any ToC run can purchase item level 245 gear.
It is also possible to get item level 245 gear from the new boss in vault, Koralon the Flame Watcher,
A person could theoretically have half of their gear be item level 245, which is the item level that ToC25 drops, without stepping foot in a single ToC25
ToC10 only drops item level 232gear. Do you see where this is going?
It is possible to get the same "gear level advantage" without doing ToC25, so why take a guild off the strict ranks for barely pugging ToC25, when it clearly doesn't make them a 25man guild, nor does it give them an advantage in ToC10 that they can't get from triumph badge gear.
People can get loads of 245 gear and still be considered a 10man guild by the current rules, while at the same time a guild can have absolutely 0 pieces of 245 gear and be considered a 25man guild simply because they killed the first boss in toc25 on ten members.
The rules just don't filter the guilds quite correctly. There must be a better way. Once again I propose raising the bar to requiring 20 players to have killed the first boss instead of 10. Another way would be to check which content they have progressed further into, between 10m and 25m versions
What the somewhat reliable guild ranking sites out there now? The ones that I trust to autoupdate frequently and actually catch most guilds including newly formed guilds are only these:
05/17/09, 1:12 AM
Similar Threads
