The five classes of guilds

This whole list was brought up by the old argument of whether or not WoW is too easy, something that seems to come up periodically, especially whenever a new tier of content is released. Actually, we're talking about whether raiding is too easy here, and BoK says that there are too many people in the "Gentry" category he defines -- too many people who've finished off normal modes, and who seem to think that hard modes just aren't for them. I guess the solution there, besides, you know, more content, is that instead of making a huge difficultly ramp from normal to hard modes, Blizzard should tweak up the difficulty of the last few bosses in normal, giving "the Gentry" a chance to get a taste of tougher content before they move up into the hard mode tier.
The good news is that at this point, we're really talking about variations on a boss level rather than an entire dungeon -- back when Naxx was originally dropped into the game, the problem was that no one could run any of it unless they were in the upper level "Aristocracy," and Blizzard has certainly fixed that problem. I think in the future that we will see even more levels of difficulty. I'm not convinced that Blizzard will stick with the 10/25/normal/Heroic model (in fact, we've already heard that the toggle will mix things up in Icecrown), but I'm sure they'll continue to give us more and more ways to run content the way we want, rather than moving through a required order or gateway.
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Virtual selves, Guilds, Blizzard, Instances, Raiding, Bosses, Leveling






Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)
Brewce Oct 23rd 2009 2:09PM
What about the "Classic" tier of guilds, like Screams of the Past?! lol, i'm just kidding, i know we're far too few to be considered an actual tier of guilds, but people should keep in mind that while there are 4-5 classes of guilds that may focus on endgame content, there are many guilds out there who focus on other raiding content and have just as much, if not more, fun. cheers.
screamsofthepast dot com.
Styvorama Oct 23rd 2009 4:36PM
Why was this given the thumbs down? Please keep trolling to trade chat, the poster was just pointing out that not every guild is end game focused.
Bravofox Oct 23rd 2009 2:10PM
Blizzard really knows how to make a dollar or two. I love how they have effectively made the game work for Hardcore, and the casual gamer alike. It is quite brilliant if I do say so myself.
Kudos to Blizz on finding a middle ground to please most of the masses :)
Rhabella Oct 23rd 2009 2:48PM
I too think they have done good job of tiering content in the way they have. I also think it’s important to note the players most likely to cry foul about the game being too easy are the upper gentry’s-lower Aristocrats. They are the ones who “work” hardest for their gear chasing the royalty and fighting the clock ticking on the back which brings new content.
I am not one of those people, but I do understand their frustration when they put in the time and effort to complete hard modes and the next tier of content drops. They are left running the easy mode new content and really have no reason to go back for hard modes. Think a reg ToC guild here that has gear better than Ulduar hard modes. The only thing to bring them back to Ulduar for hard modes is the accomplishment of the fight, and I do think they are the ones who have been left out in the design plan.
Jon Do Oct 23rd 2009 4:57PM
Strange bosses hidin' in raids distributin' swords is no basis for a method of guild classification!
Design decisions are a mandate of the casuals, not some farsical forum QQ!
chipersoft Oct 24th 2009 10:39AM
@Jon Do: You sir, win one internet.
Uriahworld Oct 23rd 2009 2:10PM
Should all guilds fit into these though? Some say 25s hold true progression whereas 10mans do not. So 10mans cannot be Royalty or Aristocracy.
sinisterdrakonid Oct 23rd 2009 2:43PM
Except in a lot of the hard mode content 10 man is a lot more challenging than 25. Not everyone does 10s with their buddies wearing full 25 man hard mode gear. Some of us just have less people and like 10s better.
You're basically saying people who can only do 10s are less of a person.
Eli Oct 23rd 2009 3:36PM
In addition to what was said above, 10 mans are also harder in the fact that if you lose one person, of any role... it's either 1/5 of your dps gone, half your tanks, or 1/3 of your healers... with one person.
That's equivalent to losing almost an entire group.
1 dps down in a 10 man, you might not make the enrage timer.
1 MT healer down, it's a wipe. OT healer down, on say, Iron Council, it's a wipe. Raid healer down, there's a good chance it'll wipe.
1 Tank down without a druid, you're screwed.
Valt Oct 23rd 2009 3:51PM
He did say "Some say" so its not necessary hes thought (unless hes from fox news that say some say as their own opinion)
But hes right. MOST people say that 10mans are jokes, pug raids and all that. Even blizzard screws over 10mans most of the time. I mean come on now, 5mans (toc) and upcoming 5mans (IC 5mans) just drop 10man gear from "last tier" like 10man gear doesnt even matter. *shrug*. I personally enjoy 10mans better in our guild. We can be more picky about people we get while in 25mans we have to bring "everyone" to get carried in 25mans..
Race Bannon Oct 23rd 2009 4:01PM
One hard mode was more difficult in 10 than 25. Thats Three Drake Sarth. There is no other fight thats easier on 10 than 25. 10 man heroic Anub is a joke. A mixed guild raid I was in 2 shotted it the first week it was available, while my main 25 man raid group is sitting on over 100 tries on heroic Anub without beating him yet.
If you want to run 10's than by all means do it. But don't even try and say they are as difficult as 25's
Andrew R. Oct 23rd 2009 2:13PM
You will always have two extremes when it comes to guilds in WoW.
The hardcore, going for world and server firsts while raiding five nights a week. Then the super casual "hey what's up guys? Wanna run a 5-man?" small family, close knit type of guilds.
In the middle you have people complaining content is too hard and the other group saying content is too easy. Not everyone who plays WoW is a hardcore raider or a raider at all. Some just like the social aspects of it.
Blizzard knows what they are doing despite the constant troll posts. If you tell me they are doing it all wrong I'll ask you to look at their stock then come back and tell me the same thing.
shadowdk Oct 23rd 2009 2:15PM
i agree with you on that Andrew
They do have a well put together game
catharsis80 Oct 23rd 2009 4:02PM
"In the middle you have people complaining content is too hard and the other group saying content is too easy."
I am not a hardcore raider, and I am not a super casual, therefore I am "in the middle". However, you have not done justice for the middle-ground people like myself; your statement does not describe me in the least.
LilBanshee Oct 24th 2009 1:37PM
All I read was "I refuse to be classified as any specific player type therefore I choose to belittle your comment without providing any justification for why it is wrong"
Avan Oct 23rd 2009 2:15PM
Of guilds? No, this ranking should apply to the players. After all, guilds are meaningless, in-game representations of social networks made up of (often) like-minded players. Guilds won't always be 100% like-minded, sometimes even not being geared the same. You could take 10 players from any "proletariat" or "burgeoise" guild, and probably pick out one or two people who would fit into an "aristocrat" guild.
Let's not even mention guilds that really are just social networks of friends that don't raid together, either choosing to PUG or not raid at all.
Kvothe Oct 23rd 2009 2:47PM
I have to agree completely that this works better for people than guilds. I'd consider myself gentry-aristocrat level by this system, but for the longest time I was in a proletariat guild where two months after a patch gchat would still be filled with "omg when did they make mounts trainable at 20?" type messages. It's really more of an individual thing than a way of classifying entire large groups of people.
Verit Oct 23rd 2009 2:17PM
They should have a category for guilds who really could be at the top, but because raid leaders and guild leaders have to bring awful players to every single raid (friends, relatives, wives, girlfriends - whatever) can't because we are essentially 10 manning 25 man bosses.
Or guilds who could be good at raiding, but are too drunk while in game to realize whats going on.
James Oct 23rd 2009 3:05PM
If you are raiding and not drinking then something is wrong.
Is this not the point? Or is it because I tank and drunk tanking is by far superior to sober?
Rhabella Oct 23rd 2009 3:42PM
Drunk tanking should be encouraged, in the same way that John Wooden “encouraged” Bill Walton to smoke the ganji before a game to settle him down.