Officers' Quarters: How to fill slots
Every Monday Scott Andrews contributes Officers' Quarters, a column about the ins and outs of guild leadership.
This week's e-mail is straight and to the point:
Let's examine the various systems for filling raid slots.
Seniority
Like I said last week, I hate this system, but let's talk about why. The problem is twofold. One, you're locked in to those players who have been around longer. Whether they are any good or not, or whether you can put together a reasonable group synergy, they have the priority so they get the slot.
Two, it doesn't always allow you to try out new recruits or give more recent members a chance. If you have high-attendance veterans, you'll keep those veterans happy, but your new blood could be on standby for weeks or months. Will they stick around for that? Many won't.
Performance
Assuming you're grading performance accurately, this method will give you the best chance to have a successful run. Performance evaluation can be tricky, however. Is a player more valuable if they do more DPS but tend to stand in the fire, or if they do less DPS but rarely make mistakes? Communication and problem-solving can also be incredibly valuable when you're trying to learn new bosses. Some players are the total package, but not many.
You'll have to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of each player. Drama can crop up when a player thinks he or she is better than another, but the raid leaders disagree. Besides that, no one likes to hear that they aren't good enough.
You'll need mature, thick-skinned members to pull off a performance-based system. Hardcore guilds can certainly get away with it. Less serious guilds may run into problems. However, if a player is holding the raid back with slacking or lack of preparation, he or she shouldn't be in the raid anyway.
The other drama issue when choosing based on performance is attendance. When low-attendance but high-value players get slots over less talented regulars who show up every week, you're going to hear complaints. If you're using this system, attendance should be brought into consideration as well. Attendance often equates to better knowledge of the encounters, so it's not really a hindrance in most cases.
Gear Needs
Some guilds like to swap players in and out of a raid based on who needs what from each boss. This method will optimize the loot you're getting. However, people who already have the drops they need will miss out on a lot of emblems. They might feel unfairly punished for gearing up quickly.
The other big downside to this method is that you're often swapping out people with a good gear set for people with lesser gear. That may stall your progression in the short run.
In the long run, your players are going to even out on gear at some point. Then you'll have to figure out some other way to decide who gets to go.
Rotation
This method requires some effort from the officers. In a nutshell, you keep track of who has to sit out one week and make sure they have priority for a raid slot next week. It's pretty simple in theory, but more complex in practice. Is it worth subbing in the Holy paladin who had to sit out last week for the Resto shaman who's gotten a slot for the last four weeks in a row, knowing that you won't have Bloodlust if you do?
This system requires generous members who will sit out for multiple weeks when necessary for the good of the raid, whether it's for synergy, a particular buff, another ranged DPS for Saurfang, etc. Dual specs can be a huge help, as long as people have adequate gear for both roles.
In general, rotation slotting is one of the fairest systems you can use. You just have to make sure everyone who gets a slot is good enough for the raid you're running. Players will grow impatient if subbing in one or two particular people always means extra wipes.
Remember, too, that your raids will generally be slower. You'll have to explain certain fights to newly rotated players and it may take time for people to adjust to different roles. For example, say you usually have a death knight tanking Keleseth, but that player has been rotated out. You may have to use a warlock who's never done it before.
Random
Too many DPS? Lowest roll sits. It's hard to argue with the dice. Making people roll for slots takes the decision out of your hands. So in that sense, it's an easy, simple slotting system.
Their are some hefty drawbacks, however. For one thing, the dice ignore gear, performance, attendance, synergy, and every other consideration you might want to think about when you're setting up a raid. For another, players with bad luck may never set foot inside a raid zone. They'll get frustrated pretty quickly. They'll stop blaming the dice -- and start blaming you.
Schedule
If you run a raid zone with multiple groups on separate IDs, sometimes you have no choice but to organize the groups by schedule to make sure you have the right roles filled for each. A great way to survey your raiders is by using a Google docs form. Here's a sample of one.
Post a link to it on your guild's Web site and ask every raider to spend 5 minutes filling it out. The form will generate a spreadsheet where you can view the responses. Then you can see which nights are best for each player and form (hopefully) two productive teams.
Notice I haven't yet said which of these methods I prefer. That's because they're all legitimate choices you can make, for better or worse. Which system is best depends on what your guild values most and what your raiding philosophy is. If progression is king, then you'll probably use some sort of performance-based system. If your guild isn't in a rush, then a rotation system might be your top choice.
You can also combine these various methods together. For instance, you could use a performance-based system that uses random rolls as a tiebreaker or a rotation-based system that takes gear needs into account.
Whatever system you go with, don't ignore feedback from your members about whether or not they like it. If you listen, you might obtain some valuable advice or figure out some tweaks that can improve the experience for everyone. Don't be afraid to change your mind if your current system is causing more problems than it solves. And don't get frustrated -- keep in mind that having too many solid raiders is a good problem to have!
How does your guild fill slots? Do you have a unique system? Tell us about it below!
/salute
Send Scott your guild-related questions, conundrums, ideas, and suggestions at scott@wow.com. You may find your question the subject of next week's Officers' Quarters!
This week's e-mail is straight and to the point:
Great question, Michael! When you have too many raiders, it's supposed to be easy to put together a raid, right? It's often harder than it seems, and you can really stir up drama by making ill-considered choices.Dear Mr. Andrews:
In your latest Officer's Quarters article you mention filling raid slots by seniority is not a good system. What is a good system for filling raid slots? What would you recommend?
Michael
Let's examine the various systems for filling raid slots.
Seniority
Like I said last week, I hate this system, but let's talk about why. The problem is twofold. One, you're locked in to those players who have been around longer. Whether they are any good or not, or whether you can put together a reasonable group synergy, they have the priority so they get the slot.
Two, it doesn't always allow you to try out new recruits or give more recent members a chance. If you have high-attendance veterans, you'll keep those veterans happy, but your new blood could be on standby for weeks or months. Will they stick around for that? Many won't.
Performance
Assuming you're grading performance accurately, this method will give you the best chance to have a successful run. Performance evaluation can be tricky, however. Is a player more valuable if they do more DPS but tend to stand in the fire, or if they do less DPS but rarely make mistakes? Communication and problem-solving can also be incredibly valuable when you're trying to learn new bosses. Some players are the total package, but not many.
You'll have to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of each player. Drama can crop up when a player thinks he or she is better than another, but the raid leaders disagree. Besides that, no one likes to hear that they aren't good enough.
You'll need mature, thick-skinned members to pull off a performance-based system. Hardcore guilds can certainly get away with it. Less serious guilds may run into problems. However, if a player is holding the raid back with slacking or lack of preparation, he or she shouldn't be in the raid anyway.
The other drama issue when choosing based on performance is attendance. When low-attendance but high-value players get slots over less talented regulars who show up every week, you're going to hear complaints. If you're using this system, attendance should be brought into consideration as well. Attendance often equates to better knowledge of the encounters, so it's not really a hindrance in most cases.
Gear Needs
Some guilds like to swap players in and out of a raid based on who needs what from each boss. This method will optimize the loot you're getting. However, people who already have the drops they need will miss out on a lot of emblems. They might feel unfairly punished for gearing up quickly.
The other big downside to this method is that you're often swapping out people with a good gear set for people with lesser gear. That may stall your progression in the short run.
In the long run, your players are going to even out on gear at some point. Then you'll have to figure out some other way to decide who gets to go.
Rotation
This method requires some effort from the officers. In a nutshell, you keep track of who has to sit out one week and make sure they have priority for a raid slot next week. It's pretty simple in theory, but more complex in practice. Is it worth subbing in the Holy paladin who had to sit out last week for the Resto shaman who's gotten a slot for the last four weeks in a row, knowing that you won't have Bloodlust if you do?
This system requires generous members who will sit out for multiple weeks when necessary for the good of the raid, whether it's for synergy, a particular buff, another ranged DPS for Saurfang, etc. Dual specs can be a huge help, as long as people have adequate gear for both roles.
In general, rotation slotting is one of the fairest systems you can use. You just have to make sure everyone who gets a slot is good enough for the raid you're running. Players will grow impatient if subbing in one or two particular people always means extra wipes.
Remember, too, that your raids will generally be slower. You'll have to explain certain fights to newly rotated players and it may take time for people to adjust to different roles. For example, say you usually have a death knight tanking Keleseth, but that player has been rotated out. You may have to use a warlock who's never done it before.
Random
Too many DPS? Lowest roll sits. It's hard to argue with the dice. Making people roll for slots takes the decision out of your hands. So in that sense, it's an easy, simple slotting system.
Their are some hefty drawbacks, however. For one thing, the dice ignore gear, performance, attendance, synergy, and every other consideration you might want to think about when you're setting up a raid. For another, players with bad luck may never set foot inside a raid zone. They'll get frustrated pretty quickly. They'll stop blaming the dice -- and start blaming you.
Schedule
If you run a raid zone with multiple groups on separate IDs, sometimes you have no choice but to organize the groups by schedule to make sure you have the right roles filled for each. A great way to survey your raiders is by using a Google docs form. Here's a sample of one.
Post a link to it on your guild's Web site and ask every raider to spend 5 minutes filling it out. The form will generate a spreadsheet where you can view the responses. Then you can see which nights are best for each player and form (hopefully) two productive teams.
Notice I haven't yet said which of these methods I prefer. That's because they're all legitimate choices you can make, for better or worse. Which system is best depends on what your guild values most and what your raiding philosophy is. If progression is king, then you'll probably use some sort of performance-based system. If your guild isn't in a rush, then a rotation system might be your top choice.
You can also combine these various methods together. For instance, you could use a performance-based system that uses random rolls as a tiebreaker or a rotation-based system that takes gear needs into account.
Whatever system you go with, don't ignore feedback from your members about whether or not they like it. If you listen, you might obtain some valuable advice or figure out some tweaks that can improve the experience for everyone. Don't be afraid to change your mind if your current system is causing more problems than it solves. And don't get frustrated -- keep in mind that having too many solid raiders is a good problem to have!
How does your guild fill slots? Do you have a unique system? Tell us about it below!
/salute
Filed under: Officers' Quarters (Guild Leadership)







Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
LeNi Feb 1st 2010 1:07PM
By the date/time raiders signed up on the calendar. This means first come first serve, but accounting for role and the ability to actually do that raid.
Demedici Feb 1st 2010 1:13PM
The problem is that this prejudices raiders that have the ability to sit around all day and hit refresh on their forums/calendars. If you've got enough raiders that you're dealing w/ slots, those that don't have school/jobs/etc that pull them away when signups go up don't get to raid.
LeNi Feb 1st 2010 1:26PM
Yes, that's true, we try to make up for that by posting events in the evening, plus rotating by excluding no-shows for the next raid.
el ranchero Feb 1st 2010 1:30PM
My guild uses this system, and we've never had a problem with some bizarre race to get a slot the second a raid goes up on the schedule. More often than not, we're still filling out the last spot the day before the raid, even though we raid on the same nights every week. That, combined with a voluntary rotation system where people are asked to step aside for others who haven't raided that week, has worked very well for our small, "business casual" guild.
Me Feb 1st 2010 1:30PM
The other disadvantage is that it encourages people to mindlessly sign up for everything and then 2 days later decide if they want to cancel. It's a system that can be heavily gamed. And will be. Drama!
Nadia Feb 1st 2010 1:32PM
@ Demedici
The solution to that problem is not to make events available for signup at the same times on the same days.
A variation on that solution is to make the event and invite people who don't sit around all day on WoW first. Leave that invite list up for 24 hours and then add the people who sit there and refresh over and over. This method would have to be alternated with a full invite list on occasion.
Morcego Feb 1st 2010 1:08PM
As a raid leader, I have a simple system. Of course, this is after "needed roles" and "raid composition". It is fairly simple: whoever I feel like. Which mostly for people who have performed best, annoyed me the least etc.
This is not as subjective or dictatorial as one might think. Trying to lead a raid while a player annoys the living crap out of you is almost impossible. So, as far as I'm concerned, annoying players hurt the raid as a whole.
Casey Feb 1st 2010 1:50PM
This is called nepotism.
Morcego Feb 1st 2010 2:10PM
Nepotism ? I'm not hiring any of my relatives to public positions.
If you want to call it some random word, why not call it "Bob" ?
You are saying I can't pick the people that will run on the raid I'm leading ? If not me, who then ? Any system I decide upon will be as random as any other. In the end, I will be deciding on a system. So it is, again, my decision.
I don't lead raids (and a guild, for that matter) because of the kindness of my heart. I don't know anyone who does. I lead raids to I can raid. So I can kill bosses and see content. As long as people want me to lead those, it will be according to my rules.
Say, in my 25man raids. Guild officers have guaranteed spots, as long as they are not late (no one is excused for being late). Besides that, no positions are guaranteed. Not by seniority, not by anything else. Everyone has to work to make me happy to get a spot.
Interestingly enough, the things that make me happy are the same things that make at least 99% of the other raiders happy: organization, performance, not annoying the raid leader (yes, they don't enjoy when I'm annoyed either). The last time I've got a complain about this was from a paladin, who used to think himself the best holy paladin on the server, and who is now guildless, because no one will take him (he managed to get gkicked by at least 4 different guilds).
But the only defense I have for my system of choice is the only one that matters: I'm the raid leader. If the players are not happy, they are free to select a different raid leader. I will be happy to give my spot to anyone else the majority (50% + 1) of the raiders want.
Did I mention that it is public known (including on the text people need to read BEFORE applying to my guild) that all officers are bastards ? It is actually one of the requisites for an officer position. We don't take bullshit. Oddly enough (or not), the last 2 gkicks were requested by the non-officer members.
You are not a member of my guild, so feel free to be unhappy about the way we run things. Heck, if you were a member of my guild, my answer would probably be "do you want my job?".
garrik Feb 1st 2010 3:51PM
Ok, so when I read your discussion, I thought sure you were talking about my guild. Then I remembered I'm usually the raid leader.
The one thing we do a bit differently is that it's not just the officers that are bastards in our guild. Virtually everyone is, so there are no surprises!
rkaliski Feb 1st 2010 11:33PM
Morcego,
The player that annoys you may be someone who I find amusing, while your favorite hunter who never fails to make you laugh and sucks up to you makes me want to kill him and his mother and father who spawned him. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Why should officers get an automatic invite? Shouldn't they be responsible for the best gearing, performance like any other raider? Could it be that officers almost automatically get an invite because they are all the old guard in a guild and are buddies?
I know the person who wrote the article hates the senority system. However, if you have a person who has stuck with the guild through thick and thin and you know he or she will always be ready to click accept on an invite, why should they get sat for someone who may be there just to gear up and go? Shouldn't a newbie have to prove themselves?
What it comes down to is the "flavor or philosophy of the guild. If they are an end game progression guild who's members know when they join that the guild will pick the very best players for killing the boss then fine. However if I join a casual or more relaxed group that favors fun and friendship over progression then I shouldn't be worried about getting sat down for that new hotshot warrior that was recruited with full tier 10 while the guild has barely scratched into that tier.
Jiyambi Feb 1st 2010 1:12PM
My guild uses a combination of these systems. First obviously the needed roles are filled, then we fill based on rotation, then as a first come first serve. However, if someone has a history of signing up and not showing up, they may be passed up in favor of someone else.
Bith Feb 1st 2010 1:14PM
I lol'd at "players with bad luck".
outdps Feb 1st 2010 1:14PM
We throw darts at pictures of monkeys. The monkey whose picture gets hit with the most darts gets as many darts as we have extra people, and we all high-tail it.
Cataca Feb 1st 2010 1:39PM
"We throw darts at pictures of monkeys. The monkey whose picture gets hit with the most darts gets as many darts as we have extra people, and we all high-tail it."
I wish I could draw this into a comic.
Panel 1 "We throw darts at pictures of monkeys"
Guild of 27 throws darts at pictures of monkeys
Panel 2 "The monkey whose picture gets hit with the most darts gets as many darts as we have extra people"
Monkey "A"'s picture has the most darts. It's a 25man raid so we have 2 extra people. Monkey "A" is handed 2 poison darts
Panel 3 "and we all high-tail it"
Monkey "A" then throws the 2 poison darts at the guild killing 2 of them. They now know who is going to the raid.
Did I get that right? O.o
Lucid Feb 1st 2010 1:17PM
I cannot agree more that the more players you have the more difficult it is, when it doesn't entirely fill a raid. Somebody is going to get left out either way.
My guild tends to fluxuate between 25 man and 10 man with people, but the absolute worst situation is when we have 17 people who want to raid on raid night, and nobody in our guild likes pugs. We generally have to do a 2nd 10 man later with alts, but the initial raid day steam is gone.
My general approach is to try keep a core of the raid (4-5 people) that reliably supports it, i.e. great heals or tank, and then try to rotate the newer people in, so if a newguy does 1000 less dps than our regulars, one of our regulars is doing 1000 more dps to compensate.
Jarviswabi Feb 1st 2010 1:26PM
My guild was in exactly the same boat through Naxx and into Ulduar, and we finally decided to screw it and focus on 10-mans. I'm sure some people don't mind, but leading a 25-man is stressful enough without introducing puggers into it, and it just wasn't worth it to us. We focused on 10-mans and hard modes through Ulduar and ToC and while we lost some members who just wanted to be carried through 25s for better gear, we ended up with a pretty good core group who enjoy raiding together.
If we're not short-handed on raid night, then we're usually 2 or 3 DPSers over the limit, in which case we simply roll for spots, and anyone who sat the last time is exempt from rolling. Occasionally it gimps our DPS a little, but it usually works out okay.
Blacksheep Feb 1st 2010 1:44PM
My guild hit that same spot for a few months last year, we ran 25 mans great for a while, then we'd get 18 people on every raid night, not enough for a second 10 or a 25. So we ended up swapping to 10s, which made several people angry (who then left) but the group we were left with was great, both in skill and personality. Right now my guild wants to do 25s again, and we are nearing enough skilled raiders again to do so, but because someone (or several people) always duck out of a 25 in the middle, I'm wondering if just doing two 10 man groups would be better? I think if there are two independent 10 mans running for months, then we have 20 reliable people and only need to back fill 5 DPS slots if we went to 25s.
Wonk Feb 1st 2010 1:23PM
We use a combination of most of the above suggestions, whichever causes the least pain and/or drama is used.
I have always felt those who show up for all the raids and know the fight(s) are more valuable than a higher dps that needs to learn the fight, if you keep filling spots with players of that type then progression suffers and the other members get bored with repeated wipes.
Saltypoison Feb 1st 2010 1:23PM
Our system is very simple. We don't over recruit.
We have a small, tight knit group, and we communicate with each other when we know we aren't going to be around on a particular night. We all have friends from other guilds with alts who can hop in a run if a spot is vacant for the night. If something comes up where a bunch can't make it, we reschedule for another night or call it (which rarely ever happens).
I've been in a few guilds that just seem to recruit raiders for the hell of it just so they can use whatever obscure method to pick who gets to go on a given night. It sucks when you don't get picked, for whatever reason. Having been in the position to have to pick and choose also, its equally disheartening.
It may not work for every guild, but we're all ok with this approach, and in the end we may have a few off nights, but its way more fun to progress as a true group, and not just a bunch of names and numbers.