Nov 9th 2011 8:17AM The reason they need to be different is because of their acquisition avenues. If PvE and PvP gear were virtually the same, then PvE players would be up in arms that players can get raid quality gear without even raiding (remember, TBC's "welfare epics"?). On the flip side, PvPers would get angry that "baddies" can get quality PvP gear without even PvP'ing, which I believe was the issue in vanilla where those in raid purples dominated the scene because no one else had access to that quality gear.
And while you claim you do the same role in both, it's the vast difference in play style between PvE and PvP that makes the two spheres so different. You could almost say wow pvp and wow pve are two separate games.
And lastly, a pve gear set in pvp can work, but is sub optimal obviously; just as a pvp set in pve is sub optimal. So it's not like you HAVE to grind out another gear set. Just if you want to min/max, you'll have to pay your dues in that particular sphere. Which is fine by me. If you want to be optimal in one or the other, you put in the time. No one's forcing you to play both.
May 25th 2010 10:14AM Late to this article, but I find it highly relevant as I've been in a similar boat. I can relate to how frustrating it is when you're a GM that is open to discussing policy and change, even though you may not agree, and people still deliberately keep things from you. And you're left stumbling in the dark trying to fix something that no one has approached you yet. The advice given is spot on. What I wanted to add was just some things that I've learned.
First, you have to realize you'll never please everyone. Yet at the same time, it's your responsibility as a GM to be fair to all of your members. This, to me, is where a lot of the major friction comes into play. Those that do not lead do not have the burden of having to do this balancing act, so their views will definitely tip one way or another. Your "hardcore" side will be annoyed at you "pampering" the casual players. The casual players will be annoyed that you're treating raiding like a job. You just can't win this one. Even if you took the guild in one direction or another, there will always be this balancing act.
Second, another thing I've found is that it's rare for those that never taken up the mantle of GM (those that direct guild policy and have authoritative decision making) to really know what it's like. You'll have your "armchair GMs" that believe they could do a better job. And it's not surprising that it'd come from the veteran crew. It's very frustrating considering many of the concerns that have bubbled up to me (in my case anyway) are situations I've already privately addressed and/or anticipated, but decided to go a way different than what the sentiment leands towards. Unfortunately, you'll never be free of these types. The best thing to do is be open with people offering suggestions.
Lastly, you'll have people that just refuse to communicate and just like to complain like it's second nature to them. Chances are it is. I had one veterain raider whose schedule became inconsistent to the point where he stopped raiding. And despite me asking him if there was anything wrong or going on, his response always being that nothing was wrong, he just would not share with me anything. And all the info that I received about him came from other people only to find out that he's had a work schedule change. Yet, in the mean time, all that lack of communication festered within him to the point where he believed I personally hated him. Some people just will not communicate. Some will avoid direct confrontation at all costs and continue to complain and "suffer in silence". It's something that you just have to accept.
There's a certain stigma that goes along with being the man in charge. Some times it can be very frustrating to be painted in such a light. I personally try to humanize myself by pretending to be mildly annoyed at certain perpetual jokes about me. Yet, no matter how much you try to convey you're still a good person, you're still the boss...and with that comes the unfortunate alienation side effects of being the boss.
One last thing to keep in mind: Just because one is a GM, it doesn't mean they can't have their own channels for personal venting. I have several people in the guild I can trust to be candid with. It helps. It doesn't have to be cliquish, but having someone or a couple someones that can listen at the personal level can take some of that insubordination paranoia that can creep up every so often.
Mar 29th 2010 4:22PM I'm the GM of a guild that is definitely in the "officers just get more work" category. Over the time that I've led my guild, I've had to promote more officers when my current ones stop playing or leave.
From what I've learned through experience, there's two big factors that come into play when promoting a new officer: Competence and Acceptance. At first, it was just the former that mattered to me. But through trial and error I also learned acceptance is just as big.
What is Acceptance? Simple. It's the guild membership accepting the officer's new rank and responsibilities. This includes both other officers as well as regular members. Pretty much, if the membership doesn't accept this new officer as their "superior" (or "equal" for officers), then it can cause a lot of problems down the line. If the members don't buy into a a new raid leading officer, then they may be prone to "ignore" the orders he's giving out. They may not respect him enough to listen to what he has to say. While that behavior can be discouraged or squashed, it will be there. And the larger the "unacceptance' pool, the more difficult things will be.
Sure, perhaps the guild should trust the decision made by their GM, suck it up, and yield the respect such a position deserves, but as we all know, we can't really force people to change how they feel. And if anyone feels that the person doesn't deserve the promotion, then there's not really much anything besides time and patience that can fix that.
To NAO, this is what I think could also be a factor. He's recently come back from the break, he's maybe still seen as "the new guy coming in, changing things, and taking over". Maybe it's just too soon. From a GM's perspective, I'd be hesitant in just doing it outright as I've seen highly motivated players burn out and just disappear - even after being promoted. Also, if someone is already doing that, then I'd hope they're doing it for the good of the guild and not because they want to be an officer. So while perhaps an officer rank might not be available at the moment, the person doing these things already feels rewarded enough by seeing the fruits of their labors. I'd still want to reward them for their efforts, but it doesn't necessarily mean it'd be in the form of a promotion as there are other ways to recognize efforts above and beyond.
If I had officer spots to fill, I'd most likely post the spots were open and receive "applications" for those interested. This gives a good way for everyone to get in their fair chance, giving me a chance to see who's really interested as well as give a more objective way to compare possible candidates.
It's not an exact science and I could feel this reader's frustration, but decisions such as an officer promotion should never be taken lightly, considering the level of potential impact it could have on the guild.
Mar 4th 2010 1:08PM my theory is that it's the reward you'll get when you get all the 10 man and 25 man harde mode glory achievements.
Dec 18th 2009 9:42AM The "it's just a game" comment is rather shallow and seems to extend from a lack of understanding what a game like wow really is. WoW has a very strong social aspect to the game. While it may contain viable single player activity, a larger portion of the game involves interacting with other, real people. While the online social environment may not be the same as an in person social environment, it still is a real, viable social environment.
And because of this, all the somewhat universal rules that accompany a social environment come into play. One of them is sticking to your commitments. As a GM of a raiding guild, when someone says they will be there for our raids, I expect them to be there just as everyone else does.
It's always somewhat amusing when players who don't take this seriously and sign up, but don't show, leave in the middle of a raid, log in way late, etc. get angry with me when they lose their raid spot because I replaced them with someone who is more reliable. Usually the argument has the "whatever, it's just a game you shouldn't be so serious about this" response. And it's amusing because they pretty much confirmed my decision to replace them for me.
Thankfully, a vast majority of my raiders understands this and are good at communicating when they may not be around (Go Go Gadget Holidays!). But I will say just finding enough like minded people with the same schedule (aside from other nuances) among the sea of players on a server can be daunting.
Dec 7th 2009 4:08PM Wait, let me get this straight. You're posting to an article on a site that comprehensively covers every aspect of WoW, and you're coming at it with the "it's just a game" mantra? Seriously?
The "It's just a game" argument is so shallow that it's super annoying whenever I encounter it. Usually, I don't respond because I understand the futility of the gesture, but in this case, I'll make an exception.
Yes, wow is a game. That's quite obvious. However, it's also a social medium. One could argue that something is wrong with someone if they see it as a social medium, but alas, the bottom line is it IS a social medium. There's a large social aspect to the game, no one can deny that. And despite it being "just a game", all the aspects and ramifications that come with a social setting are along for the ride (albeit the balance is tweaked due to lack of actual personal presence). This means concepts like ethics, rudeness, diplomacy, etc. are all in play. When someone calls you an idiot in the game and you get angry, you're mad at the person calling you an idiot, not mad at the game. Just because the social setting happens to be a game, it doesn't mean all interpersonal social frustrations can be discounted simply because it happened in a game.
You could easily take this article, apply it to another, what some might consider "normal", setting and the same situation applies. What about a sports coach that sits someone so his buddy's kid can play even though the player he sat is better and deserves the spot? How about a football team that consistently takes cheap shots against the other team's players intending to cause injury? Both situations call ethics into question. But I guess since they're both "just a game", it doesn't matter right?
I'm sure this will get down rated, but alas, I felt the need to respond.
Dec 7th 2009 12:15PM ..continued:
the first epic weapon quests has seen these. Some may see some of the above as draconic. And maybe it is. However, the way I see it is, those that want the legendary will put forth legendary effort on their own. And that's the way it should be.
Dec 7th 2009 12:08PM Legendaries, just by their nature, are going to cause problems. There are largely three factors which contribute to this recipe for drama:
- By the nature of it being Legendary, it's going to be better than your regularly dropped raid epic.
- Also by their nature and perceived power, they're going to be more rare, which means the time invested will be significantly larger
- The sense of entitlement players that is somewhat fostered in this game.
So, take an item with a very very limited supply be very very powerful and then try to figure out who's going to get one in your guild. Yeah. Exactly. Make no mistake, everyone in your guild wants one. Even the casual who logs in like once every other week wants one. And of those that want, those that raid regularly and actually have a shot at getting it will possibly feel entitled. So given the huge amount of time needed just to construct one, a GM, such as myself, needs to find a way to choose one person. This can be a daunting task and will take a lot of effort to mitigate potential drama.
The biggest problem I have with these quests is there isn't a lot of individual effort tied to acquiring them. Almost every piece, though shadowmourne having some individual effort, is acquired incidentally through raiding. I'm all for huge time investments as the mitigating factor for acquiring Legendaries, but I think much more emphasis needs to be placed on the individual's effort. This is where annoying, exorbitant time and money sinks can serve a purpose.
Here's some ideas:
- Make the person grind out an agonizing faction to Exalted. This faction will only be of interest to them and will not have any shortcuts like running instances, raids, or buying drops off the AH. This faction, upon reaching certain levels, will have expensive items to purchase in order to continue the grind effectively. Also, the methods for increasing this faction will not be limitless. The more people attempting to grind out the faction, the slower the increase rate will go. An example would be to kill X amount of this mob....except this mob only has a Y amount of nodes it can spawn from. The Y amount will be tuned such that only Z amount of quest completions can be made per hour. Something to that effect . Bonuses which would increase faction increases by a certain % would not apply.
- Send the person all over the place with quests with ridiculous requirements. Remember those class specific weapon quests while leveling up? Something along those lines.
- More 5 man level requirements. Except make the requirements difficult with limited opportunity to achieve them. Examples of this would be the bronze drake run - you only really get one shot per day to do it as once you begin you're saved and committed. Except, make it truly challenging. It's been seen that it's possible to make a dungeon easy if you run it normally, but by putting a twist or two on an encounter or the dungeon itself, what was once trivial is now a challenge. Use this mechanic as a way to mitigate legendary acquisition.
- Insert road blocks that will "gate" the amount of people who will be on a certain part of the quest at a time. An example of this is even when you reach say...honored of the above mentioned agonizing faction to grind, the item you need in order to complete the next set of quests has a limited purchase quantity. Once those are all purchased, none are available until he "restocks". The number of days til restock can be set to 1 day to several days or a week or what not. Another could be individually doing this one thing that can only be done in one of several places around azeroth..but only once a week.
- Lastly, have your 25 man requirements. Make it so, after doing all the hard individual work, the last few steps require specific actions on a boss fight (kind of like how shadowmourne is now) that can only be accomplished by one person a week. By all means, avoid iterative single drops (like val'anyr fragments).
The way I see it, those that really want the legendary will put forth the effort, even if it's highly ridiculous. It also has more individual appeal. It's one person's quest to acquire a powerful weapon instead of just happening to be the lucky dude to be awarded the drops among 24 other people. Also, by decoupling the time invested from raid (and guild time), it makes deciding who should get the raid portion of the drop simpler. Ideally there'll be only one person at that point, but in the case of more than one, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to use normal loot rules at that point. Because there's less guild and raid investment, there isn't as big of an obligation to maximize the return on the investment (though I'm sure most will still choose to put it in the hands of the person who'll give the biggest benefit to the guild anyway). Now I'm not blind to the possibility that this won't cause drama. Because it will. Just the drama will typically not be amongst the guild or aimed at leadership for their decisions. It'll be more along the lines of those players will be competing with in order to complete the individual quest chain. But to me, that's an acceptable shift.
Anyway, this got way longer than I intended it to be. There's ways to make legendaries feel truly legendary without putting so much emphasis of raiding. Anyone who played EQ1 back during
Oct 26th 2009 5:29PM Wow not only tapped into an already huge Warcraft and Blizzard fan base, it was also the first game to really capitalize on Everquest (arguably the biggest MMO pre WoW days) and its developers' consistent ability to miss the mark with what its player base wanted.
About the only game I can see overtaking WoW is the new MMORPG they have in the works. Even then it's not gauranteed seeing as it wont have the luxury of having a world built upon a franchise that has been around since the early 90's. Even for that game, it's going to be an uphill battle. It'd have to be truly "next generation", imo, for that to happen.
Oct 26th 2009 5:08PM The 2 hour bind thing has opened a larger "after the loot" issue, even in situations that are benign. I've encountered it a couple times in my guild. Here's the setup:
Loot rules: Zero sum fixed bidding DKP system. Bidder with the highest dkp at the time wins the item then has the price of the item subtracted. For main spec only, otherwise no real limit on what you can bid on (the system's balanced enough on its own to prevent hording loot).
Scenario: Player A wins the item with the highest DKP. Player B has second highest. Player C is somewhere below Player A and B. Player A realizes it's not a big upgrade for him, then notices Player C is still wearing something from Naxx10. Player A contacts me, letting me know he wishes the pass the item to Player C because it's a bigger upgrade for him and asks I adjust the DKP accordingly. At this point I remind the player that they can't pass to player C because they were not next in line and they can only pass to Player B.
The intent is good for the most part, but I've seen "Buyer's Remorse" come up a lot more now with this new 2 hour bind window, which has caused some of these instances to pop up. Thankfully, the player wanting their DKP refunded keeps it in check since they have to run it by me first.
Overall though, the whole thing has prompted me clarify certain "after the fact" loot rules so everyone's clear on what's ok and what isn't. I would encourage other raid leaders, especially partial/full pugs, to add some "after the fact" stipulations as part of their general loot rules.