Thread: 3.0+ Midgardsormr Progression Thread

Originally Posted by Arrak

I think track as many groups as you can keep up with and only limit it with what you think you can handle updating. You can also ask people to label the groups in their FCs. For "Group 1 clears xxxx" or "group 2". Then if that FC posts a recruitment thread, interested players can look to this thread to see how that particular group actually did.

Here's the 2.0/2.1 list courtesy of Kaen if you want to link it. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...0De6GdMnKsapfs
And as much of a dick as he was, Litaph did create the original thread (even though he copied it from METHOD), if you want to include him in the credits.

Credits and a link to the original have been added, thanks for the link.

Sorry for all the edits and posting, but I've again edited and restructured the thread. Since it seems there is interest to list kills on a raid group basis from others than just myself, I've re-done the list to reflect this. I've updated the OP with the structure and rules for the new system, so please refer to the post for a detailed breakdown of how the system will work.

Originally Posted by Curia_Regis

Sorry for all the edits and posting, but I've again edited and restructured the thread. Since it seems there is interest to list kills on a raid group basis from others than just myself, I've re-done the list to reflect this. I've updated the OP with the structure and rules for the new system, so please refer to the post for a detailed breakdown of how the system will work.

Hmm...I like the idea of keeping track of individual group kills within FC, but I don't think that we should be counting multiple kills withing an FC towards the server top 10. FCs regularly share clear videos, tips, and even macros with their raid groups. Additionally, I'm guessing the lock-out system for Alex Savage will be a lot like the one from FCOB: individuals who have cleared content for the week will be able to re-enter raids to help other groups. That doesn't really make for a level playing field as far as competition goes!

Originally Posted by bwa

<snip>

That would be a valid argument if we're talking about world first clears. Historically, Midgardsormr has cleared content after world first videos had already been released. Which means the information regarding a given turn is already available to everyone.

Also, regarding the lockout/help system, did they say it would be available for savage mode? I thought it was only for the normal mode. Either way, any clears done with helpers that have already cleared should/would not be added to this progression list. The screenshot of the clear should show full 8 new people that are not present in any previously recorded kills.

I think it would be an insult to NOT count different groups within an FC towards the first 10 kills.

Originally Posted by Data

stuff

The system will likely be the same as FCOB, but we'll just have to see. There's no way to prove whether or not a clear was done with helpers; I'm sure you can think of plenty of ways that groups could cheese that system if they wanted to, including playing on alts, subbing people in at the last minute, and just general coaching.

Server first clears on Midgard were before world first videos were released with the exception of T13 and maybe T12. Even then, extrapolating from a POV clear video is completely different from having someone who can tell every member of your group exactly what they need to be doing at any given moment.

Sean, we previously had an ex-CR member in our static who said that his group had a higher ranking CR member watching their T11 progression stream and giving them advice via Teamspeak in the early weeks of FCOB. That CR member apparently criticized their play and insisted that they adopt the strategy of the main group. This is the exact kind of play that I want to avoid. Are you saying that your FC will not condone this kind of behavior in 3.0?

No, that's not what I meant at all. What I'm saying is there is a huge difference between people getting bits of advice or help from their own fc/friends/etc. (all the examples I named) which are very hard to police vs. people subbing in or flat out playing people's characters to help a new group claim spots on the list.

I hope I am explaining myself adequately.

Originally Posted by Curia_Regis

I hope I am explaining myself adequately.

There's no reason to police it, groups like Arrak's (who might have a majority of member's in MVP) can still post as a separate LS for their clear, as they've done. Since you're not refuting the scenario that I referred to in my prior post, I'm very reticent to agree that allowing multiple within-fc groups to count as "server clears" is going to foster any kind of competition at all. It's not your job to police everyone's clears, but there's some common sense in only allowing one clear per FC to count towards the server kills. Anyways, that's my $.02, if we move forward with things as they've been set up, I think it will be very clear if there are groups abusing the system.

Originally Posted by bwa

There's no reason to police it, groups like Arrak's (who might have a majority of member's in MVP) can still post as a separate LS for their clear, as they've done. Since you're not refuting the scenario that I referred to in my prior post, I'm very reticent to agree that allowing multiple within-fc groups to count as "server clears" is going to foster any kind of competition at all. It's not your job to police everyone's clears, but there's some common sense in only allowing one clear per FC to count towards the server kills. Anyways, that's my $.02, if we move forward with things as they've been set up, I think it will be very clear if there are groups abusing the system.

Perhaps I misunderstood the idea Techno was trying to convey in the thread earlier. Are you guys saying you want a raid group based system that doesn't track only a certain number of spots? With individual raid groups being tracked there are more moving parts, so I assumed the idea behind it was to track more but to also make the list harder to get on to, if that makes sense. I'm still open to changing the system, I'm just trying to find something that works for everyone and still keeps things interesting.