BC ProgressionEdit

Looks like the page needs to be looked at again soon and updated with BC raiding (archive the old progression?) progression. Also, a lot of those guilds need to be updated/deleted/renamed.

  • I was thinking of archiving the old progression in its own page. The problem with Karazhan is the fact that it's not linear; most of the bosses are optional side bosses. Also, was going to clean up and reformat the guild list so that it looks more appealing to the eye.
    --Lenthegr8 11:30, 8 February 2007 (EST)
  • I'm thinking Karazhan Progression should be: Attumen -> Moroes -> Opera House -> The Curator -> Chess Event -> Prince Malchezaar -> Nightbane.
    Leaving as Optional: Maiden of Virtue, Terestian Illhoof, Shade of Aran, Netherspite, and the Random Servant Quarters summons.
    --Lenthegr8 16:53, 8 February 2007 (EST)

"IC Talisman" vs "Talisman"Edit

I changed the name of the Talisman guild to "IC Talisman" because there is alread a wowwiki entry for Talisman and it is not the Icecrown guild, I believe it is one on Aleria. So either let the change stay, or remove the double brackets on either side so it isn't linking to an incorrect page.

- Editted to insert Battlegroup 10 external Forums link.

Organization Changes Etc? Edit

Well, my account expired but I still like wow and especially Icecrown, just out for a bit. I've tried to make this a MUCH better resources for IC folks, if you have suggestions but don't want to have to do the work just post it here and I'll do it. Ash001 19:04, 13 July 2006 (EDT)

I suggest we rearrange the information on the page. We need to put general information on top (community, server notes, etc), followed by guild progression below, followed by guild websites at the bottom. Currently information is scattered, making it hard to read through. Terrian 17:11, 15 July 2006 (EDT)
I arranged it as it is according to what people would actually come to see. Or what I thought people would like to see. If you really feel that the organization should be different we can go ahead and change it. My original organization was simply to let people have the most interesting/valuable information first. Just like the forums, the things that people really want to see get stickied. The things that the community cares less about, don't. Also, the dynmaic "Contents" should allow anyone to easily navigate to any section so it shouldn't really matter .Ash001 21:31, 15 July 2006 (EDT)

Server Transfers Edit

I deleted this section because it seemed outdated. Gave information that was suitable before 1.12 but since the Battlegroup changes it seemed worthless. If anybody has any ideas for a better Server Trasnfer section please go ahead and make one.

Battlegroup Population Edit

Updated the population listings for Icecrown as well as the rest of BG10. Lenthegr8 16:57, 04 Oct 2006 (EDT)

Comment Edit

This is a great page. Considering revamping sleepy old Server:Gilneas Gilneas forums to similar format. Great job! Luci 14:39, 27 June 2006 (EDT)

Yes, very nice job. I somewhat "borrowed" the layout for Server:Haomarush_Europe, hope you dont mind! Galencia 14:20, 16 August 2006 (EDT)

Battlegroups have changed Edit

The battlegroups have changed. You might want to make sure your still listing the right group and the right servers.

Updated & added the new servers to the battlegroup, also renamed from BG10 to Nightfall. Lenthegr8 12:05, 27 Oct 2006 (EDT)
  • Added Server Types to Battlegroups listing Hoss 12:04, 30 December 2006 (EST)

Lurker, Tidewalker, Fathom Lord Edit

Is there a reason why all three of these need to be listed? From the table having Fathom Lord should make the other two redundant and it's rather unappealing appearance wise and will only get worse as guilds progress. Darbad 00:10, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Note the note at the bottom of the section. Perhaps that should be moved to a more prominent position. :) --Sky (t · c · w) 00:13, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Moved the Notes to the top of the page so that it is in a better location. Also, I shorthanded the boss names to make the table single-line & appear more appealing. --Lenthegr8 10:19, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Title Header Edit

I took the Lich King picture and made a header for the Icecrown server. I'm curious if its too wide for the page. --Lenthegr8 20:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Guild Progression Ruleset Edit

The ruleset is listed at the top of the End Game Progression section under The Way This Works. Ranking is not based on Bosskillers or any other third-party site because not all guilds will be constantly updating it. Ruin for example is not listed on BossKillers, but is listed in WoWwiki as ranked. --Lenthegr8 18:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Guild Progression Tiers Edit

Any reason why Mag is in Tier 5 and SSC is in Tier 4, when it's the other way around? Pzychotix 20:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It should show Tier 4 being only Karazhan, and Tier 5 as Gruul, SSC, Mag, TK. Mag is listed inline with TK because Mag is only one boss and is Mag is required for TK attunement. Same goes for Gruul being inline with SSC. --Lenthegr8 13:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

So does that mean you should include Arcatraz, because it's a part of Karazhan attunement? Your reasoning appalls me. Kara, Magtheridon and Gruul drop Tier 4 loot. That's what Tier 4 is. Kara, Mag, Gruul. Unless you have some other reason for it, which means you should explain on the page. Otherwise, people coming to this page will be utterly confused why a guild might have kills in the Tier 5 space (say Mag) , yet aren't complete in Tier 4 (say SSC). Pzychotix 15:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Calling it a "tier" probably wasn't the best choice for words when I classified the instances. Karazhan is now classified "10-Man Raid", whereas Gruul/Mag remains in the same columns with combined "Tier 4 + Tier 5" header. Gruul, Mag, SSC, TK were all originally grouped together under one category for the purpose of Guild Progress ranking. Clearly Arcatraz is not listed because it is not a raid zone, which means as a collective the guild did not "progress". For the purpose of Guild Progress ranking, a linear progression had to be formed. The reason that Gruul is listed before SSC is because: it is a 25-man raid zone, it is one of the requirements to get into the instance (Earthen Signet), and it does not require any attunement to enter (hence being at the beginning). This is also true with Magtheridon (Trial of the Naaru: Magtheridon) and TK. --Lenthegr8 20:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
However, I doubt that guilds will skip over Gruul or Mag to do TK or SSC first. That's not the standard guild progression. Pzychotix 02:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
What is the standard guild progression then? Gruul or Mag cannot be skipped over to do TK or SSC unless somehow everyone in the guild comes pre-attuned. --Lenthegr8 13:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about you, but rarely is the case where guilds skip Gruul/Mag to start trying TK/SSC. Standard guild progression is Kara -> Gruul/Mag -> SSC/TK -> Hyjal/BT. Pzychotix (talk · contr) 13:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
That's what I was trying to say in my previous comments. The next step after Kara is Gruul/Mag, which are 2 different branches. Gruul -> SSC, and Mag -> TK. The method of understanding with this table is SSC can be completed before Mag, but it doesn't mean guilds do that. --Lenthegr8 14:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I got that from the start. However, when all of your guilds don't conform with this idea, but rather with a Gruul/Mag -> SSC/TK , it hardly makes sense to keep it as that. Pzychotix (talk · contr) 14:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
But alas, our guilds have conformed with this idea. It has been talked about in our WoW Server forums. [1] [2] I don't really see anywhere on the Icecrown wiki that has lead to a contradiction. --Lenthegr8 16:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
From [1], it says, 25-Man Guilds:(Black Temple > COT:Hyjal > Tempest Keep = SerpentShrine > Magtheridon = Gruul > WorldBosses). Not exactly conforming to this idea. Pzychotix (talk · contr) 03:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how Gruul -> SSC and Mag -> TK is any different from Gruul/Mag -> SSC/TK. They are still on the same progression tier, the idea still conforms. The board thread [1] behaves just as the wiki, counting them as a pair in 2 separate wings. --Lenthegr8 14:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from. At this point, I think my main concern is that people won't consider the two columns as a "pair". My suggestion would be to do instead of two separate cells, make it appear as 1 cell, with the same background color, though with the information still appearing in two different columns. I'll tinker with the look in a bit, to give you an example. Pzychotix (talk · contr) 05:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Small note: Pzychotix (talk · contr) 16:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

WotLK ProgressionEdit

I'm not sure its worth tracking the 10 man progression, as so many guilds will be participating. I think the 25 man is sufficient, especially with how easy it starts out. I'm not sure how many other people update this anymore, and it is far too much for me to do alone. I'll remove it for now, but the template is saved and only 2 guilds have even used it.

Rogevine (talk) 06:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)Rogevine

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.