Friday, August 3, 2012

An Interesting World First Question

I read an interesting question someone mentioned in passing on one of the forums I read that went, "If the worlds first guild takes 500 attempts to down the last boss and the next guild that does it 2 hours later only took 300 attempts shouldn't the worlds second team get all the accolades and not the worlds first team?"

No one really gave a good response to that question.  Some said, first is first.  Others said that if the other team started raiding earlier in the day they would have been first so it is their own fault.  Most just didn't say anything and went on with what the actual topic of the post was about.  But it got me thinking about it, I think that is a very good question.

There could be a reasonable argument put up either way.

The 300 attempt team did it in less attempts so they are clearly better.

The 500 attempt team started earlier and got back and ready for more attempts faster so they wanted it more.

See, it could go either way.  One could also argue that the 300 team only downed it because of something they saw the 500 team do, so they didn't need to learn it for themselves.  While most world first guilds will not put out a video of their kill right away it is possible I guess.

But even if you were going to say the 300 team deserves it, because of the close time proximity, what happens 2 weeks later, once a few videos are out and there have still been no nerfs and the worlds 34th team comes around and does it in 50 attempts.

33 other groups did it before them.  By now there are surely a lot of videos out there.  That group also had two weeks extra to get some more gear.  So would their 50 attempts show they are better than the 300 attempt group or the 500 attempt group?

While I personally believe the first example 500 vs 300 is a valid question, perhaps the 300 team is really more deserving of world first than the 500 one is, I don't think the 50 vs 300 argument holds enough weight to even be considered.   That is because they had time to get more gear, time to view more videos and maybe even time to recruit someone that did it from one of the 33 other guilds that did it before them.

Which then brings in the argument that what if everyone from the worlds 10th group, once they get it on farm, all leave their guild and start a brand new one.  They go in with that brand new guild and one shot it.  Does that now make them the best because they did it the fastest (attempts wise)?

I guess that time from the release is the best way to judge it for lack of a better way but the question that person asked is a valid one.  When you are talking such a small margin, like 2 hours, I think attempts should come into play.  There is no way they could have gotten another 200 attempts done in 2 hours, which basically means they did do it faster time wise as well.

It would be interesting if they judged these things by a few statistics and not just who did it first time wise.  Take into the fact the amount of time spent in there, the number of wipes in that time frame, where those wipes came into the encounter phase wise, the average item level of the players there, and maybe a few other factors and make an aggregate score to judge who indeed did it best and give them the title of worlds first.

It might very well change the whole world first scene if we judged people on who is best all around and not who is the most dedicated to become the first to get it done.

I will never be that type of player but that doesn't mean I do not find the question that guy asked to be very interesting.

I know what everyone will say, they will say the same thing the people on the forums said, first is first and I agree, that is how it is done now and it is the easiest way to judge it.  That doesn't mean it is the right way to do it.  This is not an event like at the Olympics where it is indeed first is first, this is a video game and there are many other factors to consider.

So what do you think?

"First is first" or "That is a very good question he asked".


  1. Anon, Grumpy's GL:

    In your scenario described above, first to do it is still first to do it. Second did it more efficiently, but still came in an hour or so later. The race to world first doesn't ask it be done in a specific number of time, so while the second place team were and or are probably a better team, they didn't exhibit it by starting first so their more limited number of tries had the desired effect. Truly, this is a tortoise and hare race you you are proposing, with the hare being the second team. Yes, they are faster, but no, they didn't cross the finish line first.

    1. Good example there with the tortoise and the hare.

      I still thought it was an interesting question and wonder if stuff like that should be put into consideration, at least when it is that close of a race.

  2. There are many things to factor. Maybe the second group had better luck with drops and had better gear. Maybe they had better composition. Maybe they had better RNG in some elements overall. Maybe the timezone favored the team better and they were less tired. Who knows. I don't think you can say the second team was better just based on number of tries. Besides, this isn't about the fastest kill or the best kill by whatever standards, this is about being first. And first is first.

    1. First is first is the easiest way to judge it and that is why they do it. It does seem as if they should judge time, because some time zones can never win worlds first because they get the content later than everyone else.

      So it should be judged time for access to the content. Not just first. If someone gets worlds first because they got the content a day earlier, it is not really a first.