If you had to choose between those two persons. who would it be?

[Kreeshak]

I am going to create a poll about a hypothetical scenario concerning 2 members of a raiding guild.

Raider A is less skilled but more active than Raider B.
Raider B is more skilled but less active than Raider A.

Both are skilled enough to down normal content but Raider A might struggle on heroic progression while Raider B might have it easier.
Both are active enough but Raider B might miss a few progression raids due to real life obligations.

Which raider out of those two would your prefer to your raiding guild?
I am curious how activity is valued over skill and vice versa.

The reason I am not having a neither option is because I guess top guilds usually have raiders both skilled and active, therefore the dillema wouldn't apply to them.

EDIT:

I guess to clarify from a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being perfect
Raider A: 7 skill 9 activity
Raider B: 9 skill 7 activity

[IxilaFA]

My current guild speaks to the value of skill over attendance, considering that for almost a year I could only make half our raid nights and I still consistently had a spot.

When it comes to the lesser skilled player, they can become a real hindrance in heroic progression. I'd rather see that X raider is coming and know we're going to down the fight, rather than see Y player has to come in and hope we're going to down the fight. But I guess for a DPS X raider is usually more replaceable, where as tanks and healers are usually difficult to replace, and if their replacement has less skill it has more of an impact on the raid in general.

[Seriss]

Depends on how large the skill gap is. If raider A struggles in heroic content but knows it and is working hard to improve, then I'd almost prefer them over someone who is barely active. I mean, for every raider B, you need a replacement. And that replacement has to be taught how we play that encounter, resulting in time wasted.

[Kreeshak]

I guess to clarify from a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being perfect
Raider A: 7 skill 9 activity
Raider B: 9 skill 7 activity

[Gandrake]

like others have said, it depends on the difference in ability

if player a performs very suboptimally, preference would shift to player b. but if player b isn't even there half the time, i'd eventually want to remove them from the raid group entirely. it's a waste of time to give someone equipment that isn't contributing.

what is most important is that the raid group does what it's set out to do on every raid night. there is no compromise for that goal. it will be met, or replacements will be found.

[Grym]

Take Raider A as a back up when Raider B is not around.

If Raider A not happy he is benched then tell him to shape up and be better than Raider B.

[Kreeshak]

Take Raider A as a back up when Raider B is not around.

If Raider A not happy he is benched then tell him to shape up and be better than Raider B.

To play devils advocate its clear than you value skill over activity else someone might have said bench player B and if he complains tell him to shape up and be more active than player A.

[Grym]

But benching player B means struggle, benching raider A when raider B is around would mean a higher chance of downing the boss.

You bench the player that halt the progression, not the one that can make it more possible.

[Kreeshak]

But benching player B means struggle, benching raider A when raider B is around would mean a higher chance of downing the boss.

You bench the player that halt the progression, not the one that can make it more possible.

I am not arguing you are wrong. I am just telling you value skill more than activity

[Grym]

I know

Afterall downing the boss is everything, take whatever that let you down more bosses.

[pld]

If the raider leader/officers feel that Raider B can improve to Raider A's performance in a relatively short amount of time, I would invest in Raider B. We've had raiders who weren't performing as well as others, but they came to raid on time, knowing the fight, knowing the basics of their class, and willing to listen to constructive criticism.

With some gear upgrades and experience, they were well worth it. Especially in a 10 man guild where a missing raider could mean farm night vs progression...we felt that attendance was a pretty important characteristic.

[Grym]

We are a 10man guild too but we have 14 people, so always swapping people in and out and such.

[MrExcelion]

If it was a 25m guild, I would take raider B. Our guild is somewhat like a lot of other 25ms, with a somewhat bloated roster of 35-40 people, many of which have 80% attendance or less. This is especially common with long-time raiders that have been with us for awhile now and have had stuff come up IRL with work/school schedules, but we see no reason to demote them for it.

10ms have tighter rosters though (12-13), and I would value reliability more. Really shouldn't have anyone on your roster that consistently misses one day a week, unless you want called raids. Especially if they're a tank or healer. DPS you can potentially work around.

And if someone misses a lot, it might say something about their dedication to the game.

[Spl4sh3r]

You could always pick both and have A as the reserve for B and on some occassion the other way around.

[Grym]

But if it is 12-13 people, it means when the better player isnt there, you have lesser players (the one you prefer due to reliability) that can cover, so no need to call raids, unless for a roster of 13 you have 4 people missing.

[Itisamuh]

If your guild is good, you can bring any motivated player to your level. Take the dedicated player and mold him.

[Crym]

If your guild is good, you can bring any motivated player to your level. Take the dedicated player and mold him.

This is my sentiment exactly. I would take the more dedicated player and work with them. A less skilled player can sometimes be taught to improve, but I don't like forcing people to play more than they want to and don't want to group to suffer because they're not showing up.

[NightZero88]

I would take player A because they can hopefully improve.

However, I would possibly take player B if I knew ahead of times the days they were going to be gone. If they just randomly missed raid nights without warning then no but if I knew a few days in advance then I would be ok with it.

[Firebert]

High activity low skill, every time. Why? Only being able to progress when one specific player is on is a sure-fire way to destroy a guild, and I know because it's happened to a couple I've been in.

Sure, that player may be good now, but when he takes half the core raiding group with him because of his elitism, that should tell you that your previous decision was a mistake.

[Deleted]

I'd go with raider a for sure. I'll assume that 7/10 means a player that is solid, just not amazing, to me that is a player who doesn't (or rarely) screw up on mechanics and is a few % behind an amazing player which really isn't that big of a deal on most fights. How I should measure the activity is a different matter, but if a player is below 90% attendance that partically means that you need to have a backup standing by for him every raid which is a massive pain to deal with.

That being said, I would argue that the difference between a good and an amazing key player is way bigger in some cases (raidleader, or possibly healer/main tank), and in those cases it might be worth the sacrifice (but at the same time having said player gone will completely stump the progress). I was personally the cause of this in a guild back in wotlk, for a period I was attending 50% of the raids in a guild that demanded 90% attendance from everyone else (I had a lot going on irl, so it was that or me leaving and the gm told me to stay) and the guild litterarly had zero progression bosses dying when I was gone, I can imagine that being quite frustrating (I was the top healer and raidleader for said guild).