Raiding as we go forward

[martini]

See, I don't quite see it that way.  If you want that epic quest, and you are at the top of the list... then lucky you.  However, the people below you are getting sweet gear... and who knows how long it is until we get to and spawn the chest...

Ex: If some hunter is at the top, and wants that leaf... he waits and waits and waits... and waits.... by the time we get the leaf, the other 6 hunters have 3-4 pieces of gear, and are next in line to get the next pieces too.  So you do kind of gimp yourself a little bit if you pass on everything.  Yeah, you get [Item of Uberness], but you've missed out on so much else.
[right][snapback]87186[/snapback][/right]

What about my example of someone who wants the leaf, and isn't interested in anything else, but gets initially seeded into the list behind a bunch of other people, and can never catch up to them, even if they contribute more to the group than the people at the top of the list?

Not to harp, but I also never got an answer to my previous question :) "Is the objective that people can try for the pieces that they want, or that everyone gets something, even if your heart is set on something else?"

It seems like you're saying that it's not important that people get to choose what loot they go for, we should all just basically line up and take it as it falls. There's nothing inherently wrong with this as an approach, but I personally don't like it. I would almost certainly feel drastically differently if it were not for the epic quest starters, although the same issues pop up with non-set caster items, for example (as I listed with the Warlock/Mage example above).

With a point system, if you're on 1/3 of the runs, and I come to 2/3rds, I can save up points/position for my epic quest and get loot sometimes. Heck, if I'm really hardcore, I can try to mess with my RL schedule to come to more raids. With the list system, if I'm behind you, all I can do is pass on everything and hope that you get bored of passing before I do.

[Olon97]

See, I don't quite see it that way.  If you want that epic quest, and you are at the top of the list... then lucky you.  However, the people below you are getting sweet gear... and who knows how long it is until we get to and spawn the chest...

Ex: If some hunter is at the top, and wants that leaf... he waits and waits and waits... and waits.... by the time we get the leaf, the other 6 hunters have 3-4 pieces of gear, and are next in line to get the next pieces too.  So you do kind of gimp yourself a little bit if you pass on everything.  Yeah, you get [Item of Uberness], but you've missed out on so much else.

You're penalizing the hoarders this way. You can have a scenario where someone has gone on 10 raids without any loot, passing on an item that is clearly an upgrade because while the item is nice, it's not worth dropping to the bottom of the list over. The person who gets that item may be on their first raid and never be seen again. Or, eventually, the item will get disenchanted because the bottom of the list already has it and the top of the list won't lose their position for that particular item.

The problem with the list, is for any given position in the list, all items have equal cost (bottom of the list). Unfortunately, in most people's eyes, not all items are equally valuable.

Edit: the tichondrius Basin points system is 10 onyxia's in and 15 MC weekends in. If you sort by current points, you'll see that nobody has a hoard larger than the value of one majordomo quest item drop. That's a good indicator that nobody has felt a need to hoard excessive amounts of points. We've disenchanted maybe 3-4 items to date (including a couple cases of nobody of that class present who didn't already have it).

[Pesmerga]

Unless you have another, undisclosed and non-obvious, reason why you don't like the council idea at all, these two statements don't seem to mesh.

Obviously, if everyone felt the council was trustworthy, there'd never be a problem (except perhaps for some bruised egos on the part of people who think they do more than they do).

Not that I want anything to do with handing out gear where I think it's most suited to go.  I gotta score SOME loot before Anadrol... =P
[right][snapback]87197[/snapback][/right]

Shhh, I think poorly in the morning. I just don't like the concept of a council. Trust isn't an issue.

[Darian]

Shhh, I think poorly in the morning.  I just don't like the concept of a council.  Trust isn't an issue.
[right][snapback]87205[/snapback][/right]

Okay, but why is what I'm after here. ;)

[Tuftears]

Imagine loot being awarded by popularity - that is, how much the raid likes you. Hunter loot drops - vote on which hunter gets it!

You wouldn't like that so much, right? Unfair, discriminatory, leads to imbalance because some people just get along better than others?

So why is it any better if a council does it?

Not that I specifically object to a loot council; I think for instance that it's just fine if the tranq shot from Lucifron is allocated to a chosen hunter, because that is raid-required loot, but other than that, I think that people fear they will now need to work on cultivating the judges and putting on a good show of cameraderie in order to maximize their loot, rather than just doing their bit in a raid.

[Kevin]

Imagine loot being awarded by popularity - that is, how much the raid likes you.  Hunter loot drops - vote on which hunter gets it!

You wouldn't like that so much, right?  Unfair, discriminatory, leads to imbalance because some people just get along better than others?

So why is it any better if a council does it?

Not that I specifically object to a loot council; I think for instance that it's just fine if the tranq shot from Lucifron is allocated to a chosen hunter, because that is raid-required loot, but other than that, I think that people fear they will now need to work on cultivating the judges and putting on a good show of cameraderie in order to maximize their loot, rather than just doing their bit in a raid.
[right][snapback]87210[/snapback][/right]

This is why I like the IA system. There are points tracked. But the points never go down. You simply use them as a way to quantify what people have done and then can weigh that against what loot people have arleady gotten so that you insure that loot gets spread around and that the people filling the positions that need the gear most get it. But it isn't just who is most popular. You have tracked that Celethirian has been on more raids than any other hunter and has only won a very minor piece of loot (since we didn't have the council the whole time). Therefore he gets the next piece of loot, if he wants, if he doesn't then you look at the other hunters. Heck if you have 2 hunters that have both been on as many raids and done as much and won the same piece of loot you can just roll to see who wins it.

As much as I hate to say it, until we get deeper in the tanks and rogues need the FR gear more than paladins, druids, mages, warlocks, and hunters if we want to be able to progress. FR will help everyone on Mag but the bosses we are fighting don't really do much in the way of ranged fire attacks. The tanks who are there most need the better gear more than ones who are there less. This means that Anadrol and Darian should get gear before Gnolack as much as I want gear on Gnolack because I may be playing Taranna at times or heck even Balador if we really need the paladins or tal wants to play Shalandrax or whatever.

One of the biggest problems though is that the council members would have to be there every night of the week. You also add another layer of communication to the whole thing. There are big drawbacks too. Some of the personal choice is taken away as well and we simply might not be structured enough to do it. It might be a bigger issue with our fluid group.

Again. I don't have major issues with any of the systems. I just feel that a council addresses the situation we are in a little better than other systems. However a points system is not something I would run away from and there are systems out there that work well. I like points for our sitution better than a list. I almost think I'd rather stick with the way we go now instead of a list though I can't really say why. Just not a big fan of the list.

It looks like there is more opposition to a council for deciding loot than there is to any other system right now as well. If that is the case so be it. We need to figure out what we want to do though so that we can start tweaking that system.

[Pesmerga]

Okay, but why is what I'm after here.  ;)
[right][snapback]87207[/snapback][/right]

I don't know. Maybe because I'm just bad at life. If I come up with an actual reason (other than gut instinct) I'll tell you.

[martini]

The key thing that a council system lacks is predictibility. People want to know when it'll be their turn. With a council, the answer is "maybe soon, maybe never", depending on the needs of the group. Also, the individual can do little to improve their chances, other than bribing the council. :P

GG, I agree that Warriors and Rogues need more FR than Mages and Hunters, for example, but I'm not sure I see where the dichotomy is there... what rogue drops would be contested by other classes? Hunters get to wear Black Dragonscale if they want FR, so I don't see them going after rogue gear. I suppose that pallies and warriors could be after the same gear, but I (contrary to my participation in this thread) haven't been interested enough in endgame loot to look it up and do comparisons.

[Pesmerga]

Okay, but why is what I'm after here.  ;)
[right][snapback]87207[/snapback][/right]

If we did go that way, I'd back it 100%. I just feel like I'm not in control of my own desinty, and I don't like that too much.

::shrugs::

[Quark]

If we did go that way, I'd back it 100%.  I just feel like I'm not in control of my own desinty, and I don't like that too much.

::shrugs::
[right][snapback]87220[/snapback][/right]

With a council, you're in control of your own destiny by the fact that helping the group will lead them towards helping you.

With pure random, we're leaving everything up to the pRNG. Minus the last two days, I couldn't feel any worse about not controlling my destiny. I'm up to winning 2 contested rolls for equipment, and 2 others for nice stuff - card, recipe. That's not a good track record for me.

[Kevin]

GG, I agree that Warriors and Rogues need more FR than Mages and Hunters, for example, but I'm not sure I see where the dichotomy is there... what rogue drops would be contested by other classes? Hunters get to wear Black Dragonscale if they want FR, so I don't see them going after rogue gear. I suppose that pallies and warriors could be after the same gear, but I (contrary to my participation in this thread) haven't been interested enough in endgame loot to look it up and do comparisons.
[right][snapback]87218[/snapback][/right]

I honestly don't know. :) I think I was thinking more of the crafting materials than anything. And as a druid there are lots of rogue pieces that I do like. But my druid is always a healer in raids so they don't matter to me that much.

With cloth stuff, priests, mages and locks may all want the same piece and I would think the council would show preference on FR gear to the priest, I know in my mind I would.

So yeah I don't know if a council helps that much on class vs class items or if it even cuts down on conflict.

My gut tells me I like it more than points though. :) But again the council will be using a sort of points system behind it anyway. It would also insure that if something is an upgrade for someone, even if it is a minor one that it won't get DE'd because there are better ways to get shards than a DE on a epic. :)

Honestly I think this group will do what we need to in order to insure progress regardless of the system used so that really shouldn't be something that I use as a strong argument for a council either. Oh well, we know I like council best and list worst even if I'm not completely logical about it. :) We all know there are flaws with each system. I should try to get on track of matching the strengths and flaws with our situation so that decision will be clearer, hopefully, for people.

[martini]

Well, what if you help, but not in an obvious way? What if the council simply doesn't know you that well, and you haven't distinguished yourself in their eyes? Judgements under a council system can end up having to be extremely subjective, through no fault of the council's. What if you make one large mistake that everyone remembers every time it's time to decide who gets what?

And, it's not like Pesmerga is advocating /random as a system, quite the opposite in fact... there are 4 different systems that he/she has put up for discussion in this thread.

[martini]

I honestly don't know.  :)  I think I was thinking more of the crafting materials than anything.  And as a druid there are lots of rogue pieces that I do like.  But my druid is always a healer in raids so they don't matter to me that much. 
[right][snapback]87228[/snapback][/right]

Well, the way that the Basin Tich system works is that basically crafting materials are handled through a council-type basis. People request what they need from a bank, there is a waiting period (so that you can talk to the banker and say "don't give anything to martini, what a jerk!" :P), and then the materials are issued and the requisite points deducted.

I've been told by people on Tich that until Ragnaros, you only really have to worry about FR for tanks and rogues. So, the issue is more likely to be one of whether you use your fiery cores to make Dark Iron gear for tanks, or Corehound Boots for Rogues than whether mages or priests need FR more. (You can also pester them for a Corehound Belt.) :)

[Pesmerga]

With a council, you're in control of your own destiny by the fact that helping the group will lead them towards helping you.

With pure random, we're leaving everything up to the pRNG.  Minus the last two days, I couldn't feel any worse about not controlling my destiny.  I'm up to winning 2 contested rolls for equipment, and 2 others for nice stuff - card, recipe.  That's not a good track record for me.
[right][snapback]87222[/snapback][/right]

Yeah, your track record, for lack of a better word, blows.

I'm willing to give it a shot, the council thing. (I have a lot of free time to think at work)

[Darian]

Well, what if you help, but not in an obvious way? What if the council simply doesn't know you that well, and you haven't distinguished yourself in their eyes? Judgements under a council system can end up having to be extremely subjective, through no fault of the council's. What if you make one large mistake that everyone remembers every time it's time to decide who gets what?
[right][snapback]87229[/snapback][/right]

Well, I'd like to think that raid leadership knows who's carrying their weight and who's not... I talk with various people after every run to get their input on how everyone did.

I'm agnostic about this, of course; whatever makes everyone happy is fine with me, although if an idea I just abhor came up, I'd fight it for awhile. But I think the biggest concern I have is very simple: point systems assume victory, and there have been a lot of people who have been with us on every raid, done their job properly, and have nothing to show for it. Every failure helps the overall raid team, unless it's a stupid mistake by someone who should have known better. In cases where there's a chance to give them something useful, I want to make sure they get it. They've waited long enough.

It absolutely frustrates me that we have people who've attended every Avarice raid, and have been outrolled by people we've never seen again. It's to the point where if something dropped that would be a serious upgrade for me, but Sharanna would get good use out of it, I refuse to roll. I have no problem with Ramala outrolling Arleas in a random system; there's really nothing to distinguish between the two as far as who deserves it. In fact, if we get to the point where we're ONLY using allies, no outsiders... a lot of this becomes moot. 95% of the frustration is two things: outsiders winning things (whether they come back or not), and a lack of drops for Rogues and Hunters. Pure'n simple.

Something I haven't seen mentioned, just an off-the-cuff idea: if we stuck with a random system, we could designate who is allowed to roll on what items -- and allow everyone in that classification to roll, regardless of whether they already have the item, or what they've won recently, or any other variable... and if they win, allow them to in turn give the item to someone else. No, it wouldn't be perfect, and such a system would absolutely require an understanding that nobody is obligated to do anything specific with a win, but... realistically, we are none of us loot whores, and we like seeing the people who deserve things get them. (I am brought to mind of my finally, after 40+ Scholo runs, getting my Valor hat -- because Shalandrax and Telsak declined to roll on it out of respect and courtesy.)

[Kevin]

Well, what if you help, but not in an obvious way? What if the council simply doesn't know you that well, and you haven't distinguished yourself in their eyes? Judgements under a council system can end up having to be extremely subjective, through no fault of the council's. What if you make one large mistake that everyone remembers every time it's time to decide who gets what?

And, it's not like Pesmerga is advocating /random as a system, quite the opposite in fact... there are 4 different systems that he/she has put up for discussion in this thread.
[right][snapback]87229[/snapback][/right]

That's why you try to quantify everything for the council, try and limit the amount of subjectiveness. Mirajj has been on 8 of 10 raids, in those raids we have killed these bosses. Two of those raids we had learning encounters so half points there, yadda yadda. So Mirajj has a total of 35 points. Thaleon has been on 4 out of 10 raids we have killed these bosses, yadda yadda, he has 21 points. Hunter set drops, neither has it, but Mirajj has won an epic and a multiclass ring because of the way drops have gone. Thaleon has nothing. Set is not needed for the progress of the raid, my vote goes that Thaleon gets the item. Not really that simple but just trying to be more concrete on who I see things working.

But yeah with an alliance, as Skan pointed out when I first brought it up, the council does have to deal with the issues you presented. As for one big mistake, that comes back to trusting that people will forgive you for it if you show you aren't going to be making mistakes all the time. And we all make mistakes. I've wiped groups because of mistakes I've made. I wiped an early Onyxia run becuase I didn't get away from the whelp pits in time and got swiped in there. Yes I realize that my council gets closer to a points system than just a council. That is because I'm trying to blend the best of both systems and mitigate the problems of both systems.

And yep I know Pesmerga has mentioned several systems. I don't really have a big issue with a points system, anymore. My post that started this thread did but input has changed my mind on it. I just don't like the list system he proposed. I've thought more about it and I don't think it addresses our casual fluid nature well enough without having to add more layers of complexity to it and since one of the biggest things it has going is it's simplicity I'd rather go to points over it if you start to add complexity to it.

Another thing to consider is how fast can the systems parcel out loot in practice. You want to move quickly after Luci is down because of respawns and you want to move quickly in general to just get more done. A list still has the time of "who wants this multi class item" though it's very fast on the class specific items. A list is probably fastest of all. A council will be either really fast or really slow. If the points tracked show that one hunter is the next one "due" then when the hunter set piece drops it's done. However you can bog down in debate with it. Points will be middle ground all the time I think. Never faster than a list but should be just as fast as the way we go now (with our modified /random) and should be between the the extremes of a council.

First one listed is the one that I feel answers that question best.

- How well do they insure gear gets to the people that need it the most to help insure smooth progress? (Even if Anandrol or Darian or Gnolack or Telsak or Thumpster or whoever can tank things well enough now to insure progress, things would go smoother if one or more of them had better gear)
* Council is the best at this.
* Points is pretty good at this because more points to the people that are there the most.
* List is OK at this since you will move up the list if you are there more and have more shots at stuff
* random is indifferent to this.

- How well do they insure that everyone gets loot?
* Council can make sure this happens they can choose to award something to a new raid member if everyone else has won something
* List will get something to to everyone once enough loot drops
* Points will get something to everyone faster than random but can't insure that everyone gets something
* Random is indifferent to this

- How well do they work with a fluid group
* Random actually shows no favoritism to anyone. Everyone has a shot at loot
* Points are pretty fair to members who aren't there as much as has been pointed out in other posts. It's not really true that they hurt people who aren't there as much
* Council can insure that everyone gets stuff, but it does have issues of favoritism that can be a big issue.
* List can work well with this maybe better than a council but it needs some more complexity to it. I think my bias lists it below.

- How much control over your fate do they each have?
* Points let you choose what you want they let you control how many you have and how you want to spend them.
* List lets you pass on items if you are at the top but you are still "waiting in line"
* Council lets you raise in standing by being there and working well, but you still don't know if you have a chance at the item. I think it is pretty close to a list but since I listed council before list in another close category list gets it here.
* Random lets you have a chance at anything but you really have no control over if you get that item.

- How much potential for major disaster do they have? (being listed first here is bad)
* Council can start a lot of infighting and bickering
* Random can cause a lot of bitterness
* List can make you annoyed at loss of control and knowing you have no shot at the next set item of your class that drops
* Points can lead to collusion and class vs class issues.

What other things do we need to worry about with this group and should we judge the systems against?

[Quark]

Great summary GG, and it presents pretty much why I'm leaning towards a zero-inflation points system.

I think a Council is the best theory-solution for a guild with a regular raid group. We're multiple guilds with a fluid raid group, which means a Council would be much more troublesome for us to run well. I can tell you right now 100% the first two hunters and two rogues I would choose to give loot to. But that doesn't mean I'm right, and people with differing opinions in the loot council (and I would want non-officers in it randomly, like IA) could lead to wasted time.

Our raid group simple accentuates the problems you can have with a Council, I believe.

[Kevin]

Great summary GG, and it presents pretty much why I'm leaning towards a zero-inflation points system.

I think a Council is the best theory-solution for a guild with a regular raid group.  We're multiple guilds with a fluid raid group, which means a Council would be much more troublesome for us to run well.  I can tell you right now 100% the first two hunters and two rogues I would choose to give loot to.  But that doesn't mean I'm right, and people with differing opinions in the loot council (and I would want non-officers in it randomly, like IA) could lead to wasted time.

Our raid group simple accentuates the problems you can have with a Council, I believe.
[right][snapback]87248[/snapback][/right]

You know when I look at the summary it does seem to favor a zero-inflation point system.

I still like council better because I weight what it is better for more heavily for this group but maybe I shouldn't be. I think you are right that the problems it can cause will be the worst for this type of group as well though I'm not convinced they will be that much worse than any other system.

It's been a damn good thread in my opinion. Lots of good discussion and lots of very strong points made. I'd still like to see more of the summary type stuff I did. I'm sure I've missed things or listed things differently than others or completely missed a question. I know looking at it again has helped me think about things. :)

[Ruvanal]

Miss One Raid: No movement down the list (#$%& happens, right?)
Miss Two Consecutive: 2 spots down the list
Miss Three Consecutive: 6 spots down the list (I get more severe biggrin.gif )
Miss Four Consecutive: 20 spots down
Miss Five or More: Poof, bottom.

Now, what happens if a person hits every other raid?  Honestly, I'm fine with not moving them at all.  I know people like Mirajj can't always make it because of work, but usually makes at least every other raid, and Mirajj is always a big contributor.

Well I set up Saturday raids because we have people that can only make the Saturday raids, they can not do the weekend raids at all.  We are a fluid raid group so we can be inclusive as possible.  I don't see how dropping people back 2 spots everytime is going to help make them want to attend.  I don't think it will necessarily hurt their shot at loot because generally there will be someone else of their class that won't be there as well.  But it still won't always make them feel like going.  Our list is going to be about 60 or 70 deep I think as well, not just 40.  I need to think more about the list and run some sims to see what will happen to those people that can only make one raid a week.
[right][snapback]87175[/snapback][/right]

I can give you one example that points to why a list system like this is in my opion the worst way to handle this. Real Life. Take the situation with some of the aussies last week, some were not able to make it due to things they needed to attend to in real life (and I know the same could easily happen to me). For them (or me) this would not be a matter of missing just one or two raids, but a matter of missing five raids which would put us at the worst penalty of being moved to the bottom.

This situation would more than likely get only worse once Zul'Gurub opens up. The developers have indicated that once players get some experience with the raid area, that it should be possible to do in about 2 hours (not sure if they really meant a full clear or to get to certain objectives). This opens up even more cases of players starting to miss raids and potentially having detriments applied to them. We are not a hard core raiding guild even though it may seem like it at times. Putting a loot distribution method in that enforces that type of participation is not the way to go for most members in my opinon.

Frankly for our alliance guilds and the way many of us are inclined to play; any system that forces the player to be participating or suffer a penalty for lack participating will instead lead to players exiting that environment for one that is more beneficial to them. For my point of view if a list system like this is implemented, I feel like my best choice would be to deguild and lend no further support to those that back it since my efforts even at questing and instance runs would be better spent elsewhere that would lead to a more rewarding use of my time.

[martini]

But I think the biggest concern I have is very simple: point systems assume victory, and there have been a lot of people who have been with us on every raid, done their job properly, and have nothing to show for it. Every failure helps the overall raid team

An excellent point. We had early forays into MC when no one got any loot, and therefore, no points either - this can be very frustrating. It is definitely a drawback of a zero-sum system that you can't award points unless loot has dropped. However, if you don't go zero-sum, you end up with inflation and bidding, where we're fighting each other for loot. There is also the fact that Olon97 mentioned a couple of pages ago, that invites are at the discretion of the raid leader. We may get to a point where there isn't enough space for all of the hunters who want to come. This is where you can reward people who have done the hard slogging to get to where you are, with a spot on the team.

GG, I don't think you're ever going to be able to sufficiently quantify everything. And if you could, you'd just use the quantitative system, rather than the council! :P Whenever a decision is subjective, it becomes hard to defend when someone else holds an opposite opinion. If someone is the top rogue as far as damage goes, you may argue that they deserve an upgrade because they're really stepping up to the plate. I may argue that they're doing fine, and what we really need is to give the good equipment to rogues who aren't doing as well as they are. How do you determine which position is right? How do you explain the final decision to uber-rogue (and not-so-uber-rogue)? Do you explain at all? How do you guard against the "ninja-ed for progression" perception?

Also, in your comparative list, when you talk about a point system, it seems like you're talking about an inflationary bidding system, rather than a zero-sum, fixed value system. A zero-sum system would have fixed values for items, so collusion isn't an issue. However, it doesn't look to me like changing that fact would alter your ordering of the "scores" for each of the systems.

My view is that the council and point systems should end up with similar distributions, other than a few items (and I think you can ask the raid to give preference on a couple of key items, as well as making council-ish decisions on crafting mats within the point system. After all, there's no prohibition against someone going negative in points). The point system has the advantage of being transparent and predictable over a council system. The list system seems like it would be very streaky, and the individual's actions often have nothing to do with their chances at loot. /random ends up with a bell-curve distribution, with some rich and some poor, so I'd like to see something that ends up a little more uniform.