My ideal zs-DKP system. "aDKP"
Posted 05 July 2006 - 04:37 AM
I have a natural tendency to nit pick DKP systems. When I look around at the newer end-game guilds on servers, the DKP system that is implemented are utterly terrible for long-term commitment. And it is usually, those guilds that get stuck in BWL, disband, and form another guild and get to the same cockblock. Like an endless cycle with the same few people you see around.
I believe a solid DKP system will build a core group of geared players, which will eliminate the scenarios of bidding, rolling, loot council, etc. And ensure equal loot distribution across the members of the guild. Iâ€™m sure every guild has experience with druids and warriors in the way negatives; I have a proposal that could potentially fix that.
My dream DKP system is:
DKP should be handled in a Zero-sum system. Points in = points out. Iâ€™m not here to debate whether or not bid systems, or loot council work. They donâ€™t.
All items will have a set price and value; every class will pay the same unless they meet the following requirements for a â€œdiscountâ€:
(In a raid, the maximum available jobs for classes areâ€¦)
Warriors: Tank, DPS 50%
Warlocks: DPS 100%
Mages: DPS 100%
Rogues: DPS 100%
Hunters: DPS 100%
Druids: Heal, DPS/Tank 33%
Paladins: Heal, DPS 50%
Priests: Heal, DPS 50%
The discounts for buying loot are because many classes need multiple sets of gear, especially warriors and druids. You can be a warrior and still loot that Ashkandi, you can be a druid willing to loot feral and moonkinlol gear without going into the deep negatives so you canâ€™t pick up a Rejuvenating Gem. Or the next Untamed blade, while also looting Wrath without worrying about hoarding DKP for it. (Also to minimize sharding gear)
Should be determined by stats, although WoW is a game of marginal upgrades, going from Tier 1 -> Tier 2 isnâ€™t as big as going from UBRS gear to Tier 1. Using Nurfedâ€™s DKP pricing is a pretty solid idea for my ideal DKP system.
Iâ€™m with the slotted upgrade/downgrade thing, less reason to NOT loot gear that will potentially rot. Might BP drops, Player A is using â€œOf the bearâ€ green chest piece, and Player B is using a valor BP. Both of them want it; Player B pays less, because itâ€™s less of an upgrade than it is for the guy going from his green chest piece to Might. I lean towards Nurfedâ€™s item pricing system, because you can potentially pay the difference between an Epic and a green or blue, which rewards individual preparation before the raid (doing UBRS, etc getting the best blue gear before MC). Yes, you can calculate out the stat difference of a green and epic :o
Iâ€™m against the policy that most guilds have, I think this includes EJ as well, which is not previously purchasing an item for a slot, they have to pay in full. Hereâ€™s my example:
Nightslayer BP is worth 50 DKP, Bloodfang is worth 75
Player A: Has Nightslayer BP, and has purchased his BP through the guild. If Bloodfang BP drops, he will pay 25 for the upgrade.
Player B: He just joined the guild, also in the same situation as player A, but he has to pay 75. Even though he already has the Nightslayer BP gotten through his previous MC runs.
Itâ€™s pretty unfair IMO.
You would be able to â€œbuy outâ€ a downgrade over someone who needs an upgrade, if you are willing to pay full.
WoW itemization from BWL/AQ40 is referred to as a side-grades. In a post somewhere around here â€œnaxxramus guilds shard marginal upgrades?â€ Itâ€™s pretty dumb to shard any loot period, if you will or can potentially use it. Druids shouldnâ€™t have to go into the negatives to avoid disenchanting feral loot in AQ40. Itâ€™s part of their class. So is balance/feral DPS, and healing. Maybe not so much to an extent, but it is still questionable if any more dungeons are released with different class roles in mind other than tank->dps->heal with the general 5 of each class raid group. My most active druid shouldnâ€™t be scared to loot that AQ40 gear, and be afraid that heâ€™s going to lose a cross-class item to a priest.
DKP Loot Priority:
Iâ€™m a firm believer of loot priority; I just hate seeing guilds struggle through MC, only to have a priest pick up robes of volatile power, while mages are sitting in their UBRS gear saving up for Azuresong Mageblade. Etc, etc.
+dmg Cloth should go to offensive casters (They pay 100% price), paladins and priests next (they pay 50%), then druids (who pay 33%)
+healing cloth, leather, plate should go to their armor classes respectively, and then down according to armor rating. Paladinsâ€™ gets leather, before cloth; Druids get leather, then cloth. And priests wellâ€¦get cloth :o
Melee Plate, warriors before paladins, paladins can get flameguards after warriors. Both pay 50%
Mail; Hunters, then Warriors, then Paladins, sorry, but a Crown of Destruction is doing more good on a warrior than a paladin.
+Melee leather, rogues first, obviously, they are paying 100%. Druids pay 33%.
Disenchanting should be maintained to a minimum. Nexus crystals donâ€™t kill bosses :P
Forced looting should be enforced, but to a minimum degree because discounts apply, and players will get the loot for â€œcheapâ€ regardless of a sidegrade PvP set for a druid and whatnot.
My favorite part. I have a pretty neat idea on how to do the adjustments for attendance and how it relates to a personâ€™s relative DKP within the system. Letâ€™s call it activity DKP for now, or aDKP. Attendance is a very important aspect of loot distribution; some guilds donâ€™t let you get priority on loot until you reach a certain percentage of attendance.
(When I refer to attendance, it will be at 28 days, or 4 weeks)
Players that are positive will have their DKP multiplied by their attendance. Ex:
Bob: 200 DKP, 50% Attendance = 100 aDKP
John: 60 DKP, 100% Attendance = 60 aDKP
Billy: 150 DKP, 33% Attendance = 50 aDKP
Eric: 100 DKP, 100% Attendance = 100 aDKP
Iâ€™ve seen someone mention this before, Iâ€™m not sure if it was on these or the WoW R&D forums, but itâ€™s a very interesting concept that Iâ€™d like to expand and get opinions about. In my guild, we currently had a priest that had DKP; his attendance was mediocre, not active, but not really inactive. He had enough to take our rejuvenating gem over our more active healers. He hasnâ€™t shown up since :/
People with negative DKP are dealt differently. Their DKP is multiplied by 100 minus their attendance. Examples:
Bob: -200 DKP, 50% Attendance = -100 aDKP
John: -60 DKP, 100% Attendance = 0 aDKP (neutral)
Billy: -150 DKP, 33% Attendance = -100 aDKP
Eric: -100 DKP, 100% Attendance = 0 aDKP (neutral)
Their modified aDKP will put them in a position so they will be ahead of members that are inactive and little negative. Which should be right, because someone with higher attendance should be in more of a position to loot over someone who is not.
Rogue 1, looted a perditions, and 8 piece nightslayer. He is currently -500 DKP in the DKP system, his attendance is 20%. His aDKP would come out to a value of -400aDKP.
Rogue 2, looted a CTS, maladath, 8 piece bloodfang, 8 piece nightslayer, and a variety of daggers. His current DKP is -900. His attendance is 90%. His aDKP comes out to be -90aDKP.
If a deathâ€™s sting drops, in a system without the aDKP modifier, would go to the less active rogue. If modified by aDKP, rogue 2, who would be there 4.5 times to raids MORE than rogue 1, would receive the dagger.
People at 0 DKP whom both want the piece of loot, will be awarded to the one who attends more / the personâ€™s DKP who is closest to 0.
(These are theoretical numbers, donâ€™t bash me please )
Basically, this whole post revolves around the idea of aDKP. Again, Iâ€™ve seen it somewhere where guilds implement this, but not so much as to be a thread topic of discussion. Iâ€™m very interested if any guilds are willing to implement a variation of aDKP, it does seem like a solid solution to deal with active and inactive raiders in a zero-sum DKP system.
Posted 05 July 2006 - 05:15 AM
Posted 05 July 2006 - 05:27 AM
In other words, you're just tacking on a multiplicative variable for net dkp. How does this make it at all fair when the base dkp is spread equally among all other members following an expenditure without taking into account the 'real' purchasing power of the modified amount?
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users