Jump to content


Photo

Most Efficient Way of Gearing up a Guild for PvE Progression?


  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

#41 Tyvi

Tyvi

    Never, Mags. Never!

  • • Guide Author
  • 1,884 posts

Posted 07 January 2007 - 04:59 AM

Well, while the allocation of the classes might not be the best there is atleast a system I think:

X of the Fallen/Vanquished Champion = Paladin, Rogue, Shaman.
X of the Fallen/Vanquished Defender = Warrior, Priest, Druid.
X of the Fallen/Vanquished Hero = Hunter, Mage, Warlock.

Going by the 5 mans you need atleast 1 Tank and 1 Healer and rest is DPS/Others. If you take a look at the "Warrior, Priest, Druid" part you don't need a Warrior to tank if you bring a Feral Druid so that reduces the competing classes to 2. If your Druid is healing then there won't be a need for another Priest thus reducing competition to 2 classes again (assuming a Warrior tanks). Likewise you won't bring 1 Hunter, 1 Mage and 1 Warlock to every 5 man, usually one or two of those DPS classes.

That being out of the way there still is a big problem with off specs. What if your Druid is tanking, your Warrior and your Priest are DPSing and you have a Paladin healer? You'll have 3 classes competing for one token. Add the fact that those classes have atleast two different sets to collect and you are in for some pain.

#42 FunBall

FunBall

    Don Flamenco

  • Members
  • 405 posts

Posted 07 January 2007 - 09:51 AM

The class distribution on their token system is so bad currently I'm surprised they haven't changed it. Having 7 sets on one token and 3 on another means that there will be raids going back for alternate sets, and yet the hunter/warlock/mage pieces will rot since they'll have their sets already.

If they make the drop rate higher for hybrids, the current distribution would be pretty good.

We've always used a bid DKP system (I know a lot of people were using zero DKP). It was a problem in Naxx to have Warriors bidding on a tank set against rogues bidding on their only set. Same thing with Druids/Paladins/Shaman bidding against hunters.

If the drop rate is NOT higher for the hybrid sets, then yes, it could potentially be pretty ugly. I know a lot of our hybrids want a non-standard set, if not more than one.

I agree to some extent funball. But on the other hand, and speaking as a hybrid, would it be fair for some classes to get 3 sets in the same amount of time as other take to get 1?

As Jubling replied to this, "why not"?

What if Druids/Paladins/Shaman/Priests/Warriors (hybrids) got all 2/3 of their chest pieces for one chest token turn-in?

That might seem over the top, but we can't use all three sets at the same time. One chest token turn-in would give the chest pieces needed to perform any of the 2-3 functions already laid out by the new tier 4/5 sets. Having to gear up 2-3x more than a pure DPS class is not a "feature" of WoW, it's a pain in the ass.

Blizzard went in the right direction by offering different sets. This would be a great "next step".

#43 Acustar

Acustar

    Soda Popinski

  • Allied Members
  • 4,007 posts

Posted 07 January 2007 - 10:14 AM


If they make the drop rate higher for hybrids, the current distribution would be pretty good.

We've always used a bid DKP system (I know a lot of people were using zero DKP). It was a problem in Naxx to have Warriors bidding on a tank set against rogues bidding on their only set. Same thing with Druids/Paladins/Shaman bidding against hunters.

If the drop rate is NOT higher for the hybrid sets, then yes, it could potentially be pretty ugly. I know a lot of our hybrids want a non-standard set, if not more than one.

I agree to some extent funball. But on the other hand, and speaking as a hybrid, would it be fair for some classes to get 3 sets in the same amount of time as other take to get 1?

As Jubling replied to this, "why not"?

What if Druids/Paladins/Shaman/Priests/Warriors (hybrids) got all 2/3 of their chest pieces for one chest token turn-in?

That might seem over the top, but we can't use all three sets at the same time. One chest token turn-in would give the chest pieces needed to perform any of the 2-3 functions already laid out by the new tier 4/5 sets. Having to gear up 2-3x more than a pure DPS class is not a "feature" of WoW, it's a pain in the ass.

Blizzard went in the right direction by offering different sets. This would be a great "next step".

While I agree with the fact that the current token distribution is a little odd, this is what you're suggesting sounds like to me, you want a PvE Raid set, and a PvP/Grind set at the same time. But that would leave out some classes whos PvE sets aren't exactly practical for PvP (mages for the most part). I wouldn't complain to getting two though :) And since I've been playing my shaman over the last few weeks, having to get more than one set sucks, but I (a mage) wouldn't really like what you suggested. This probaly sounds like a QQ post, just my opinion though.

As said before, I'd think the classes need to be swapped around a bit, or maybe the % drop rates reflect the amount of classes in that group. That could backfire though, seeing Token1 with a 40% drop and Token2 with a 20% and Token3 with 40%.

Addons aren't a crutch, they're tools to be abused by skilled players to increase performance. Like a carpenter using a hammer, a fisherman using a lure, or Xi using curse words.


#44 buschiii

buschiii

    Glass Joe

  • Members
  • 8 posts

Posted 07 January 2007 - 11:10 AM

We will "not care" about loot so much in tbc first.
there are a lot of ways to equip and we will use no dkp system.
example: Karazhan - 10 bosses (+3 optional bosses)
every boss dropps 2-3 epics (+ a lot of really good random epics)
you go in with only 10 people.
that are ~2-3 epics for everybody each run.

our class/raid - leader will decide who will get an item.

for sure we will equip 2 tanks first before we will equip the off warriors with highend tank epics.
healers will only get healing stuff and damage dealer will only get damage stuff first. ;)

#45 ParisTeta

ParisTeta

    Glass Joe

  • Members
  • 12 posts

Posted 07 January 2007 - 11:35 AM

Some people seemed to get very weak minded MT's out there, and that scares me. I admit, we lost the former MT due Drama, but without euipting the new MT (that's me) our progression would be much lower (we started from Zero in MC). So euqipting the MT and a second one first is a good idea, the risk of loss is always there, and not a real reason to hinder stuff (RL can happen anytime to anyone) and the other....make clear that a) Tanking set ist not a price for archivment, it's an investment b) That the sweat,blood,tears off usually more then 40 People have flown.

#46 Bekah

Bekah

    Soda Popinski

  •  Patrons
  • 3,747 posts

Posted 07 January 2007 - 12:29 PM

Some people seemed to get very weak minded MT's out there, and that scares me. I admit, we lost the former MT due Drama, but without euipting the new MT (that's me) our progression would be much lower (we started from Zero in MC). So euqipting the MT and a second one first is a good idea, the risk of loss is always there, and not a real reason to hinder stuff (RL can happen anytime to anyone) and the other....make clear that a) Tanking set ist not a price for archivment, it's an investment b) That the sweat,blood,tears off usually more then 40 People have flown.

I believe the argument is that you're MORE likely to lose someone that you've geared up as a priority.

It can work if you've got folks who are incredibly loyal and dedicated to staying with the game. Most people would say that they share those qualities, but actions tend to speak louder than words. Is the advanced progression worth the loss when a higher end guild comes courting and offers your MT the chance to leap frog in progression and prestige if they'll just walk away from that guild that geared them? A lot of tanks take the easy choice. It's easy to jump past learning and up to a new tier of content. It easy to have the "best" guild on servers tag over your head- there's a certain amount of pride in being recognized for your guild as being the best in progression on your server.

A strong MT with a basic time-based pay out system should always have sufficient dkp to purchase the important stuff. In many ways it's better for the guild to let "main tank" be divvied out by best gear and to have best gear be based on attendance. If your "main" tank stops coming as often- someone else is out there tanking the bosses and putting in more time and they're going to have more dkp to spend on gear- which will put them in front of the other tanks as the new main tank. We have no main tanks in our guild. We have 5 tanks- 2 of which tank bosses more often, 2 of which dps more often, and one of which is an ot more often.... but those roles change very very flexibly when gearing and attendance changes. They all have acceptable tank sets, and they all have a certain amount of dps gear. that's a strong point for our guild- if Kelris or Tankman (Our usual tanks) leave the guild we're not SOL for tanks, we can shove the others into their spot and it would only take a week or two to cover the gear difference. Would it suck? Oh hell yes. Finding dedicated strong tanks with excellent attendance and a good deal of T3 is difficult as hell. But for covering the MT duties- we would manage a hell of a lot better than if we'd prioritized gear to one of those to the detriment of the other tanks.

A guild always suffers when a high attendance player suddenly quits.
Adding to the pain by having geared them as a priority over the others and having no one able to fill in that loss is incredibly bad.
Those of you who volunteered to be injected with praying mantis DNA, I've got some good news and some bad news.
Bad news is we're postponing those tests indefinitely. Good news is we've got a much better test for you: fighting an army of mantis men.
Pick up a rifle and follow the yellow line. You'll know when the test starts.

#47 FunBall

FunBall

    Don Flamenco

  • Members
  • 405 posts

Posted 07 January 2007 - 01:17 PM


I agree to some extent funball. But on the other hand, and speaking as a hybrid, would it be fair for some classes to get 3 sets in the same amount of time as other take to get 1?

As Jubling replied to this, "why not"?

What if Druids/Paladins/Shaman/Priests/Warriors (hybrids) got all 2/3 of their chest pieces for one chest token turn-in?

That might seem over the top, but we can't use all three sets at the same time. One chest token turn-in would give the chest pieces needed to perform any of the 2-3 functions already laid out by the new tier 4/5 sets. Having to gear up 2-3x more than a pure DPS class is not a "feature" of WoW, it's a pain in the ass.

Blizzard went in the right direction by offering different sets. This would be a great "next step".

While I agree with the fact that the current token distribution is a little odd, this is what you're suggesting sounds like to me, you want a PvE Raid set, and a PvP/Grind set at the same time. But that would leave out some classes whos PvE sets aren't exactly practical for PvP (mages for the most part). I wouldn't complain to getting two though :) And since I've been playing my shaman over the last few weeks, having to get more than one set sucks, but I (a mage) wouldn't really like what you suggested. This probaly sounds like a QQ post, just my opinion though.

As said before, I'd think the classes need to be swapped around a bit, or maybe the % drop rates reflect the amount of classes in that group. That could backfire though, seeing Token1 with a 40% drop and Token2 with a 20% and Token3 with 40%.

The different sets for hybrids are no different for grinding or PvP from what a mage or warlock would deal with. They typically have reduced stam and fewer defensive statistics than an ideal PvP or grinding set will have. What the different sets DO provide is our complete package of itemization that has always been lacking.

This idea will cause a lot of skepticism, because receiving three epics when a DPS class receives one for the same turn in doesn't seem fair. On the other hand, most of the hybrid classes would probably agree that being forced into a talent tree is a little painful, too.

If a mage wants to experiment with fire or frost or arcane, the same set works great for all three schools. It's rare that you'd have to change a single piece of gear no matter what you are doing. Previously, if a Priest decided they wanted to play around with shadow for a while, they had to pick up a lot of gear, and fight with other classes to get it, too.

Now the set pieces are available, but do I really want to have to spend triple the DKP for it? Do I want to be picking up a balance piece that I'm grabbing just for fun (this is a video game) when another Druid needs a piece of healing gear?

Picking up up all three sets for one token eliminates a great deal of drama, makes life a lot more fun for the hybrids, and will have little impact on game balance (remember, we could have picked up that damage gear, anyway).

#48 Halka

Halka

    Glass Joe

  • Members
  • 3 posts

Posted 07 January 2007 - 02:22 PM

Even with recruitment though the guild is not huge by some standards. Around 100 level 60s, but many not regular players. Frankly we struggle for 40 players regularly (especially for wipe nights ;)) 20/25 however is much less of a problem so we are very pleased with Blizzard's decision on lowering the raid numbers.

I've been part of a hybrid guild like yours for nearly two years, and we've gone through all the issues you described. (Nearly exactly ... scary.)

I'll have to echo what a few have already said -- successful raiding has very little to do with gear and EVERYTHING to do with turnouts, guild management and your raid leader. And I think it's worth remembering this even in light of the smaller raid cap size. I don't expect this to change just because you're organizing for 25 people instead of 40. Hopefully it will be easier to accomplish and put raiding into more guilds' realm of accessibility, but the same tenets will still be there.

before you guys do anything, I'd really recommend your entire guild hash it out over what kind of raiding they honestly want. and do it now before the expansion hits.

you probably have that core of 20-25 who wants fast progression and reliable turnouts and a lot of raiding each week. then you have the rest of the guild -- the 80 accounts who show up whenever they feel like playing, may or may not stay online the entire night, and may or may not be interested in your guild's progress as much as their own acquisition of phat lewtzorz.

if my assumption is correct, you really need to make it clear in your guild that membership for raiding will have different expectations than membership for casual play.

in my guild, we eventually created two membership ranks -- Raider and Member. we manage Raiders like a pure raiding guild. we have attendance requirements (60%, possibly upping to 75% for TBC) and skill expectations. for general Members, there are no requirements. anyone can be a Member and do whatever they want. we don't expect them to raid. by the same token, Members must understand they have no priority on raid invites. they fill in from time to time, but that's the price of doing business that way.

We have fluid movement between the ranks -- we average the two most recent months of raid attendance so it's not uncommon for some players to slow down, their attendance goes under 60%, they're bumped down to Member and we open recruiting for that spot. Vice-versa, a Member decides they want to raid more and starts showing up a lot. They get their attendance over 60% and become eligible to become a Raider. (The actual percentages are based on our 4-raid-per-week schedule. You get 1 pt for being there the entire night and 0.5 pt for showing up late or leaving early. It doesn't matter if you're in the raid or not. As long as you're online, ready and able to jump in at any point.)

hopefully, your guild can find some peaceful co-existence between the two types of players. it's not perfect, but it's the best we've come up with so far. Edit: You might run across Members who resent not having raid invite priority, yet cannot commit to the attendance requirement. That's the only drama we have to deal with in this structure, and it sucks, but all you can do is explain the raiding goal (steady progression) and what it takes (steady participation). You might have people /gquit over it but -- not to sound cold -- but it doesn't hurt your raid progress to lose a Member. It does hurt quite a bit to lose a Raider, so in a clinical way, it "pays" to make your Raiders happy. And that means surrounding them with reliable, skilled players and keeping raids full, day in, day out. You can't accomplish that when you're kowtowing to every casual player with an attitude who demands epix just b/c other people in your guild are getting them. :P

obviously there are a lot of other things that go into successful raiding, but it all starts with your guild expectations. you need to figure that stuff out at the start and structure accordingly. I actually think the Raider/Member split will be more important come TBC because the smaller raid sizes will demand even higher gameplay from each individual raid member. Fights may become even more technical or gear-heavy than they currently are.

And again, fast progress has nothing to do with gear -- it has to do with how much facetime you can get in the instance and learn the fights with a steady reliable crew and give everyone time to get acclimated. That is impossible in a typical family/casual guild.

#49 Kalman

Kalman

    Super Macho Man

  • Members
  • 8,791 posts

Posted 07 January 2007 - 02:24 PM

Picking up all 3 sets (or 2) for one token is really no better than simply adjusting the drop rates to make sure that tokens drop based on set distribution rather than class distribution. So the drop rate would be:

3+3+1 = 9/19 chance
1+1+1 = 3/19 chance
2+2+3 = 7/19 chance

The split should have been done better; paladin/warrior/rogue (3/2/1) + shaman/priest/mage (3/2/1) + druid/lock/hunter (3/1/1, but counterbalanced by druids being the most likely of the 3-role classes to pick up all 3 sets).

(Of course, speaking as a class that only wants one token who's paired up with a couple 3 token classes, I'd obviously be all for this - gives me a much better chance at my stuff, since I doubt our paladins or shamans are really going to be after all 3 sets all that quickly.)

Anyone bringing DKP into this automatically loses, by the way. DKP is social, not technical, and has nothing to do with it; you could as easily say "People won't have to pay DKP for alternate role tokens once they have their main role itemization" and use it is as a counterargument.
Melador> Incidentally, these last few pages are why people hate lawyers.
Viator> I really don't want to go all Kalman here.
Bury> Just imagine what the world would be like if you used your powers for good.

#50 FunBall

FunBall

    Don Flamenco

  • Members
  • 405 posts

Posted 07 January 2007 - 03:53 PM

Picking up all 3 sets (or 2) for one token is really no better than simply adjusting the drop rates to make sure that tokens drop based on set distribution rather than class distribution. So the drop rate would be:

3+3+1 = 9/19 chance
1+1+1 = 3/19 chance
2+2+3 = 7/19 chance

The split should have been done better; paladin/warrior/rogue (3/2/1) + shaman/priest/mage (3/2/1) + druid/lock/hunter (3/1/1, but counterbalanced by druids being the most likely of the 3-role classes to pick up all 3 sets).

(Of course, speaking as a class that only wants one token who's paired up with a couple 3 token classes, I'd obviously be all for this - gives me a much better chance at my stuff, since I doubt our paladins or shamans are really going to be after all 3 sets all that quickly.)

Anyone bringing DKP into this automatically loses, by the way. DKP is social, not technical, and has nothing to do with it; you could as easily say "People won't have to pay DKP for alternate role tokens once they have their main role itemization" and use it is as a counterargument.

What technical concerns are there? The itemization values and class talents are not in question in this discussion. The technical concerns with coding a drop rate or creating a multi-reward turn in as I suggest are trivial. No class becomes numerically overpowered under any scenario (relative to other scenarios). If you think there's a technical reason that this is not true, then give it.

Anyone ignoring the social impact of a technical solution (or any solution) in an MMORPG is naive. DKP is the primary method of loot distribution for end-game, and cannot be dismissed. Even a non-DKP distribution system, whether it is random 100 or loot council, will eventually have similar consequences for players and their experience in game. If you aren't comfortable discussing how DKP or any other social concern might have an impact, feel free to skip over it or ask some questions.

In your solution, you suggest re-distribution of classes so that tokens can be dropped in equal quantities. As you mentioned, this solution works well for a DPS class, because in any given distribution system, the DPS class will finish their complete sets first. Your system requires hybrids to spend 2-3x as much time in a particular instance as a DPS class in order to complete all of their sets. Either the DPS classes are eventually going to be "dragged along" to help finish sets, or the hybrids are going to be angry that they aren't able to finish sets.

#51 Kalman

Kalman

    Super Macho Man

  • Members
  • 8,791 posts

Posted 07 January 2007 - 05:35 PM

DKP is the primary distribution method, yes.

However, there is *nothing* that says that DKP has to charge for off-spec sets. Many guilds don't, or charge a token amount. Pointing to "having to spend triple the DKP" identifies a flaw in *your* DKP system, and nowhere else.
Melador> Incidentally, these last few pages are why people hate lawyers.
Viator> I really don't want to go all Kalman here.
Bury> Just imagine what the world would be like if you used your powers for good.

#52 Oaken

Oaken

    Don Flamenco

  • Members
  • 416 posts

Posted 07 January 2007 - 05:47 PM

The split should have been done better; paladin/warrior/rogue (3/2/1) + shaman/priest/mage (3/2/1) + druid/lock/hunter (3/1/1, but counterbalanced by druids being the most likely of the 3-role classes to pick up all 3 sets).

I'd personally have preferred a split by role, not by class. I.e., one token type you turn in for the 3 types of tanking gear (paladin, druid, warrior), one for dps gear (elemental shaman, moonkin druid, shadow priest, rogue, mage, yada yada), one for healing (resto druid, resto shaman, holy priest, holy paladin). You could make the drop rate vary by frequency of the role needed (I would put something like 30% tanking, 40% dps, 30% healing on the basis that you often need 1.5 tanks, 1.5 healers and the rest dps out of a 5-man group). The problem with any split by class is that if I bring say 2 paladins - one who is tanking and one who is healing - they are in contention for that single token that drops. It makes a group with two people from the same class - even if filling entirely different roles - undesirable.

#53 FunBall

FunBall

    Don Flamenco

  • Members
  • 405 posts

Posted 07 January 2007 - 06:01 PM

DKP is the primary distribution method, yes.

However, there is *nothing* that says that DKP has to charge for off-spec sets. Many guilds don't, or charge a token amount. Pointing to "having to spend triple the DKP" identifies a flaw in *your* DKP system, and nowhere else.

OK, now you're giving a Shaman his melee DPS chest over a Rogue that needs his chest, and you're giving it to him for free. Or, you make the hybrids wait on their second and third sets until DPS get their sets, and we're back to the issue of forcing DPS to come along to grind out hybrid sets.

You're a smart guy. Throw out some good ideas or well thought out criticism. Calling a DKP system you know nothing about flawed or calling an idea a loser because "you said so" is weak.

#54 Kalman

Kalman

    Super Macho Man

  • Members
  • 8,791 posts

Posted 07 January 2007 - 06:03 PM

Splitting by role introduces its own problems (i.e. if you came as a tank, should you be on equal footing with the DPS to roll on DPS gear? etc.) Wonder why a druid would be into that? ;)

One goal is to make it (in low-personnel encounters especially) reasonably unlikely that a drop is a total waste; nobody likes shards or rot. Drops by item (e.g. Scholo) are obviously the worst at this - you need not only the right class' item to drop, but also the right particular itemization to drop. Universal token drops (which are basically non-existent in WoW, at least as a competitive thing - if you only got one Badge of Justice per boss, rather than per person per boss, this would be the closest thing I can think of) are obviously the best at eliminating waste. Per-class or per-role are in between; you can still get screwed by not having the appropriate class in (more rarely by not having the appropriate role along), but waste is reduced.

Another goal is to make everyone feel reasonably likely to have a chance at a reward. Again, per-item sucks (*please* let my rarelootslotitem drop this time... GOD DAMN YOU insertbossnamehere), and a universal token is best (someone's gonna get something!). If you go per-class and make the splits generally reasonable, people feel they're reasonably likely to see a useful token. If you go per-role, the likelihood goes up, but so does the competition; there's no way to set up a group with minimal competition. Per-class has the aforementioned problem of discouraging class-stacking, but, oh well? All-druid Onyxias probably aren't desirable any more than being forced to have a warrior along for an encounter is.

Finally, the last goal is controlling loot rate. If universal tokens existed, content would exhaust far quicker than with item drops; of course, with item drops, you run into the T2pants/Rejuv/DFT situation where you may be running content that's way beneath your level for an item that's just plain hard to replace, which leads to frustration and is also not good. Per-class or per-role are far better here.

As to a per-role distribution; while 30/40/30 is right for what the *instance* needs, something like 20/60/20 is more workable; not everyone is going to want a tanking set or healing set, but *everyone* (including tanks and healers) is likely to want a DPS set, for grinding/soloing if nothing else.
Melador> Incidentally, these last few pages are why people hate lawyers.
Viator> I really don't want to go all Kalman here.
Bury> Just imagine what the world would be like if you used your powers for good.

#55 Kalman

Kalman

    Super Macho Man

  • Members
  • 8,791 posts

Posted 07 January 2007 - 06:08 PM

DKP is the primary distribution method, yes.

However, there is *nothing* that says that DKP has to charge for off-spec sets. Many guilds don't, or charge a token amount. Pointing to "having to spend triple the DKP" identifies a flaw in *your* DKP system, and nowhere else.

OK, now you're giving a Shaman his melee DPS chest over a Rogue that needs his chest, and you're giving it to him for free. Or, you make the hybrids wait on their second and third sets until DPS get their sets, and we're back to the issue of forcing DPS to come along to grind out hybrid sets.

You're a smart guy. Throw out some good ideas or well thought out criticism. Calling a DKP system you know nothing about flawed or calling an idea a loser because "you said so" is weak.

The criticism is that you're applying a completely invalid criticism to the system. Do you blame gravity when a badly designed structure collapses, or do you blame the architect? Obviously the architect; he designed something that ignored the way the system worked.

The need for hybrids to have multiple sets is a valid concern. Pointing to DKP as a reason that they should get those multiple sets from a single drop is invalid.

(Forcing DPS to come along to grind out hybrid sets is a much better concern. If the token distribution/drop rates are set properly, though, it isn't a concern at all. Consider if there were 3 tokens: a shaman/paladin/druid token, a warrior/priest token, and a rogue/mage/lock/hunter token. Now imagine that the first token dropped more than 50% of the time, while the other two tokens dropped a little less than 25% of the time. All of a sudden by the time all the DPS has their full set, so does everyone else.)
Melador> Incidentally, these last few pages are why people hate lawyers.
Viator> I really don't want to go all Kalman here.
Bury> Just imagine what the world would be like if you used your powers for good.

#56 FunBall

FunBall

    Don Flamenco

  • Members
  • 405 posts

Posted 07 January 2007 - 06:26 PM

DKP is the primary distribution method, yes.

However, there is *nothing* that says that DKP has to charge for off-spec sets. Many guilds don't, or charge a token amount. Pointing to "having to spend triple the DKP" identifies a flaw in *your* DKP system, and nowhere else.

OK, now you're giving a Shaman his melee DPS chest over a Rogue that needs his chest, and you're giving it to him for free. Or, you make the hybrids wait on their second and third sets until DPS get their sets, and we're back to the issue of forcing DPS to come along to grind out hybrid sets.

You're a smart guy. Throw out some good ideas or well thought out criticism. Calling a DKP system you know nothing about flawed or calling an idea a loser because "you said so" is weak.

The criticism is that you're applying a completely invalid criticism to the system. Do you blame gravity when a badly designed structure collapses, or do you blame the architect? Obviously the architect; he designed something that ignored the way the system worked.

The need for hybrids to have multiple sets is a valid concern. Pointing to DKP as a reason that they should get those multiple sets from a single drop is invalid.

(Forcing DPS to come along to grind out hybrid sets is a much better concern. If the token distribution/drop rates are set properly, though, it isn't a concern at all. Consider if there were 3 tokens: a shaman/paladin/druid token, a warrior/priest token, and a rogue/mage/lock/hunter token. Now imagine that the first token dropped more than 50% of the time, while the last token dropped ~20% of the time. All of a sudden by the time all the DPS has their full set, so does everyone else.)

After this, forget about DKP. It was hyperbole for loot distribution, which is the primary concern. Not charging DKP for a second set is not a panacea, and I don't believe it will work as well in the expansion, since you're not talking about a few random pieces of non-class specific loot.

Would I blame gravity? In this case, gravity can be changed and adjusted, and the building has existed for two years. So yes, one might blame gravity if it suddenly changed in a way that would require the architect to re-adjust the building design, especially if the makeover is extreme. And you might praise gravity if it makes the building stronger or simpler to maintain.

The shaman/paladin/druid, warrior/priest, and rogue/mage/lock/hunter tokens is a pretty good solution to many of the basic problems. Blizzard could even develop an adaptive algorithm that adjusts global drops based on the total population of all servers over time. If it turns out that the Shaman/Druids/Paladins are only grabbing 1.5 sets on average, it wouldn't be hard to collect that data and adjust the global drop rate.

Having a few elusive pieces of loot can keep people coming back, but a good goal is to have most everyone equally happy at the same time.

The question to you is still, "what's wrong with giving all 2/3 chests to the hybrid in one drop, instead of making them wait for multiple drops?"

#57 Kalman

Kalman

    Super Macho Man

  • Members
  • 8,791 posts

Posted 07 January 2007 - 06:49 PM

Why not 3 for the price of 1? It'll be perceived as unfair. Whether or not it is is completely beside the point. It'll be perceived as unfair. And, really, it is - isn't one of the prices you pay for flexibility having to work harder to be good at all of your flexible roles? If hybrid classes were gearing all their roles at the same time, it removes one of the restrictions that justified them approaching pure class performance; do you really want 3 pieces of gear at once if it suddenly provides ammo to the people who don't want you to be good at anything?

What's wrong with it? What's *right* with it? If you have a system where drop frequency allots the multiple items, it's still a one drop = one item setup, which instinctively "feels" more fair to people, even though you'll still get your third item around when I get my first (strictly speaking not true, but close enough). It also provides a more level power field; instead of a hybrid with one drop suddenly being more useful in all fashions than a hybrid with zero drops, the hybrid with 3 drops is just more flexible, not better, than the hybrid with 1 drop. Smaller steps, rather than larger ones, help smooth out item distribution for players as well as for Blizzard.

I don't expect Blizzard to adjust their systems to account for poorly designed systems in some people's cases (and *yes*, charging hybrids full price for everything *is* a flawed system given current loot and raid design). I expect players to adjust to what Blizzard does. If gravity suddenly changed, I'm not going to blame gravity; I'm going to redesign the house. Especially since gravity is a global law, and people's house designs differ; I wouldn't expect gravity to take notice of my house just because the roof suddenly fell in if Joe down the street's house is lookin' better than ever.

I do think the system as currently designed is probably flawed. But not because of any concern with DKP; because of concerns with things like rerunning instances for people's offset gear, the distribution of tokens amongst classes, and other such things.
Melador> Incidentally, these last few pages are why people hate lawyers.
Viator> I really don't want to go all Kalman here.
Bury> Just imagine what the world would be like if you used your powers for good.

#58 Guest_Agren_*

Guest_Agren_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 January 2007 - 12:37 AM

It’s been a mark of pride that we let people spec how they like, and we’ve been so interested in fairness that although we eventually instigated a DKP system we were never willing to prioritise key classes and players over the others.

We have also let people spec how they like, and don't have loot priority. We started raiding in Molten Core a year after the game was released, and have been catching up ever since, in spite of a very limited raid schedule. We have downed Twin Emps, and would have likely been heading into Naxx within a month were it not for TBC.

Loot priority does very little for progression. All that is really needed is to make sure that your most regular raiders get gear, and virtually any decent DKP system will do that. As others have said, minimizing drama and retaining your best people (and the gear they wear) is the key. Not having all our eggs in one basket has allowed us to go on without any real hitch when people have gone on hiatus for everything from having babies to performing in plays. Our healer corps has had a hugely long time to play together and gel, while other guilds are constantly recruiting healers because theirs burn out or quit due to being second class citizens when it comes to loot. I don't exaggerate when I say that we have one of the best heal teams in the game due to this.

One mistake which I see many "casual" guilds make is having first come first served signups for raids. This incentivizes people to let others do the heavy lifting of getting a boss on farm and then camping the sign up list to get in on the loot. The people who were there for your wipes need to get priority over those who won't come for wipe nights.

#59 Guybrush

Guybrush

    Von Kaiser

  • Members
  • 56 posts

Posted 08 January 2007 - 06:13 PM

Loot priority worked before mostly because the sets dropped sepertly and there was no token system. So setting loot priority to your MT over another warrior wasn't that big of a deal.

We did gave a little loot priority for warriors for a week or 2 before the serious attempts on 4h, but we never been a heavy rogue guild so it didn't affect us much when a rogue or 2 whined (Besides ironiclly the dkp prices our warriors paid for t3 was a lot higher then what our rogues paid a week after).

Generally speaking tho when looking at the current gear availavle for tanks I really don't see any need to set loot priorities.

Warriors pre-raid tank set: http://www.thottbot.com/beta?i=15356
Paladin pre-raid tank set: http://www.thottbot.com/beta?i=15448

Druid is not as good but still decent: http://www.thottbot.com/beta?i=3420

Basiclly don't use loot priority, and have fun.

#60 Overcome

Overcome

    Glass Joe

  • Members
  • 15 posts

Posted 08 January 2007 - 06:22 PM

Unless you are the top dog guild on the server (and this may be blurred now with the ease of realm transfer) it is a terrible idea to gear up a main tank. A higher rung guild will see the epics on him and snatch him up and he will be so flattered and taken back by the gear he could obtain that is impossible in his current guild that he will leave. Do not think that it will not happen, because it will.

The second issue is once you have geared your MT to the teeth he has very little reason to keep on going to raids. Sure there are alot of loyal people who have devout loyalty to their guild even when fully geared and will show up regardless of loot. But once that carrot-on-the-stick of upgrades is nullified because the guild cannot progress further the main tank will probally ebay/quit and leave you back high and dry.

Long story short: loot priorities do not work.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users