I'm curious how those running fixed price systems are planning to handle item pricing for your dkp systems in 2.1. I priced the items for our system by taking iLvl*Slotmod and adjusted for how well something is itemized. I've basically come up with the following options for when 2.1 is released:
1) Grandfather items already purchased, leaving their prices as they were, and raising the prices as appropriate for all future purposes.
2) Raise the prices retroactively, along with the future purchases (I think this is a very bad idea, but an option nonetheless)
3) Leave everything the same price, and artificially lower the price on drops in future instances to reflect the relative upgrade in value.
What ways are you guys handling the upcoming item changes?
we're going with #1, no retroactive changes but everything else changes. Retroactively changing dkp or nerfing items people have already crafted never pleases anyone
Karazhan was never a DKP event for us, and as such we charged zero for "Karazhan-comparable loot". Items that have since been buffed to "tier 5 quality" will have their prices retroactively changed to match our tier5 pricing scheme.
We made it clear that if items that were horrible would be ultra low min (we use an open auction no restriction system for ease of management) and if upgraded would be brought upto the min of that tier retroactivelly. Anyone who bought the items agreed to it.
Not having a policy in place before the fact I wouldnt retroactivelly price items that had upgrades. Keeping your membership happy is more important that a perfectly balanced DKP system, imo.
We decided not to reprice Karazhan items since it really has no effect on future dungeons unless another 10-man is released. 25-man loot will be repriced, shouldn't be much of an issue given that we have maybe 20 items max that have been taken so far.
It kinda depends on how mature your dkp system is. The longer you have been doing it and the more items people have been charged for, the bigger impact a change will make. Some people will feel more put out since they have to pay more for an item than a guildmate did just last week. But by the same token, the people who spent dkp will feel inconveinenced because they now have less dkp.
Since everything is going to be buffed, everyone should lose points across the board, so it might not be that big a deal. The only thing grandfathering people in does is minimize short term bitching imo.
Duty is heavier than a mountain, Death is lighter than a feather.
I think the basic lesson is, "Determining the value of an item is a hard problem." This might be why every guild I've been in with auctioned prices had far less loot drama than those with fixed prices. That's because the penalty for improperly pricing an item rests on the person who chose that price in an auction system but not in a fixed price system.
If someone makes an economic mistake and bids more than an item is worth, they have no one to blame but themselves, and the result is that other competitors for the same kind of loot simply get more stuff. That's very different from accidentally underpricing an item in a fixed price system, which basically rewards whomever is highest on points, or accidentally overpricing an item, which causes the item to get sharded (benefiting no one).
On a related note, I was thinking of writing an economic theorycrafting article on different loot distribution systems, their pros and cons, and what economic results you would most likely see. It might give people perspective on what loot systems will best encourage people to show up and perform their best. But before I reinvent the wheel, has this topic come up before? I didn't see any previous posts on this subject.
Well, imo since these changes are so broad, there is going to be little change in the relative value of each piece compared to each other. The main point of dkp is so that better items are worth more, so if everything is being buffed an equal amount, there is no real point in changing to dkp system.
I would say though, that if there are certain items that were buffed from bad or near-useless to very good (many of the trinkets for example) should probably choose #1. A complete change in dkp pricing is quite unnecessary.
I think the basic lesson is, "Determining the value of an item is a hard problem." This might be why every guild I've been in with auctioned prices had far less loot drama than those with fixed prices. That's because the penalty for improperly pricing an item rests on the person who chose that price in an auction system but not in a fixed price system.
Bid systems having less loot drama does not at all reflect my experiences with that sort of system. Perhaps I've just had bad luck, but I've seen guilds fall because of it. There is nothing inherently wrong with fixed pricing - and as it stands those items will become worth more than what the people originally bid on. As should they have been priced appropriately in a "fixed" system as well.
We're not going to retroactively dock anyone in our guild - but essentially go with where we're at currently. We are proposing a decay of some percentage of DKP as we transition into 2.1, and some interesting ideas to balance hybrid spenditure, but that is unrelated to this discussion I think. Decay is generally there to combat accumulation seen in all systems (although very few guilds actually use it, and ours included until perhaps now?) - but in this case it seems appropriate that the past doesn't hinder the future too heavily with such radical changes. I'm sure most of you wiped in early BC?
When we change the price of an item, the change is fully retroactive. Since I use a spreadsheet to maintain RP (http://www.sigilguild.net/hamlet/Sig...%20Points.xls), all I need to do is change one number and everything happens automatically.
For people with ilvl-based pricing, just update to the new ilvls. Since the buffs are so uniform, the comparative values of items won't change at all.
I second on the bad experiences with open bidding. Having new guildies pick up a ton of gear on the cheap, raid a little more, then possibly outbidding old members that are having to spend higher prices on newer gear is not good.
Duty is heavier than a mountain, Death is lighter than a feather.
Why is #2 such a bad idea? That's what I'm leaning towards implementing. #1 seems much stranger to me- you mean someone who bought an item last week, before the changes were announced, should pay less than someone who is going to buy it in 2.1, in a fixed price system? I just can't say that I see why.
This might be why every guild I've been in with auctioned prices had far less loot drama than those with fixed prices.
I've had the opposite experience. In addition to making it very difficult not to have major distortion of prices over time, auction systems have always been more generative of drama in the guild environments I've seen.
EDIT: This.
Originally Posted by Arawethion
When we change the price of an item, the change is fully retroactive. Since I use a spreadsheet to maintain [loot points], all I need to do is change one number and everything happens automatically.
For people with ilvl-based pricing, just update to the new ilvls. Since the buffs are so uniform, the comparative values of items won't change at all.
Before this goes on - everyone here should remember that DKP systems are a source of much emo'ness... It is difficult, if not impossible, for people to be objective and reasonable about DKP systems other than their own. Perhaps consider that here .
I think the basic lesson is, "Determining the value of an item is a hard problem." This might be why every guild I've been in with auctioned prices had far less loot drama than those with fixed prices. That's because the penalty for improperly pricing an item rests on the person who chose that price in an auction system but not in a fixed price system.
In this day and age (of 25 man raids), a lot of loot is near-zero competition. Why should our one feral / resto, one arms, one fury, one enhancement, one shadow, one ret, etc raider be allowed to gear for free and horde points for all the toys? When we bring two rogues, and they are only class-competitive on an item? The first drop is going for A LOT, and the second is going for nothing. I fail to see how this system is either fair, rewarding, or encouraging.
Typically loot drama is based on two things:
The system
The people involved.
The people involved determine how much drama you're going to have.
The system acts as a multiplier on how far that drama will be amplified.
In a guild like "aftermath" or most of the high end guilds here, typically loot issues and drama are almost zero. Multiplying zero by anything isn't going to amount to much more than zero more drama... because the people themselves are inherently deeply progress-driven, very guild oriented (more excitement when the MT gets a new weapon than with their new healing bracers for instance), and DKP complaints or issues will be discussed openly or at least understood that its "how things are done here." This is why loot councils/assigned loot (which are typically "best" for a guild's progression) do far better in more progressed guilds... because they're by far and away the most prone to drama (just think of every piece of loot being like that 2nd atiesh you gave out). And this is also likewise why top end guilds fall so hard when their DKP system is unfair (maybe this is only something I've seen, and mostly in EQ).
The thing is many new guilds start with a zero-sum system because in the past, it has historically yielded the least amount of drama. Its a hands off system, humans only set the prices (and even that can be streamlined, and almost always is), after that its self-regulating.
Which one is better is sorta a matter of personal opinion.
Apologies for going off topic (as always).
Regarding auction systems, one thing I wanted to research was the relative levels of loot drama encountered based on the bid system style. As best I can tell, there are three kinds:
Open bidding, any number of bids: Everyone says their bid in raid chat until there's a single highest bidder.
Closed bidding, any number of bids: Everyone sends their bid to an officer who gives a running update of the highest value but not bidder, then later announces the winner.
Closed bidding, one bid: Everyone sends one bid to an officer. The highest bid usually pays second highest bid plus 1 (but in some systems just pays their bid). The officer announces the winning bidder and value.
I've participated in the last two systems but not the first one and saw very little drama ensue. (The last kind had the least drama, since you didn't have people trying to guess how much people were willing to raise based on how quickly the highest bid price was updated.) For those of you who encountered lots of drama, was it with the first kind? I can understand how people might perceive bitterness when the auction can feel like, "That guy made me pay more than I wanted to."
Are there any other auction styles than these three that people have encountered?
Yeah, I attempted to keep the discussion located in the fixed price realm to avoid the whole bid vs. fixed argument, especially seeing as bid systems don't care that the items have changed value save for ones that use minimum bids.
The reason I'm under the impression that raising prices on previously purchased gear would not be ideal is that when those items were purchased, they were purchased with the knowledge that their position on the standings would be at a certain place after picking up the item. By retroactively raising prices, there could be resentment towards the guild, or other players who would be able to pick up an item over the previous purchaser due to the adjustment placing them below someone else.
So by grandfathering, it's a compromise for our guild, those that picked up items beforehand keep their position in the system, in exchange for knowing that they'll be paying more for the piece that they upgrade to in the future (We use the upgrade costing the difference method). Having different purchase prices for items becomes a moot point with the next tier of gear, as you only spend as much per slot as the most expensive item you pick up (pending you call upgrade on all future purposes)
If your members understand your traditional ZS-DKP system, they'll also understand that if the price of everything goes up, their point intake also goes up, still resulting in a zero sum. This can really be broken down into two possible answers:
Your members understand that prices are not relevant and that a retroactive across the board price change is just a consistency change. System remains intact when the patch goes live.
Your members don't understand the irrelevance of item pricing - or you are afraid they will rebel against a perceived "decrease" in points - and you don't retroactively change pricing. System remains intact as people upgrade their loots.
That should cover the bulk of situations out there. Neither is really wrong. We're going for option 1 because we price directly based on a function of ilvl to keep things simple and easy to price on the fly.
I only used a bidding system in my first raiding guild, which wasn't an exemplary raid force by any means but my impression with bidding systems was horrid. True, it generated less on-surface, loud, multi-page-forum-posts kinds of drama but it was very destructive, and more so than any of the other systems. Bidding makes the loot issues extremely personal. Getting ratted out on an item because people gambled and won/lost and the bigger, more varied, possibilities for collusion breeds unnecessary animosity between people and a much bigger luck element to item pricing. For instance picking up the first/second Sword of Awesomeness for minimum bid because Rogue A and Warrior C weren't in the raid and the rest were shit out of points, netting an effective huge points gain.
The bastardized versions of zero-sum I've seen in action might not have been perfect and indeed they were passionately argued about in their time but at least they didn't set up a hotzone for intrigues and grievances like bidding systems can do. I've no doubt it works well enough for some guilds but for my tastes bidding never flew. Goinga bit OT but yeah...
There's an odd problem with 10-mans like Karazhan anyway.. you usually have at most 2 of any given class, so essentially DKP is not really needed. The effect of using DKP is that people are more or less 'forced' to pick up expensive items, draining your DKP really fast. I understand some guilds solve this by giving those items away for free? Karazhan seems to have made our guild's DKP system kind of a moot point. I know some people don't even care about their DKP anymore, since in smaller raids it's usually quite obvious who gets the loot, regardless of the numbers. The only remaining 'problem' would be the perceived unfairness of some long-time, hard-core raiders taking all the loot, creating a rather large gap between them and the slightly more casual players (well, it's fair from a time investment POV, but not from a 'the best equipped players are the ones that get better equipment' POV). But I think I'm disgressing :P
In a previous guild we used "Closed bidding, one bid", but I agree with some others that bidding increases competition/tensions between classmembers. And indeed, the value of the first drop of a particular item is totally out of proportions with the second and third drops.
Technically, I'd say #2 is the preferred option. #1 and #3 are obviously designed to limit Drama, with #3 better at medium term (but complete hell when you start moving up to higher-tiered raids). #1 would possibly cause some anomalies in the few weeks we have until 2.1 goes live. It all depends on your guild and it's attitude towards phat lewts.
The absolute best loot system I ever saw was called 'Sinner Loot'. There was a guy named 'Sinner' who decided who got the loot. Loot drama was solved with /gkick. It worked because Sinner was awesome.
I think too many guilds try and and deal with the problem of loot distribution by constructing a highly elaborate DKP system. These systems all look nice on paper, but in the end you are making a highly elaborate set-up that simply creates it's own problems. EP GP was being paraded around in our guild as the solution to all our loot problems, especially DKP hoarding which has been an issue. But when you REALLY look at EP GP you realize that while it doesn't encourage hoarding for that one great item, it's very very punishing to spending if you are close to 1 GP. Instead of hoarding DKP, you shun GP because an extra 10GP when you are at 1GP, divides your loot priority by 11.
In the end, loot distribution is a HUMAN problem, not an economic one. Making an elaborate economic system to deal with those problems is just trying not to deal with the human issue. I think guilds are far better off having a simple bid system and having someone who's in charge of dealing with bid collusion, DKP hoarding etc on an individual basis.
We use a (iLVL-95)*Slotmod formula for deciding the cost of an item. I will look into this but i might just change the 95 to another number, bringing the prices of the items bought currently close to what they were bought for.
But as we only killed Gruul 3 times and don't use DKP in Karazhan this won't be a problem for us unless the patch is many weeks away.
In the end, loot distribution is a HUMAN problem, not an economic one. Making an elaborate economic system to deal with those problems is just trying not to deal with the human issue. I think guilds are far better off having a simple bid system and having someone who's in charge of dealing with bid collusion, DKP hoarding etc on an individual basis.
I would view optimal loot allocation as an economic problem that's so hard it requires a human solution. And on some level, I think everyone agrees. There are no guilds out there that still use /random to arbitrate their 25 man loot, right? The real question is, "What is the best level to involve humans to maximize optimal loot allocation?" But economics is the study of maximizing material value-- that's why I view loot allocation as economics. You're trying to make sure everyone gets the most material return out of their time investment in raiding. Regarding "Sinner Loot", I've seen that system before as well, called "Loot Council", and it's the third loot system. Some person or group just makes all the decisions. It's the system that has the greatest potential for maximizing loot allocation, but also the most open to abuse.
These three systems (loot council, fixed price, and auction) actually correlate with the three major economic systems in the world, and have their same pros and cons:
Loot Council is Feudalism. Its great if the ruler is moral and terrible if not. Fixed Price is Socialist Planning. Its great if you get the prices just right, although that's very hard to do even when people mean well. Auction is Free Market Capitalism. It's great as long as you don't have any monopolies (a problem people hinted at when saying, "What if only one person wants the loot?").
Sorry for the thread derail. To get back on topic, I think repricing all the items in a zero sum fixed price system is more drama than it's worth. And if the original prices were chosen correctly, it wouldn't have any economic impact on whether people chose to buy items or not. That's because the price differentials reflect the relative increase in item utility. If item A is twice an upgrade over item B, then A should costs twice as many points, after accounting for any upgrade discounts. Since the item review is a linear scaling of item levels starting from 100, the ratio of relative increase should be the same.
To give a concrete example, suppose your baseline item is some ilvl 100 heroic drop. If right now an ilvl 105 item cost 25 points and ilvl 110 costs 50 points, then your guild members are essentially paying 25 points for every 5 ilvls of power they gain. After the revamp, the 105 item has maybe ilvl 106, but the 110 goes to ilvl 112. Now you're paying 25 points for every 6 ilvls gained, which is still fair.
Of course that depends on Blizzard's ability to actually scale the utility of all such items in an evel, linear fashion, so I'm sure some pricing issues will occur. Pricing items is hard.
Our guild ran fixed pricing up until late AQ/Nax. Most of our items were fixed price, but dkp seemed to accumulate and the items ended up being priced too low after a while so that the new people seldom had a chance to get to the top. Also, individually pricing all items got tedious after the first couple of raid instances.
We now are on a bid system, which I was reluctant to switch to. However, it seems to be working a lot better in my opinion. My main concern was that there would be collusion (deal making). We haven't had any problems with that, and to combat this we allowed off classes (healers bidding on dps items, etc) of up to 3xminimum. The token system also helps keep bidding competition on tier pieces.
On downfall of bidding is that it takes long, however our raid leader wrote a pretty fancy bid mod so that everything is streamlined and automated.
05/08/07, 3:28 PM
.
Similar Threads
