I've got a quick query regarding how you guys handle people leaving. At the moment, we've just transferred our DKP system to a zero sum system much like your own. The only real source of inflation was the fact that we were giving people starting DKP, but we've removed that now. The problem comes when we want to remove people as members from the group. The only real way I can see of approaching this is to create another character, like MR. FUCKFACE and giving him any DKP, negative or positive, that a member who's left has accrued. How do you guys handle this?
Right now we just let them sit, and flag them as inactive so they don't show up when we list DKP. But our "zero-sum" system includes people who last raided 16 months ago. When we make our own solution for this, what it will do is give us the ability to flag someone inactive, and then go back and dynamically remove all points earned and spent by that person, as if the items they looted had all been disenchanted and they had never been there. (If they come back, just toggle the flag again.) This way the system will be zero-sum among all active members only.
I've got a quick query regarding how you guys handle people leaving. At the moment, we've just transferred our DKP system to a zero sum system much like your own. The only real source of inflation was the fact that we were giving people starting DKP, but we've removed that now. The problem comes when we want to remove people as members from the group. The only real way I can see of approaching this is to create another character, like MR. FUCKFACE and giving him any DKP, negative or positive, that a member who's left has accrued. How do you guys handle this?
Right now we just let them sit, and flag them as inactive so they don't show up when we list DKP. But our "zero-sum" system includes people who last raided 16 months ago. When we make our own solution for this, what it will do is give us the ability to flag someone inactive, and then go back and dynamically remove all points earned and spent by that person, as if the items they looted had all been disenchanted and they had never been there. (If they come back, just toggle the flag again.) This way the system will be zero-sum among all active members only.
That'd be interesting... when people leave the guild we just redistro their points to re-zero their system. It effects everyone equally so not net effect, it just lets the system add up to zero again, which makes me happy.
Your system sounds far more technically challenging but much better. Are you guys planning on releasing your thing when you you finish coding it for the expansion? The new tracker?
Originally Posted by Praetorian,February 3rd, 2006 @ 9:27AM
1) Incentive to attend wipes: We use the invite system for our incentives, rather than mixing incentive DKP into a zero-sum system, which only causes inflation. If you mysteriously are never available to help learn bosses, you aren't going to get a raid slot for when we're farming them, which means both less loot and effectively a loss of DKP.
Could you not just make a fake character in the system starting at zero and then deduct from him to award points to others for wiping?
Originally Posted by Praetorian
Ok now explain to me how that would not cause inflation.
You're telling me I could take this DKP system and convert it to zero-sum by creating an imaginary player entry "LOLVeryNegative" and giving him -14973.44 DKP? Sweet.
Well, the dummy accounts could earn DKP back over time. For example, suppose a guild learning Razorgore wants to incentivize attendance with zero-sum DKP. They create a dummy account named Razorgore, who "buys the wipe" while they learn the fight. Once Razorgore is down, Razorgore attends Razorgore kills (indeed, one could say that he is the most important participant.) until he's back to zero.
This way, the incentive to wipe on learning is ultimately paid for by those who farm the learned encounter.
EJ probably won't ever need to do this, but smaller guilds, especially on low-pop servers where recruitment is difficult, could find this useful.
I'm rather surprised that I couldn't find this exact idea earlier in the thread. Is there something wrong with it that I haven't seen?
Impowitz's idea seems good though. I'm sure we are about to get the obligatory Kaubel post here though, stating that if a guild needs or uses learning-incentive DKP of any kind they are clearly all scrubs and need to go back to UBRS. Be on the lookout!
'War' is too small a word for what I'm fighting. Like a candle in front of the whole burning Sun. Now, I am not going to die today. I have other projects, and other options.
Anyway, that proposal is indeed a good way of implementing it in a noninflationary manner.
The argument against incentive DKP is that it concedes something that I think a good guild shouldn't: People's primary concern is loot. I find learning a new boss much, much more fun than farming something we've already killed. Farming is what I have to do in order to put myself in a position to be best able to learn the next hard encounter to come along. If your guild is structured such that learning new bosses is viewed as undesirable work for which people have to be rewarded, you're going to have persistent problems going forward.
I very much agree about new bosses being the fun part. And so do lots of other players out there im sure.
But, none the less, I feel most guilds are still based around "People's primary concern is loot". Simply because, it doesnt matter so much if you have 30 players who think that progression is everything, if you got 10-20 others who mostly cares about the loot (not saying they dont like progression at all, in the end, progression also gives them more loot). Those people want the incentive DKP. And without them you wouldnt have progression for the 30 others. (and for your average guild, inviting more of the progression whores is not an option)
Thats how most guilds work I think.
Sure, some guilds have been "lucky" (or good/skilled), and managed to grab a perfect amount of the progression players. But thats not the standard as far as I see it.
Maybe 25 man raids will change that. But I surely doubt it, will probably just make the numbers mentioned before a little smaller, on both sides.
Incentive DKP also encourages people to play poorly on learning nights, to extend the time spent learning and collect DKP for playing badly. I'm not saying that would happen in every guild, but it would certainly happen in quite a few.
I've always given out double DKP for first kills, and used a dummy account to BUY the bonus so that it stays zero sum in the program. That way, I can use an updater to keep the system zero sum, so when I remove an innactive or kicked member, their DKP disappears from the system. Anyone that's been gone for 3 months gets purged unless I know they're coming back, and if someone is gone for 3 months and hasn't told me whether they're coming back... well they really don't belong in a high end raiding guild, now do they? Anyone who gets kicked gets purged instantly.
Pretty much everything I know about DKP I learned from asking Itzlegend like 3 months into the game, but I just strictly disagree with him on using IDKP for nights with 0 kills.
I've always given out double DKP for first kills, and used a dummy account to BUY the bonus so that it stays zero sum in the program.
But is that really zero-sum?
Originally Posted by Lyta
I've been trying to concentrate on studying for my Proof Methods test tomorrow, and all I can think of is your hotness, radiating out from the pixels on my monitor, seared straight into my neurons.
No, of course it isn't. But it allows me to use a script to automatically update old raids when I purge people, without deleting the bonuses. It keeps the system mathematically in check for the purposes of running scripts.
The 'phantom' adjustment was applied if and only if a person crosses a very high points threshold.
It kicks in if you've earned enough points that you can (hypothetically) loot your entire Tier 2.5 set, all of the best items in your other slots out of that zone, and still have a few hundred points to spare (without divulging exact numbers, around 11% more earned points than what it would cost to loot all of that).
We're re-doing our DKP a little early and I'm looking at a system like many people seem to be proposing for the expansion, based on iLvl with an element of subjectivity.
Currently I have adjusted the Slot Mods so that a 1h/OH for casters costs pretty much the same as the equivalent iLvl staff. However because we're running upgrade discounts I'm kind of at a loss as to how to give a sensible upgrade path when 1h/OH/2h all occupy the same 'slot'. I know you previously had Offhands in a seperate slot to swords/staves, but that only really works because your 1h weapons aren't far off your 2h ones.
For instance if I have an iLevel 83 staff and I want to go to an 89 sword, it would actually cost less on its own than my staff did so where's my upgrade path? I also had this problem with hunter 1h/2h, but that's easily solved by putting 2h in a seperate slot to 1h. Doing that for casters seems silly.
A question about your Per-Instance point Caps and Resist Gear: Does EJ's system increase a player's point cap for each instance only by the cost of resist gear purchased in that instance, or does the cost of resist gear increase a player's point cap for -all- instances and bosses?
A question about your Per-Instance point Caps and Resist Gear: Does EJ's system increase a player's point cap for each instance only by the cost of resist gear purchased in that instance, or does the cost of resist gear increase a player's point cap for -all- instances and bosses?
Well, the dummy accounts could earn DKP back over time. For example, suppose a guild learning Razorgore wants to incentivize attendance with zero-sum DKP. They create a dummy account named Razorgore, who "buys the wipe" while they learn the fight. Once Razorgore is down, Razorgore attends Razorgore kills (indeed, one could say that he is the most important participant.) until he's back to zero.
I wanted to post exactly this idea but enver came around to do it.
There are a few ideas that I d like to add to the main idea.
I d like to give a cap to the incentive DKP that can be earned through a boss encounter (like 2 times the average DKP one kill could earn).
I would spread those incentive DKP over the 100% of life a boss has (when you kill him in the first try you get almost double DKP for it, maybe even more because there are now upgrades involved). And give incentive DKP not for time invested but for progress made. One could make the last percentages worth more so that even if the last try was 5% there is 1/10 (or more) of the incentive DKP to be distributed.
This is all a pain in the ass to calculate though...
This would have to be in the Software to be managable.
I am currently in the middle of redrafting our somewhat out of date loot distribution rules. Originally we restricted certain items to certain classes in the early days on BWL, when we like all guilds had the problem with people putting themselves before the guild and progression. Thankfully those days are somewhat over and we are a better guild as a result.
I was looking at changing the item distribution rules ( a typical example is the tear from nef going to a druid, over a mage/warlock which in PVE terms is far more beneficial) and I just wondered what the system is you guys use.
I was looking at changing the item distribution rules ( a typical example is the tear from nef going to a druid, over a mage/warlock which in PVE terms is far more beneficial) and I just wondered what the system is you guys use.
A bit late but:
In the latest raid zone, items are assigned class priorities and are generally fixed that way unless they prove to be unoptimal.
Once better gear can be acquired priority becomes somewhat relaxed. Exceptions are for generaly agreed-upon irreplacable items - read: we're not going to give a Tear to anyone other than a mage or a warlock anytime soon.
Example: when AQ40 was the biggest thing around we generally prohibited priests from taking Oracle unless there was a mitigating circumstance (i.e. we had one shoulder go early to a priest who the Trans shoulders would never, ever, ever drop for). With Naxx open though any priest who wants to get Oracle is welcome to it.
Well no we generally never relax priority on specific items, Oracle is basically the only instance of that happening.
Nah, we do it with leather too. Rogues get dibs on the best available leather for them, but as better stuff comes out druids can get it too. See Boots of the Shadow Flame for a good example.
Qiraji Execution Bracers were looted by a druid this past weekend.
Originally Posted by Lyta
I've been trying to concentrate on studying for my Proof Methods test tomorrow, and all I can think of is your hotness, radiating out from the pixels on my monitor, seared straight into my neurons.
Reading through some of this thread, I noticed you guys mention that you (Elitist Jerks) use a hard cap for DKP. Have you considered using a soft cap? For example, you could consider only the last 6 months of raiding (awards and expenditures) for DKP purposes.
Reading through some of this thread, I noticed you guys mention that you (Elitist Jerks) use a hard cap for DKP. Have you considered using a soft cap? For example, you could consider only the last 6 months of raiding (awards and expenditures) for DKP purposes.
I don't even want to think aboujt implementing that in EQDKP.
Anyway, no, people take breaks, have things come up, and while they aren't going to keep accruing points in the meantime, I see no reason to erase someone's past efforts. I think that looking back at how loot has ended up being distributed in our raid group, I'm overall very satisfied with how that's worked out.
I personally think it's great for dealing with people who take breaks and for bringing in new people, especially if you don't use a zero-sum system. "What have you done for me lately?" is very applicable in an enviroment where come and go. But with a zero-sum system, I can see how it would lose some of it's appeal.
I've been trying to concentrate on studying for my Proof Methods test tomorrow, and all I can think of is your hotness, radiating out from the pixels on my monitor, seared straight into my neurons.
Whats the state of EJ-made software solution for zero-sum DKP ? Can we expect a public version in any forseeable future ?
Originally Posted by zeidrich
Women's breasts can be modeled as a cone and measured as V = (Db^2*h*.785)/3 and since breasts can be thought of as an amorphous fluid, you just have to worry about containing the volume of the breast.
08/13/06, 9:24 AM
Similar Threads
