Welcome to Crestfall Gaming

Register now to Crestfall Gaming. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Burin

Member
  • Content count

    3
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About Burin

  • Rank
    Private
  1. I may be weird but I would actually like to see what's not working yet. To have a good idea of what’s left as well as showing that the dev team is confident in its capacity to fix it. Who knows, maybe you will even get feedbacks on people outside the beta on how to fix some of the bugs. That would be one hell of a transparency and really hype me about the project.
  2. The main issue I see with your reasoning and this system is that you consider the most effective way in WoW to make gold is to farm and do dungeons. This assumption is wrong, it has been shown over the years that the richest people in wow are the one that play the AH game. And the difference isn't a few dozen or even hundred gold, it can be counted in thousands of gold or even tens of thousand of gold later in the game. Now how can such a system work when a new recruit can have more loot power than all the other members reunited ? You cripple your progress because loots are monopolized by those who are good at making gold (which has no link what so ever to being good at the game), ensue people leaving because they cant keep up with the few players that amassed mountains of gold. Not only that, this discourage free trade within the guild, which means people selling items full price to others member. This may be fine with but this is very from the idea I have of a guild. Moreover, people playing AH wont help other in dungeon because, well, its not gold worth compared to what they could be doing at the AH or farming to further ensure their monopoly of a server resource. To counter that you NEED someone policing the attribution of loot and internal relation, and this is exactly what a Loot Council does (even if yours has very low decision-making power, it still is a loot council). Except instead of having a LC + DKP system which rewards attendance, yours will reward selfishness, because in WoW much like real life to make gold you need at some point to be selfish. As for my personal opinion, like it has been said before a transparent LC is the best loot attribution, because you can fine tune the criteria considered according to your guild needs. If you just raid for fun, you may want to reward the guy that entertain everyone or the ones that do all the organization without whom no one can raid. If you raid for progress, you may want to reward attendance and performance. If you want to build a tight community, you may want to reward seniority in the guild, ... Loot Council really is the most flexible and therefore theoretically the best loot system. However it's hard to fine tune because of all the parameters that cant be measured and weight toward each other. That's why less hardcore guild will opt for an easier to understand but flawed DKP. In my opinion pure DKP is an heresy because you just deter any new member joining your guild, which is really bad. If you go DKP, just like with gold you need someone or a group of people to monitor loots so that the MT wont get the priest robe BiS just because he thought it would look pretty on him. Same during progress, you want to make sure your tank gear goes to tank and not dps that want to make the switch. No matter what loot system you chose, I believe a Loot Council or Loot Police is a necessity for the well-being of the majority of players (and the health of your guild). That's why I believe that any guild that defines itself as semi-hardcore or below should go with either monitored DKP or my personal preference : LC roll, basically you call an item for what it is (+1, +BiS, ...) and the LC decide who is allowed to roll the item, therefore you greatly reduce corruption (outside of punishment for non attendance / bad performance / ... there is really only one criteria that can be checked by everyone). +BiS trumps all, then +1 > +2 > +PvP... You can fine tune if one member has been particularly lucky with his roll, forbid a player to roll because of slack, ... Two issues with this are that it does not reward performance (you can fine tune it to do so but you lose in transparency doing so), and you lack incentive to come once you get all you BiS, because you know you wont be able to get your +2 gear as long as everyone in the raid hasn't obtain it as a +BiS. But can a semi-hardcore guild of 40 player really get full BiS on most of its player before the release of next content ?
  3. This was probably decided so that groups can be created as fast as possible without leaving anyone behind. Assuming the big pictures of classes were designed beforehand and that the healer/tank/dps trinity was also one of the first game design decision made for the game, you would have 9 classes spread around 3 roles. Once you add the role that each class is capable (you must always remember that this is early development process so you cant enter into the viable/not viable spec, you just have the big picture and numbers will follow later) of performing, you get : 2 tanks (Warrior, Druid) // I think we can assume that since Shaman cant, for Alliance/Horde balance sake, Paladins were never designed to tank, and that their Protection branch was just a way to get a tanky healer type 4 healers (Priest, Druid, Paladin, Shaman) 9 dps (All classes have at least one spec to allow them to fill this role) Now, when a game is just released, most people know about nothing about the game beside how the saint trinity works. So you can easily assume that each class-role combination will have about the same popularity (especially since you can respec into another role with most class, class distribution should be equi-proportional). This give us the following player repartition 3/(2+4+9) = 2/15 = 13.3% of players are expected to be tank 4/(2+4+9) = 4/15 = 26.7% of players are expected to be healer 9/(2+4+9) = 9/15 = 60% of players are expected to be dps Since we are locked in the tank/healer/dps trinity, no matter how many members your group have, you must always have at least one tank, one healer, one dps. Now when you project this in a 5 man group, you get 20% of the group is tank, 20% is healer and 60% are dps. Numbers are pretty close and seems to match previous results. The difference with expected results is 13.4% (6.7+6.7+0). Now with a 4 man group, 25% of the group is tank, 25% is healer and 50% dps. That is a difference of 23.4% (11.7+1.7+10) with ideal expectations. And finally with a 6 man group. First assuming 1 tank, 2 healers, 3 dps, 16.7% of the group is tank, 33.3% of the group is healer and 50% of the group is dps. Thats a difference of 20%. And with a 1 tank, 1 healer 4 dps group you get a difference of 20.1%. As you can see ideally, the 5 man group is the easiest to get a full group with. Followed by the 6 man which while offering flexibility in the build (you can run 1 or 2 healer) will prove itself be harder to tune, as well as being quiet far from the ideal group distribution and take more time to finish the group. Slightly off topic since up to here it was all about 5 man groups. But this role distribution also reflects on 40 man groups to a certain point : 0.133*40 = 5.3 tank 0.267*40 = 10.7 healers 0.6*40 = 24 dps Ill let you draw your own conclusion on this last note since no one was in Blizzard office when the decision was made and my theory entirely based on the assumption that 1. Class and class roles were designed before deciding how many players compose a dungeon group 2. All class-role combination were meant to have about the same popularity among player PS : I know Alliance and Horde both have 8 available class (which throws off the probability a bit) but when the decision was made we have no way of knowing if they were planning to make Paladin and Shaman available for both faction or if they were planned as Faction specific from the beginning. Anyway, this doesn't change much since I just tried to show the big picture of the reasoning.