B
BlitheringIdiot
Guest
- Thread starter
- #31
Well there goes any chance of us looking even remotely professional... 
A
Archeon
Guest
- Thread starter
- #32
Originally posted by BlitheringIdiot
Well there goes any chance of us looking even remotely professional...
No, raid uniform will be clow suits and we'l make our way to TG in those tiny cars
S
svartmetall
Guest
- Thread starter
- #33
Originally posted by Archeon
No, raid uniform will be clow suits and we'l make our way to TG in those tiny cars
lol
but sob, sniff at yet AGAIN never getting on TG raid.
V
Vell
Guest
- Thread starter
- #34
It's impossible. No-one is sexier than Archy. He is teh ubar leet sexeh!
Ahem.
I want a skald sword by the way. Hope that's ok since I'll be going as teh ubar leet healer!!!11 Not quite as ubar leet as Archy, but nearly.
Ok, I'll stop being an idiot now
Oh, and Svartmetall, you obviously need to join an ubar leet guild!!!11one!
Ok, ok, really, I'll stop it now. Because I've run out of things to say.
B
BlitheringIdiot
Guest
- Thread starter
- #35
She isnt really our gm... 
H
Haldar
Guest
- Thread starter
- #36
Lotto rules change suggested
i offer to disband the 'one vote per round of lotto' rule, due to several reasons
1) someone will need to keep track of all people who went to lotto-maker and cast their vote - to halt them if they decide to vote again (due to any reason - cheating or forgetfullness or the lack of attention)
2) on a last raid we had, as i remember, 4-5 rounds of lottoing. in 1st and 2nd round a person can vote for the item he/she can use, in the following rounds - for any item. that looks good on paper, but...
suppose we have a pile of, lets say, 10 loot items, including Reactive Harm Turning Tincture and Agmundr's Foe Slayer Sword. Tincture goes as item #1, 2/3 of ppl vote for it, one wins, other sit till next round. Sword goes as #2, other 1/3 ppl vote, one wins, other wait. But no more unvoted ppl left! - so we'll have to start 2nd "fair" (vote for he/she can use) round - while a good 80% of items haven't been looked upon!
ANother example. Lets say we have 3 SBs on raid, and 3 SB items drop. item #1 goes for lotto, all 3 vote, 1 wins, 2 wait. at round 2 both vote for item #2, one wins, last SB waiting. But in 3rd round all can vote for SB-specific item, and the item goes to another class who cant use it - just bcoz his /random value was higher. unfair imho.
3) this system - without '1 vote per round' rule - was used on one joint RG-BC TG raid. and it worked good. And if we drop it - more items will go to new owners with the "fair" (class-specific) way in my 1st example, and all 3 SBs will get something that fits them in my 2nd example.
what do u think about it?
i offer to disband the 'one vote per round of lotto' rule, due to several reasons
1) someone will need to keep track of all people who went to lotto-maker and cast their vote - to halt them if they decide to vote again (due to any reason - cheating or forgetfullness or the lack of attention)
2) on a last raid we had, as i remember, 4-5 rounds of lottoing. in 1st and 2nd round a person can vote for the item he/she can use, in the following rounds - for any item. that looks good on paper, but...
suppose we have a pile of, lets say, 10 loot items, including Reactive Harm Turning Tincture and Agmundr's Foe Slayer Sword. Tincture goes as item #1, 2/3 of ppl vote for it, one wins, other sit till next round. Sword goes as #2, other 1/3 ppl vote, one wins, other wait. But no more unvoted ppl left! - so we'll have to start 2nd "fair" (vote for he/she can use) round - while a good 80% of items haven't been looked upon!
ANother example. Lets say we have 3 SBs on raid, and 3 SB items drop. item #1 goes for lotto, all 3 vote, 1 wins, 2 wait. at round 2 both vote for item #2, one wins, last SB waiting. But in 3rd round all can vote for SB-specific item, and the item goes to another class who cant use it - just bcoz his /random value was higher. unfair imho.
3) this system - without '1 vote per round' rule - was used on one joint RG-BC TG raid. and it worked good. And if we drop it - more items will go to new owners with the "fair" (class-specific) way in my 1st example, and all 3 SBs will get something that fits them in my 2nd example.
what do u think about it?
V
Vell
Guest
- Thread starter
- #37
In that case, the order that the items were lotto'd in woul dbe crucial. Lets say, as in your example, the reactive is lotto'd first and the sword second.
Now, I may really really really want the sword, but since I can vote multiple times in a round, and the chance of me getting the sword is pretty low, I figure I may as well roll for the tincture too.
Luckily, or not so luckily, I win the tincture. Now that means that i can't roll for the sword, which was the item I really wanted. You might say 'tough, you rolled for the tincture, if you didn't want it, you shouldn't have rolled'. Fair enough, but lets look at it the other way:
I don't roll for the tincture, and someone else wins it. good for them. now the sword comes up for lotto, and someone who has already rolled on the tincture thinks 'ah, what the hell, I didn't get the item I wanted so may as well roll on this one', rolls, and wins.
This way, someone who didn't especially want the item wins it over someone who wanted the item more than any other, which imo, is a bit silly.
Doing it Archeon's way - you have to choose which item you like the most, and roll for that. The item is guaranteed to go to someone who really wants it.
Of course, the items that get carried throgh to the other rounds do not have these guarantees, but the fact that the items were carried through in the first place shows that no-one really wanted them anyway.
So it is my opinion that we use Archeon's rules, since it is his raid anyway. If you don't agree with the lotto rules - which were posted in the original post - then perhaps you shouldn't have signed up?
Now, I may really really really want the sword, but since I can vote multiple times in a round, and the chance of me getting the sword is pretty low, I figure I may as well roll for the tincture too.
Luckily, or not so luckily, I win the tincture. Now that means that i can't roll for the sword, which was the item I really wanted. You might say 'tough, you rolled for the tincture, if you didn't want it, you shouldn't have rolled'. Fair enough, but lets look at it the other way:
I don't roll for the tincture, and someone else wins it. good for them. now the sword comes up for lotto, and someone who has already rolled on the tincture thinks 'ah, what the hell, I didn't get the item I wanted so may as well roll on this one', rolls, and wins.
This way, someone who didn't especially want the item wins it over someone who wanted the item more than any other, which imo, is a bit silly.
Doing it Archeon's way - you have to choose which item you like the most, and roll for that. The item is guaranteed to go to someone who really wants it.
Of course, the items that get carried throgh to the other rounds do not have these guarantees, but the fact that the items were carried through in the first place shows that no-one really wanted them anyway.
So it is my opinion that we use Archeon's rules, since it is his raid anyway. If you don't agree with the lotto rules - which were posted in the original post - then perhaps you shouldn't have signed up?
H
Haldar
Guest
- Thread starter
- #38
So it is my opinion that we use Archeon's rules, since it is his raid anyway. If you don't agree with the lotto rules - which were posted in the original post - then perhaps you shouldn't have signed up?
if i sign up for the raid - i agree with the rules, whatever they are. but i think that with my suggestion it will be fairer for all.
This way, someone who didn't especially want the item wins it over someone who wanted the item more than any other, which imo, is a bit silly.
my second example shows exactly same situation which may occur with current rules.
i forgot to add - on that RG-BC raid items were lottoed by an order - from less to more desirable. From enamels to weapon drops.
if i sign up for the raid - i agree with the rules, whatever they are. but i think that with my suggestion it will be fairer for all.
This way, someone who didn't especially want the item wins it over someone who wanted the item more than any other, which imo, is a bit silly.
my second example shows exactly same situation which may occur with current rules.
i forgot to add - on that RG-BC raid items were lottoed by an order - from less to more desirable. From enamels to weapon drops.
V
Vell
Guest
- Thread starter
- #39
If you agree with Archeon's rules, then what are we debating?
Z
zmurf
Guest
- Thread starter
- #40
It's archeon's raid and his rules, but changing the rules after alot of ppl have signed up, nomatter if it's his own idea or someone elses he find's right, is WRONG since ppl may not read update's on bw enough and may disgaree and end up at a raid with lotto rules they disagree with and therefor waste their time (yes i believe beeing on a raid u disagree with is a waste of time nomatter what the outcome is)
G
Gorb
Guest
- Thread starter
- #41
I think archeons way is better. I tried that other way once. And the last item was seething frostbound hammer
Attributes: HP:+48, Power:+8
Resistances: Crush:+8%
Skills: Hammer:+4
It is clearly ideal for a thane or a skald, but because this was the last item, all healers, shamans, and warriors who hadn't won anything lottoed for this item. And a healer got it. I think that this method isn't good cause a class that dosen't gain good advantage from an item (except financial) can lotto for it just because he hasn't got anything to lose (his favourite item was lottoed earlier). At the time I lottoed for that hammer there where 11 peeps trying to get it, and only 2 of us where hybrids.
Felt kinda lame after that lottery (had second highest roll)
Attributes: HP:+48, Power:+8
Resistances: Crush:+8%
Skills: Hammer:+4
It is clearly ideal for a thane or a skald, but because this was the last item, all healers, shamans, and warriors who hadn't won anything lottoed for this item. And a healer got it. I think that this method isn't good cause a class that dosen't gain good advantage from an item (except financial) can lotto for it just because he hasn't got anything to lose (his favourite item was lottoed earlier). At the time I lottoed for that hammer there where 11 peeps trying to get it, and only 2 of us where hybrids.
Felt kinda lame after that lottery
(had second highest roll)
A
Archeon
Guest
- Thread starter
- #42
Re: Lotto rules change suggested
I think Zmurf more or less summed up my feels on this, the main problem i can see with that lotto system would simply be the number of people voting on an item. If you could roll more than once then chances are there would be 10-12 people /randoming on each item.
I suppose in a way that does improve the chances of getting an item. But then again it lowers the chances for the people that really want the item (so much to the point their willing to /random on it and lose the choice to roll on anything else).
As for the order in which i'l do the items, well during the hunt i'l be macroing them all so that when the lotto starts i can spam the stats of all the items quickly so you can see what they all are (stats-wise, etc, etc). So it doesn't matter what order they'l be in because you'l be able to see everything we got and choose which item you want to /random on before the actually lotting starts.
Anyway, just my thoughts on it. But for this raid the lotto system won't be changing from its current format.
I think Zmurf more or less summed up my feels on this, the main problem i can see with that lotto system would simply be the number of people voting on an item. If you could roll more than once then chances are there would be 10-12 people /randoming on each item.
I suppose in a way that does improve the chances of getting an item. But then again it lowers the chances for the people that really want the item (so much to the point their willing to /random on it and lose the choice to roll on anything else).
As for the order in which i'l do the items, well during the hunt i'l be macroing them all so that when the lotto starts i can spam the stats of all the items quickly so you can see what they all are (stats-wise, etc, etc). So it doesn't matter what order they'l be in because you'l be able to see everything we got and choose which item you want to /random on before the actually lotting starts.
Anyway, just my thoughts on it. But for this raid the lotto system won't be changing from its current format.
A
Archeon
Guest
- Thread starter
- #43
Just a shameless bump, also anyone that is unable to attend please tell me. Preferably sooner than 15mins before the hunt starts
S
svartmetall
Guest
- Thread starter
- #44
I'm gonna PM to see if there's a spot going...