Proposed Guild Rules Version 3

[arawn]

Well I Reread everything, so here goes nothing.

I think there should be more than one LC, officers and some people chosen by the officer and of course the leader. I don't think there will be much time lost here betewn msgs because, can always make loot council channel /shrug so all will see all their opinions and decide, it might take more time, but 7 to 10 heads thinking will make a better desition than just one, imo.

I need more candy.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ June 09, 2006 12:00 PM: Message edited by: Kerrir_Furyaxe ]</font>

[Mymy42]

lol alt raid night..now that would be run and include lots of ranger feigning I'll bet. Conred and I on our clerics....bwahaha =PI've always wanted to do an alt raid to smack Naggy/Vox though..*grins*

Hmm...and good point about alts Edi. Maybe..

6) eliminate alts (unless that alt's attendence was required)

...or...

6) eliminate alts
*7) Add an alt raider if their attendence was required for the raid.
*8) Add a raider who has previously received an item this raid, but who is active and needs this item, for the benefit of LDK (determined by loot counsel).

I don't think attendence on weekdays would enable every single LDKer to slide past the attendence rule..we get about what.. 8-12ish people on these weekdays so far? And we get close 18 people or 18+ most every sunday raid. As for tallying I haven't thought that through yet extremely well yet (and I don't have time to right now atm) but having more than one officer do tallies might help...maybe 1 (with 1 designated sub should they not be able to make it) for weekdays and 1 (with sub) on Sunday? Something like that.

Good point about complicated rules Con..I don't think our elimination rounds are complicated though. The first 3 are pretty much a given every time. 5 and 6 are also simple.

4 is the only thing I can see taking longer, and as you mentioned speed on decisions should be reached for..hm. I think the people in LC could use shorthand so to say, though. Like should more than one member say "we should moderate (itemlink)" then the people in LC could respond with (itemlink) #of elimination round.....and that would count as their vote. Majority rules. 3 way tie would also get a little ugly I think..but we'll figure something out.

...if we did it this way, it might be easier to include exceptions into the vote ((itemlink) *# or #* = exception) with this setup:

1) eliminate the class/races that cant use it (obviously)
2) eliminate the raiders who are not upgraded by the item (obviously)
3) eliminate raiders who have looted an item already this raid
*3) Add a raider who has previously received an item this raid, but who is active and needs this item, for the benefit of LDK (determined by loot counsel).
4) eliminate raiders who do not attend raids relatively frequently
5) eliminate nonguildees
6) eliminate alts
*6) Add an alt raider whose attendence to the raid was required

I'd have a more developed idea if I didn't have to go to exams this morning..so catch you later and maybe I'll think of other things. [img]wink.gif[/img]

<font color="#a62a2a"><font size="1">[ June 09, 2006 07:36 AM: Message edited by: Kayeotic Bladesiren ]</font></font>

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ June 09, 2006 07:37 AM: Message edited by: Kayeotic Bladesiren ]</font>

[Catlady]

I think keeping track of raid attendance isnt a bad idea at all. True, having one raid night on Sundays just really isnt enough if you wanna give everyone a chance during the week to attend. I really like the group/raid ideas each night that ya'll planned this week. I think its a great idea and gives more people a chance to attend and event, and I think it should be included in the raid attendance count. I, for one, cant be at an event every night. I also like times to play my alts in the evenings as well, but I commit myself to Sunday night raids with my main.
Also if you decide to keep a record of raid attendance, you might need more than one officer to do this. What happens if the appointed officer is ill or something and cant attend the raids? Or maybe the officers can have their own private forum (if they dont already) to post these records so all officers have access to them.
The loot rules: I dont really see an issue with the proposed loot rules.
Know what would be fun: we could have an alt raid night. hehe

[Gludain]

2 questions from [img]graemlins/music.gif[/img]

1. are we gonna delete alts
and
2. can we add more alts

[arawn]

1) members alts no, 2) member alts sure.

[Gnomency]

I figured I'd post this as an alternate choice to this mess you guys are making about the loot distribution. Its controllable by one person, who is awake hopefully, and so far as I've seen seems to work out pretty well. Its a three tiered looting system designed it seems to try and get loot where it is most useful to the guild.

The tiers go like this:
1) Mains
2) Apps
3) Alts

The way it works is for about a minute, maybe two, the loot enters the first tier and all the mains that want to roll on it can. If no one does then it moves to the next tier, the apps tier. Here the apps have a minute or two to roll on the item and if they don't it falls down to the last tier which is kinda like open season, any alt present or their main that can run the alt there can roll on it here. If absolutely no one rolls its given to rot or stolen for guild bank.

All this system really requires is one person to watch the rolls and announce what item, what tier its in and finally who wins it. No fourteen officers and LCs bickering over who gets what were when and maybe forty mins after the mob dies the loot is finally given out that just slows the raid down when you are trying to hit more than one target that actually has loot.

Oh, I forgot to mention a win on either of the first two tiers disqualifies you from looting again for the raid until everyone has won something or it falls in to the last tier.

So yah, I've seen the system work. It does keep stuff that helps the guild the most where it belongs rather than having someone make off like a bandit or having soandso's alt that is camped in the bazaar be allowed to roll on something unless its direly needed (Read: Falls to far). And best of all it allows our new apps to get things but without just joining, stealing a load of stuff they need from our raids and bolting.

The only other thing I'll add is that there should be some exceptions, say tradeskill items and droppable loot that would best benefit someone who can't be there that night and isn't an upgrade for someone immediately present. That way the droppable loot isn't getting stolen and put up on bazaar alts for personal profit while someone who could actually really have used it is left out.

[Frostmourn]

WOW... it seems iv missed alot sence iv been moving and making a stride to become GM... [img]smile.gif[/img] . alot of rules.... alot of sub things to cover under them... looks like you all are handling it well [img]smile.gif[/img] .ugh... i really shouldnt read that much at 5am... anyway.. just really wanted to say high.. and it looks like with all the new regulations/rules and such LDK is becoming what it was when i first joined.. a strong disciplined team [img]smile.gif[/img] . (hope i spelled that right [img]tongue.gif[/img] ) i hope to talk to all of you sometime... cant really play... just finished unpacking and setting up comps.. you can hit me up on AIM anytime SN is "Fiercedides". thats about it. talk to you all again sometime soon i hope [img]smile.gif[/img] . takecare and keep up the good work. bye [img]graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

[Frostmourn]

i have one question about your statement gnomer... what is someone who has a main in the guild attends the raid on a alt? now with that said. what if the item drops and the main needs it but he is currently on his alt but!!!! hes/her main could make it before it rotted? or.. would he/she not be able to roll on anyting untill it fell into the alt tier? not trying to stur anything up [img]tongue.gif[/img] .. i just remember an incident where Mraces father had a main ranger and alt cleric. raid needed the cleric but they had the very same loot system you just mentioned.. there by making it so his cleric cant recieve loot but him having to play a alt to help the raid. fair? to some or else it wouldnt have happened right? just another one of those sub things to think about [img]smile.gif[/img] GL!! hehe....

[Conred]

I think...
... if your character (alt or main) is in the raid and can use the item then he/she should get a chance (notice I said CHANCE) on a drop. Period.
... if a character is eliminated from rolling because of a previous win then the LC should be able to make exceptions. (Version 3 allows that).
... the purpose of the LC is:
1) Decide if the item should go to a specific character. If not...
2) Announce the roll for the item making sure all who roll can use the item.
3) Announce the winner.

... no matter how you cut it, the decision to give loot "for the good of the guild" is based on a players opinion and cannot be measured. We must trust the LC's decision on that. More than one LC will reduce the favoritism that can exist... but not eliminate it.

... keeping record of raid attendance will soon become a nightmare. For example: Let's say Kay is our recordkeeper and now she will be gone 5-6 days in Florida (and dint invite us along). Who gonna keep the records in that time? Where they gonna be posted so that all can see? Is being in a pickup raid the same as coming to the Sunday night raid?

Anyways, I am more than willing to redo the rules on raid loot distribution...if you guys can decide how you want to handle it. Suggest officer meeting?

Was fun doin the rules, btw. Thx again for your inputs guys. I read every post.

[Conred]

Im gonna try to get a Version 4 out. Dunno when, tho. I will try to define the Loot Consul more and also come up with a "ranking" of distribution for the LC.
I am going to assume the rest of Ver 3 is acceptable to all so I will just concentrate on the Raid Loot section.