Attendance proposal

[yelsaewnor]

Inviting people is solving a symptom: lack of members currently. The disease is the lack of reasons for people to come to every run, which needs to be addressed... the root problem: getting people to come to pretty much every run that they're online for.

Lol, just said pretty much the same thing to Heie on the phone about 20 minutes ago. This problem isn't new. It has just been easier to see now that invitees have been closed.

I would rather see a "% attendance over the past X amount of time" system than a point system personally. Such that a new tier would be included ahead of the current tiers.

75%+ attendance> Wearable> 70+ > 60+ > 50+> 40+ > 1+ > Free

Cost point systems (DX) tend to result in accumulations of points which can actually encourage avoidance of runs which don't drop your AF. For example Person A has 60 points built up and the highest cost of a drop is 20 points, so Person A knows they don't need to attend to be able to lot.

Bidding point systems are very unforgiving for those who have a RL issue come up. Say Nekio and Chiiana are both after THF hands. Both attend all runs for 2 months and have 16 points built up. Nekio misses a run in the first week of the third month and thus has only 22 points versus Chiiana's 23 when THF hands drops on the last run of the third month. Under a bidding system only Chiiana would be lotting THF hands even though Nekio has 95% attendance.

A % attendance system refreshs and in so doing encourages steady attendance.

 

[Eticket]

My issue with a pure points system is it doesn't allow any flexibility whereas yel's 75% tier will.

 

[Varda]

A point system would be very fair globally.

No, a point system *might be* very fair globally. There's no guarantee, and it's easy to come up with bad examples.

Plus it makes sense, people who attend regularly should be reward for such diligence. If someone wants gear, they'll attend regularly as well.

If they can.

If a person will not help the LS regularly, why give them an even chance versus someone who is always there when needed?

This is one opportunity to get things wrong. They may not need an even chance, but they do need some chance.

Hypothetical example: Someone who can barely make 50% of the runs in a month, sometimes less (they're actually offline all night). However, their attendance is evenly scattered among all areas, even though all they need is Northlands equipment. Should someone with under 50% attendance be able to lot rare Northlands equipment?

In this case, I say absolutely they should. They've come when they've been available, and they've helped out in lots of areas they didn't need. I've seen rule proposals in another thread that would say they couldn't lot, which bothers me. It's not just this specific case. This was an example not considered when the rules were proposed, and there will likely be other examples later.

Who doesn't want fairness in getting AF and such?

I don't!

Wait, of course I do. Who is going to stand up against fairness? The problem is getting something in place that actually is fair, especially as the definition of fair varies person by person.

P.S. After writing all this, I see a few more messages have been posted. I'm leaving mine as written since it's already too long, but I think it still applies.

 

[Nekio]

Bidding point systems are very unforgiving for those who have a RL issue come up. Say Nekio and Chiiana are both after THF hands. Both attend all runs for 2 months and have 16 points built up. Nekio misses a run in the first week of the third month and thus has only 22 points versus Chiiana's 23 when THF hands drops on the last run of the third month. Under a bidding system only Chiiana would be lotting THF hands even though Nekio has 95% attendance.

And yet I'm guaranteed to get the next pair that drops, no questions asked. I would be excited as hell. And you can bet that I won't be missing any more runs if I can help it, knowing I'm in the points lead.

As for accumulation, I really don't see it as a problem. Northlands drops are much more frequent now, and so what if I accumulate? If I have 100 points saved up and only want THF hands, why should anyone else feel they should get them before me? I obviously am coming to run after run after run for the sole reason of winning that piece of gear, so don't I deserve it? Once I win it, who cares if I have tons of points saved up? I don't have anything else to lot.

Hypothetical example: Someone who can barely make 50% of the runs in a month, sometimes less (they're actually offline all night). However, their attendance is evenly scattered among all areas, even though all they need is Northlands equipment. Should someone with under 50% attendance be able to lot rare Northlands equipment?

This is where I think an attendance requirement fails. Under a point system, that person will eventually get that gear uncontested.

The problem is getting something in place that actually is fair, especially as the definition of fair varies person by person.

Fair to me is getting out of something what you put in. I personally don't want to win a piece of AF over someone that has come to more runs than me, and I don't want to win a bunch of pieces of relic when someone hasn't even won one. That's not fair, and I'm happy to pass to people that are more deserving.

 

[Rubydream]

I would rather see a "% attendance over the past X amount of time" system than a point system personally. Such that a new tier would be included ahead of the current tiers.

75%+ attendance> Wearable> 70+ > 60+ > 50+> 40+ > 1+ > Free
A % attendance system refreshs and in so doing encourages steady attendance.

I never thought about this but I will say that I do like the idea.

 

[Varda]

This is where I think an attendance requirement fails. Under a point system, that person will eventually get that gear uncontested.

True, given enough runs, but not helpful if rdm hats drop every other month and 12 people need them. Not necessarily true when new people with higher attendance percentages start attending. Every other month might be optimistic too; we're 0/4 on pup hats since the ToAU AF2 update, and that's including the run we got 20 AF2.

I know most of what I'm posting is negative, but looking for weird cases where systems can go wrong is part of my job description. I'm more concerned that people realize there are drawbacks and make an informed choice than I am in shooting down specific proposals.

However, it's also a bit of a personal issue. I miss 1-2 runs a month for various reasons, and 3 misses is below the proposed 75% cap. The last few runs I've missed have been Jeuno (which is my most missed), Bastok (which I like and is profitable), and Beaucedine (which I need AF from). I try to spread those 1-2 a month around, and I haven't heard any complaints about my attendance (though now that I've set myself up for it, I'm sure to get a few even if they're just sarcastic ). I don't think I'd be the target of any of these proposals, but I'm worried I might be a casualty of them.

So in the interest of being constructive, here's another idea to consider. If you want to encourage people to attend city runs, give the points or build the percentages from city runs. Maybe something like 60% attendance of the last 5 city runs? Maybe give extra points for city runs, fewer for the remaining areas? Pick incentives that more closely match the outcome we want, or we'll find out all the unusual ways people can game the system.

 

[Heie]

Its nice to see people finally see what we have been talking about. Those are some good + - to both lotting systems. For now gonna leave it as it is and hope that the last few runs we just hit some dry spells with the holidays. By all means though keep discussing this, cause if it isn't a dry spell we will want to move foward with this post haste. Also there is a chance that all this talk of implemnting a system will instill some of the honor lost in honor system.

 

[Zeri]

Oh, so attendance is a problem again? Last I heard, you guys had TOO many people showing up, hence the creation of this thread to um... close dynamis to invitees. And general complaints that there were too many people. As Lexa said, dynamis sucks. It's horrifically long, insanely boring, and in general blech. Hence why I generally hide from it. I help here and there but then saw we were pretty full so hid again. Time for that pendulum to swing back I guess.

While we've got all these ideas on changing the rules, maybe it's a bit extreme where Sass was more on the money. The nice thing about invitees, is not only are they an extra person to help, but they also guarantee their inviter's attendance. I mean, even if you hate dynamis, if you've got a friend who's all starry-eyed and psyched about doing large group battles, kicking ass and relic... you feel like an ass throwing them in without coming to support them. So reopen to invitees first, see if it helps or not, and only then look the change the rules. I had a friend I was looking to drag along till I saw this thread actually...

 

[yelsaewnor]

In my opinion the problem with invitees was not that we had too many people. It was that it encouraged people not to come for city runs. Instead of having a steady group we had invitees coming for 1-2 runs and then not coming again, many Ultima members coming only for Northlands, and a constant flow of new people which means new pearls and time wasted on rule spam and less coordination working as a group.

The reason invites were closed in my opinion was to stop the constant inflow of new people so that we could see if the many people who have come, would come more reliably when they're on. I'm not at all suprised that attendance has now surfaced as a problem, but really that is nothing new.

Edit: Would just like to add. An easy way to see that this has always been a problem. Why would attendance suddenly be a problem when invitees became closed? No member who had already come was turned away. Therefore if we had acheived a steady group there should have been no change in attendance right? The only thing that had been keeping our heads above water was constant new people coming in lotting AF and then disappearing. This is not the way Heie or I would like to see the shell run, we would like to see a group of people who are dedicated to coming not only for the runs where they stand to gain AF which they are interested in but for the runs which they are online for so as to help sponsors and other AF lotters.

 

[Heie]

Inviting new people only patches the problem so speak. It also makes getting AF more competitive which is something we want to avoid.

This is a Dynamis “static” so if you intend to come and lot you are expected to attend any run which happens while you are online

This is under the rules and what we want. We want to make it a static so once say rdm hat drops. All the other people seeking that piece have one less person to lot against. Not get a new person to come in and have the same number of people to lot against. Too many people are picking and choosing runs they want based on AF. I really really don't want to start telling members they can't come cause they are only coming to runs where they want something but it is looking like we will have to do that or implement a system that helps avoid this.

You then have the problem with people like you Zeri. You clearly aren't picking a choosing runs. You are helping out when you can. Which is good and we have no problems with people that do that. Its the people that don't want to help unless they are going to get AF out of it and once they get it they won't come back until they have another piece that they want. This is the problem we are trying to solve.

To add on what yel added on the end. We want people who are willing to help others get AF and not in it just for themselves. People are there every week helping others get AF. But there are some people who are not. We want people who are willing to help others get AF. That when it comes around for you to get AF you will have people willing to help you. Not 15 people ready to do dynamis and lose tons of XP and be frustrated the whole time.

 

[Garret]

Rules do need to be so black & white between % attendance & points. You could implement a point system with an expiration date on points which ends up being a hybrid version of both to some extent. You could award points only in city runs, not for northlands which really encourages people to attend cities if they want northlands af2.

Always a lot more rule options than it seems there are, nothing has to be black & white.

 

[Fiko]

Always a lot more rule options than it seems there are, nothing has to be black & white.

yar. I don't like to apply to these threads when i am MIA from FFXI, as I feel it is not my place, but I will mention 75% is a bit much for some people.. those that can only make Sunday runs, for instance, due to work. yes you can take a wild guess on who I have in mind there.. but I'm sure there are others in a similar situation.. or maybe not. It matters little to me, and I doubt I'll make a big deal of it either way. My content IDs are not active right now so as to save money, just giving you my two cents in the act of fairness.

I also won't dispute the fact of whether or not you need an attendance requirement right now, as I have no clue what is going on inside of FFXI lately, but it sounds pretty bad. Carry on!

 

[yelsaewnor]

Maybe something like 60% attendance of the last 5 city runs?

I have been thinking it over and I think that this more closely meets the goal I was going for with the 75% idea i had. Thanks for posting those ideas V.

 

[Heie]

but I will mention 75% is a bit much for some people.. those that can only make Sunday runs, for instance, due to work.

Thing with this for 75% though for what yel is purposing. You don't need 75% to be able to lot at all. You will need 75%+ attendance to lot first tier. As it is now: Wearable > 70 > 60 > 50 > 40 > free lot.

If things are implimented the way yel wants (Not saying it will be this way) it will go: wearable + 75% attendance > wearable > 70 > and so on as above.

So you will still be able to lot AF just if you are not active you won't get first crack at the hard to obtain AF pieces.

 

[Eticket]

A few people have contacted me in game about this thread and the general need to fix the attendance issue. Most have been in favor of yel's idea. If we have to make a change then that's the way I'd like to go. (especially since they get to track it and not me.)

 

[Sassafras]

Please don't make me do it! Reason I let DX fold & didn't take over was the massive points spreadsheets

I think some of these ideas could work. Even attending 3 out of the last 4 city runs to lot northlands or something. Maybe 2 of the last 4 city runs, just some incentive to get people back.

Dynamis is long & gets boring after a while. Not to mention that drop rates seem to have gone down to what they were before. Seems like we had ton of people pick up with it after the "update," then when things got closer to normal, lost a bunch of people again.

 

[Heie]

Moved from "Close Invitees?" thread as it was derailed big time.

 

[yelsaewnor]

I can keep track of and mantain whatever system we decide to use. No worries Sass.

 

[Zeri]

Again, I'm really an outsider here, but I think just make more requirements for attendance has the opposite of desired effect. You want people to come more regularly, not less. Obvious statement. So as far as motivating people, the eternals of the carrot and the stick. You know what it is, so I won't bore you.

Fact of the matter is, dynamis is a really fucking big stick in and of itself. Adding more requirements becomes another stick. Meanwhile, the "carrots" haven't changed. Some gil or a chance at an AF. So it just creates more disincentive to come. I have a feeling if you implement more requirements, your spreadsheet will look like Nekio's. You'll have your "core team" of 100%ers, and then everyone else is 30% or less. To get everyone else from 30% to 100%, you really need more carrots.

So while we're proposing things, here's my lame idea. Everyone who lots AF, if they get nothing (doesn't drop or whatever), get a share of the post-run gil. Why? Well, first off, makes sure everyone gets something out of dynamis. So it's never a total loss. It's never just a lower buffer. There's a really nice freaking carrot.

But isn't that the risk they take when they select an AF? Well, it is right now. And you've got too few people. Many people just don't have the will power to stick it out weeks and weeks of going for zones they don't need to help others, then losing lots on things they do need to others... it gets damn discouraging. So lessen the blow.

But isn't that unfair to the money lotters? Well, not really. First, they'll be lotting craft items (wootz ore ftw) so will still make more money than losing AFers. Also, as a money lotter when I do go, I'd be willing to take a minor hit to my share to help encourage people to come. I heard about some of the death fests lately. Granted I wasn't in it, but I'd rather never be in one. If my share is 20k less to help motivate people and prevent that, it's a freaking bargain.

 

[Sojourn]

Again, I'm really an outsider here

That's about where I quit