Revision of Attendance System?

I don't think it's a bad idea that if a person has 100% attendance that they can have a tier they can lot before the others, or if they do lot that tier that they spend their attendance percentage so that they are not doing it every single run, and they will need to rebuild their attendance again.

For example, I don't think it would be fair that one of our PLDs who goes to every single run, and does their job well on PLD and multiple other jobs, should be outlotted by someone who happens to have the PLD job leveled, and is floating around the 50%-60% attendance area, for lotting a valor surcoat. That extra 40%-50% of time and work that is being put in should be considered and put in perspective. It doesn't seem fair that X person with 100% has the same lotting priviledge as a person who has just made it past 50%. It almost seems that if this is acceptable, then why bother having level tiers like 75 > 70> 60>? Because to me it's no different. A person who always shows up 100% for our static, and is reliable, should have some perk of some kind I would think over someone who attends only half the time, regardless of why they can't show up, RL or because they want to go mack the fly honeys.

As well, if a person cannot attend 100% for any reason, I don't think having something like this is penalizing them, and really they shouldn't be feeling this way imo. It should be understood that you get what you put in. If someone didn't farm sky pops because they weren't able to play for whatever reason, should they be allowed to lot the Byakko's haidate when they drop because they went and found a curtana one day? It's a matter of getting back what you put in. And if you use up all your attendance to lot that one piece you've been after or years and years, there's no way to abuse it with something like this.

Eventually everyone will get what they want over time if we keep at it. The AF will drop. But there's some zones and some pieces that just do not drop as readily as others, and something like this would be good to have to keep things fair. It's along the same lines as why we changed how wootz ores are lotted now. To keep things fair and just.

I dunno .. I'm just a firm believer that you get rewarded for the time, effort, and work that you put in. When I go to work for 4 hours, I don't get paid for 8 hours. I wish I did though .. that would be tight!
 
I am sure people would disagree with me but right now the only really hard in high demand AF in my mind is thf hands and pld body. I am sure someone people would say what about rdm hat? We have gotten a lot of hats lately though and I think only about 2-3 people who have been trying for a really long time need it. Not to say more people don't want it. I see rdm hat droping in teir calling a lot sooner then pld and thf in xarc though.
Everyone keeps forgetting blm hat.... I've been trying for over 15 months, and I know others have been trying much longer. When it dropped last and Sass beat another lotter and me, she mentioned that she'd gotten lucky because 3 of the people who usually comment it weren't present. So that's 5 blm hats we still need for people who always comment for it, not to mention other people who might need it but are currently lotting pld/mantle or somesuch.

I don't see that piece dropping tiers anytime soon (though I'd dance with joy if I'm wrong and we had a sudden hat deluge).
 
As well, if a person cannot attend 100% for any reason, I don't think having something like this is penalizing them, and really they shouldn't be feeling this way imo. It should be understood that you get what you put in. If someone didn't farm sky pops because they weren't able to play for whatever reason, should they be allowed to lot the Byakko's haidate when they drop because they went and found a curtana one day? It's a matter of getting back what you put in. And if you use up all your attendance to lot that one piece you've been after or years and years, there's no way to abuse it with something like this.
It's most definitely penalizing them. It might not be fair for someone who hovers at 55% attendance to lot on an equal basis with someone at 100%. However, it's also not fair for someone who has to miss a single run each 8 weeks to have exactly 0% chance of getting one of the hotly contested items. How many months will go by before they have any chance at it? There's no telling. What incentive do they have to keep up 90% attendance when they get 0% back from it?

I dunno .. I'm just a firm believer that you get rewarded for the time, effort, and work that you put in. When I go to work for 4 hours, I don't get paid for 8 hours. I wish I did though .. that would be tight!
I don't expect pay for hours I don't work, and I don't expect gil or items from runs I can't attend. I do expect reasonable compensation for reasonable effort.

I certainly don't expect zero compensation when "best effort" is reasonable but not perfect.

Aside from fairness, there are other considerations. The reason we have the attendance system is because we need certain numbers of people at certain runs so everyone can get what they want across all areas. The system seems to have smoothed out the attendance problems we were having, so it appears to be working fine. Giving a big disincentive to people who can't make every run would work against this.
 
I see your point V but it goes both ways. At the same time it seems that people who are there 100% are being penalized by the fact that they have the same lotting rights as someone who only comes half the time for whatever reason. Like it's been said before, there's really no way to make everyone happy and we're kinda damned it you do, damned if you don't.

The system that we have going atm is good, don't get me wrong, but I do find it somewhat surprising that it would be viewed as a penalty to others for rewarding people for putting their time in and being there 100%, and giving the same perks to someone who has less attendance.

Also it doesn't even have to be 100% ... I think Yels mentioned a tier of 75% or something. Just seems to be such a huge range to have a 50% person and a 100% person have the exact same lotting tier. Perhaps I am missing something when it comes to this but it just doesn't seem fair.
 
Except SE who likes to lot at tier 1+ !!.

What?! Have I really earned that label?? =(

But if we end up trying a 100% tier, there would still have to be some weight to that. Like, OK, it's great that we have a few players who make it to every single run. However, it would NOT be fair if one of those players got, for example, the only RDM body from beaucedine, then the only RDM hat from Xarc, then the only RDM belt from Dunes in 3 consecutive runs. If we were to add a tier like this, what if we made it a credit-based sytem? Bascially, by attending 8 consecutive runs to receive 100% attendance, you would then earn 1 credit towards lotting in a new first tier. Then upon winning an item from said tier, the credit is expired, and from that point, you must attend another 8 (or whatever interval) runs to earn another credit.

Now, having said that, I would also like to add that I personally feel the current system needs no change.
 
I think the system we have is working very well to encourage attendance. If we change to a higher percentage rate, I'm afraid we'll go back to fighting to have 18 players available for runs.

As to adding a tier for lotting at higher attendance, I also think that would discourage rather than encourage attendance.
 
I agree with Sass.

I think there ARE times when you'll have to miss out on runs because it clashes with something that falls on that schedule, or something can unexpectedly happen. Just because someone has 100% attendance, I don't think that means someone with less that percent is any less deserving... especially if they're good at their job.
 
Polls have been closed, sacs will discuss where we will go from here.
 
Back
Top