Thoughts on attendance.

[yelsaewnor]

I am one of those who am thinking of joining, but will be able to come "sometimes"... I know there are always others out there like me who are on the lower side of attendance when it comes to rules such as what we are talking about. Shit drops much faster in glacier/xarc, so we are only talking a small time frame before everyone has what they want from there, compared to how it used to be... If it was like it used to be, where 1 BLM hat dropped a year, then yea..

No one is trying to say that people with less time to attend shouldn't be able to come and lot. But as you said "small time frame before everyone has what they want"... so I don't think that implementing this rule would cause such hardship on those with less time to attend. In fact I thought that this increase in drop rates was one of the best reasons to go ahead with implementing it. If only 1 BLM hat dropped a year and you needed high attendance to lot it but you couldn't achieve high enough attendance why would you go at all? But on the other hand if 2-3 drop per month the people who have high attendance should have them soon so even if you can't make the attendance requirement you know that you would still be able to get a hat within a small timeframe.

But we are a need before greed basis, like it has always been, and imo, should stay since we have a small group.

My main concern which has led to the proposal of this idea is that I see our small static asperations slipping away. The reason for rewarding those who have tried to dedicate their time to a small static is to promote the "small group". Otherwise as I've said people come and go, new people are needed and we no longer have a small "static" group.

No offense but no I do not see your counter points. If you would like to add in the pro's and con's i missed I would appreciate it. I want what is best for our dynamis shell and if i missed something in my pro/con post it would be best for the shell if you point out the pro(s) or con(s) of either plan that I missed.

 

[yelsaewnor]

Also, the limbus/dynamis comparison doesn't really work well. The pop and loot systems are a lot more focused in limbus so attendance can have a much greater bearing.

Perhaps that is why attendance to both Ultima and Omega runs is required? People need to be able to look beyond the immediate personal rewards of their actions and help others if they want the support of others in getting the drops that they want.

 

[Fodder]

do not have the patience to see their LS mates who have higher attendance win before them

If you are going to count one person's attendance over another, you need to consider going all the way and implement a point system. This is the only truly fair way to do it if you are going to head this direction. Otherwise how would you account for someone with 100% attendance who won AF the last 5 runs, while not allowing someone with 50% attendance to even lot - that's neither fair nor balanced.

Some people simply don't like doing Dynamis twice a week - it gets repetitive, boring, and tiresome. Taking an all or none stance or imposing a penalty on people for skipping a run or two now and then to do something else isn't going to encourage them to come. They're simply going to look for another shell where they aren't given ultimatums.

Alternatively, anyone only coming to Xarc is likely doing one of two things. 1. Helping their shell mates out when generally more bodies are desired over easy city runs, or 2. Cherrypicking. Those in the first boat might make an effort to make their intent known - if they find their help is undesired they can obviously continue whatever they were doing. Those in the second boat... /toss.

 

[Tarnak]

ultimatums.

I see what you did there


On a featured note i whole heartedly agree with fodder. Some people help anywhere else we can when we are either burned out on dynamising or just unable to make the runs. Thats why i think the previous shell agreed to points it was all about fairness and how to keep it to prevent "i get 5-6 pieces to your 0 because you arent here 100% of the time"


thus part of his saying cons outweigh the pros because how things are viewed can be viewed numerous different ways. It is hard if not impossible to view everyones intent or how they will respond/agree/disagree to rules. With a closed group a small step can send ripples that can affect the whole dynamis shell if it spreads. We saw this before in an open shell so i just offer the advice of "be very careful in the steps made"

 

[Pitlith]

No offense taken, as I said, I don't care to post anything about pros and cons. We can talk/debate all day long until we are blue in the face, but what Fodder says makes sense. By implementing some new rules, you could be hurting things more than helping, even though you have the shell's best interest in mind. I seem to not be the only one who thinks the shell's rules doesn't need changed. Poke at them and ask them to expound on their thoughts. I feel I'm just repeating myself.

Also, this:

...
thus part of his saying cons outweigh the pros because how things are viewed can be viewed numerous different ways.
...

 

[yelsaewnor]

Otherwise how would you account for someone with 100% attendance who won AF the last 5 runs, while not allowing someone with 50% attendance to even lot - that's neither fair nor balanced.

There is nothing stopping that situation from happening now.

Personally I think that an attendance system which refreshs for each cycle ( 2 weeks, month, 2 months or whichever people would prefer) allows for people to be rewarded for attending while still allowing people to join in if changes occur in their schedule.

Obviously there are alot of different ways to implement attendance systems and no system keeps everyone happy all the time. Personally though I would rather the rules favor the people who have been making an effort to come. It seems rather unfair to them to make rules which keep people who don't come frequently happy while frustrating the people who do come frequently.

 

[Eticket]

Perhaps that is why attendance to both Ultima and Omega runs is required? People need to be able to look beyond the immediate personal rewards of their actions and help others if they want the support of others in getting the drops that they want.

lol Why did you guys even start a thread asking for opinions if you already made your decision on it?

I understand the ideology behind this proposal. I just don't think it's as black and white as we're making it seem. There's two sides to people who don't make 100% of the runs. There's people that can't make it due to scheduling and there's people that choose not to go. Not everyone that misses runs is a selfish gint that is only out for themselves. Trying to punish one group will punish both. In my opinion, everyone that attends a run has an equal impact on the run as everyone else. They should be able to reap the benefits of that run just as much as anyone else as well.

 

[Pitlith]

It seems you guys, Yels and Heie, are 100% going to make rule changes, and just unsure which. Are we talking here about what rules should be changed or if rules should be changed. So far, seems the majority of people who have voiced their opinion do not wish things to change.

 

[yelsaewnor]

My mind is not made up on this.

I think that Fodder raises a good point. We would have to be very careful in the exact method we use if we were to implement this.

Several people have mentioned 100% attendance recently. I would just like to clarify that I think 100% attendance requirement would without a doubt create more problems than benefits even if it was on some sort of cycle system.

I'm sorry if I argued my point too strongly. My heart has gone out to a few people who were outlotted on drops and discouraged recently. I mean only to argue their case, not to ignore yours. In fact I welcome people to post their ideas here so that we can see how everyone would stand to be affected by this if it was implemented.

Again this has by no means been decided, I simply wish to put forth a position for people to look at and think about. Every major decision made in this shell thus far has been voted upon. This voting system is something Heie and I are proud of and it is not something which is going to change.

 

[Heie]

It seems you guys, Yels and Heie, are 100% going to make rule changes, and just unsure which. Are we talking here about what rules should be changed or if rules should be changed. So far, seems the majority of people who have voiced their opinion do not wish things to change.

Nothing is set in stone. We are just saying how we want it to be. As of right now nothing is changing. But we feel a change is in order. That doesn't mean something is going to change. We are just trying to get a feel about things. Fodder did make some good points imo.

 

[Tarnak]

Well the thing is no matter what system someone will find a reason to be discouraged. Thats a fact and ive seen it over years of dynamising. However, with higher drop rates in northlands it'll be just like cities over time and not a huge issue. Thats more why i believe people are saying changes wont change it always in a good way.

 

[Heie]

Well the thing is no matter what system someone will find a reason to be discouraged. Thats a fact and ive seen it over years of dynamising. However, with higher drop rates in northlands it'll be just like cities over time and not a huge issue. Thats more why i believe people are saying changes wont change it always in a good way.

This is true. We are just trying to find a system that will encourage as many people as we can and discourage as few people as we can. Not saying that what we are purposing is the way to go or if a system is needed at all. It just feels like there is more that we could we be doing to do what I just said above.

 

[Tarnak]

Yeah my thoughts are as i told a friend. Based upon helping in DX as long as i did and seeing first hand the results any and all rules made as an impact on attendance. This is supposedly a closed shell as such you multiply the repercussions even more as it'll be a lot more noticable of who quits going and the such without new bodies filling in to replace them. I just would hate to see those with personal irl issues or pc issues punished when all they wish is to help others also and wouldnt mind an af reward here or there also.

 

[Eticket]

I'm sorry if I argued my point too strongly. My heart has gone out to a few people who were outlotted on drops and discouraged recently. I mean only to argue their case, not to ignore yours. In fact I welcome people to post their ideas here so that we can see how everyone would stand to be affected by this if it was implemented.

I can understand why people would be discouraged from that. I guess it just depends on the piece and where it came from.

The fact is, we were begging people to show up for months during clears so that we could get to xarc. Then we started asking people to show up for xarc so we could clear there. Like Fodd said, some people came to Xarc just to help with the clear. I'm sure others wanted to come just for the AF. My concern is that implementing a system like this would drive both groups away and we'd be back to square one.

 

[Pitlith]

According to most, we have found that system. Changing anything will clearly discourage more than what are right now. People, at this time, come when they can, some 100%, some on northlands, some half and half. If any change, those with less attendance will likely not come any more just because, and will cause more problems than solutions. Let things go for a couple of months, and then come back if there is a problem. There is a high chance that the majority of people with a problem (which is a very small number from what it seems) will be over it.

 

[Tarnak]

For a small comparison to those that are discouraged look at it from how us long time members see it.

DX recruitment: Open Shell so if members is X then X = Infinite on DX so one person getting af is X-1

whereas in Amitlu Recruitment: Closed so X = members which is a static number so one person gets af its x-1 aka one less person next time as their arent more comming in than af going out.

In comparison there shouldnt be any real issues.

 

[yelsaewnor]

Baelin (m) free sam
Coice
Ehon (m)
Elvier (m)
Eticket (m)
Freyaru rdm
Hakusaku (m)
Halffpint mnk
Heie free drk
Joeboo (m)
Jozi
Kazukas (m)
Kieri (m)
Lilmarz thf free pup
Makenshi drg
Nirian mnk
Pixiehawk (m)
Quinth brd free
Redd (m)
Regn (m)
Rektify free sam
Rubydream (m)
Sansuka (m)
Sarahlynn
Sassafras
Silentsnow (m)
Snuggle (m)
Soundwave
Valgavv
Xaven nin
Yelsaewnor (m)

​

I'll refer to our most recent run since it is already posted in this thread..

Red drops did not go free lot (although some were not lotted at full) 6 drops
Blue drops went to free lot 5 drops

The only drops which this would affect are drops which would have been lotted at first tier. So, to what Tarnak said, people would still be able to get a piece of AF every now and then if their intention was to come and help when they have time. Refering to our last run.. I do not recall right now if any others were lotted before free but not at full but I remember that Halffpint lotted mnk at 60. This means that only 5 drops would have been affected by a tier before our first current tier. 6 would have been free regardless.

This is not exclusive to our last run or even to city runs. If you look back at the archives it is not unheard of for AF to go free lot even in northlands.
​

 

[Garret]

There is nothing stopping that situation from happening now.

Under the current system it would be possible for someone to win AF 5x in a row with others not winning it but the other people would at least get to lot. An attendance policy would essentially guarantee that a person with higher attendance wins 5x AF2 before someone who is not at the same attendance level. Don't think that makes for a fair playing field either. Agree with Fodder that if that's a line to draw a point system makes more sense.

Also, when people are missing runs they hurt themselves anyway. Those are chances at AF2 or currency they are passing up, that are already going to go to the people with higher attendance. If a party really is blatantly cherry picking there's no reason that can't be addressed on an individual level.

Overall I just don't think you should underestimate how difficult it can be to simply get a consistent group of talented people to attend runs. Putting more requirements on top of lotting will make the event seem like more of a chore to many people. Given how repetitive & dull it can be at times for many people I've always thought it more important to make Dynamis as relaxed as possible while still maintaining its efficiecny. If you are being effective on runs already then that's really where you want to be imo.

 

[Lexa]

Seriously, the overwhelming consensus at the moment seems to be "it's fine, don't touch it" with a couple of "if you're gonna do it, do it right and make it a full-on point system." You two seem extremely determined to implement changed regardless of what arguments are being brought up, at the moment. You asked Pit to list his cons - this thread is full of them.

 

[yelsaewnor]

People, at this time, come when they can, some 100%, some on northlands, some half and half. If any change, those with less attendance will likely not come any more just because, and will cause more problems than solutions.

If people are coming when they can and they are coming to help then why would they be discouraged from coming. They would still be able to lot most drops as I showed above. On top of that, even of the people who lotted at full during that run many have about the same level of attendance with only a few exceptions. So for the vast majority of drops I don't think your average person who can't come much would be affected.

I suppose the main difference of opinion here is whether people should have priority on those few high demand drops if they also come to runs where they stand to gain nothing or whether they should not.