Talk:DKP

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Another Point

A discussion of the complications arising when multiple guilds which have DKP scaled differently (or worse.. implemented completely differently) raid together would be interesting here.

-dkp of both guilds normalized together? (ignoring the fact that one guild raided an instance twenty times as much as the other guild) -more complicated, less elegant solution which figures out how the dkp is scaled and normalizes that. -i haven't heard this issue talked about before

[edit] An Opinion

After reading this article, I just had to voice my opinion. I find it absolutely abhorrent that time is being converted into nothing more than bits in a database. This group of systems is impressive in that they are highly complex from economic and social standpoints. Many people could learn a lot about economic theory and social dynamics from studying this. lol

[edit] Zero-Sum

Zero-Sum DKP is actually the first form of DKP, created by the guild Afterlife ( http://www.afterlifeguild.org ) in early EverQuest. Not sure why it's listed in 'other forms of DKP'...

Also, the point behind a no-bid (fixed price?) system is that it keeps the cost on items the same rather than having them fluctuate from week to week. For this reason alone, many long time DKP guilds frown upon the use of a bid system, as more often than not it creates more drama than it should (e.g. Oh my God I Payed 2000 DKP for that sword and he got it for 12?!).

72.16.149.209 14:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the intent of fixed price DKP is described in the article. If you feel that it could be made more clear, of course this is Wikipedia, please do so. Afterlife actually uses a very complex probablistic zero-sum DKP system. While it's true that this may have been the first (or, at least the first to be called DKP), it does not, I believe, represent accurately the more widely used DKP systems, and starting with the simple "Basic DKP" system I think lends itself to clear exposition. --Readams 18:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zero-Sum II

The matrix that displays the features of various DKP systems is incorrect. In Zero-Sum DKP, you can award points for ontime, attendance, whatever you want. You simply need to use dummy items and dummy raiders.

Let me use my guild as example. We want to award 0.2 DKP to everybody that is online and at Molten Core 15 minutes before the scheduled raid start time. Let's say 34 people were online for this bonus. Take the number of people eligible for the bonus DKP (34) and multiply it by the amount you want to award to those players (0.2). 0.2 * 34 = 6.8 Now, create a dummy item in your system that has a fixed DKP value of 6.8. Have a dummy boss drop that dummy item and have the dummy player win that dummy item. The dummy raider pays the 6.8 DKP, thus awarding 0.2 to the 34 players.

This method lets you award any amount of DKP to any number of players for any reason.

Note: You can use the same Dummy Boss/Raider for every bonus, or you can create a boss and raider for each type of bonus - it's all aesthetic anyway. The only thing that matters is the item; you'll need to create a new item for each differing value. We've awarded bonus DKP for disenchanted loot, attempted-but-failed bosses, and of course the on time bonus.

You can of course award points however you want, but it's not zero-sum any more :-) The intent of the matrix was to show that there are a number of possibilities of how to construct a DKP system, and to make it obvious that you could use one not specifically described. --Readams 18:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
With this kind of dummy system you end up with a non zero sum DKP. i.e. you end up with DKP inflation, which is bad in the long run. People are being awarded points that no one is charged for, which ends up making it a positive sum instead of 0. A better way to do that would be adjusting the extra points out. For example, lets say you have an on time bonus of 1 point. 20 people show up on time, so you award them 20 points. There are 60 people total in your DKP system, so you subtract 1/3rd of a point from EVERYONE (including the people that arrived on time) and award a full point to the people that arrived on time. Since everyones points went down by the same amount, people are still in the same relative positions they were to each other before, and you gave out your on time bonus without giving in to inflation. 129.8.135.245 18:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
You can retain the Zero Sum for 'on time bonus' but need to award the dummy item to a late player, you may see this as a penalty but it fits the system just fine. Similarly you can award points for a new boss attempt by subtracting DKP from 'farm status' boss atendees or alocating random drops to the still living boss.
It is also posible to combine zero sum and bidding though this is open to some colusion all the conspirators suffer (e.g. you agree to all bid low on an item only the four of you can use - the result is that the winner gets it cheap and the three others get virtualy no DKP for the item so it is of limited advantage to colude). I've used a system where you can bid either full or half DKP on an item, I believe colusion would be fairly obvious, it is certainly very rare and in any case has limited impact at most it halves the value of one item here and there and never of a clearly usefull item which would be too blatant to colude over.

--Aach 11:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major Premise Incorrect

I think it should be noted somewhere that a major premise regarding what makes DKP systems valuable in the eyes of its proponents is incorrect. For example: The probability that a rare and valuable item drops on a given run is not affected by the fact that it has not dropped on many previous runs. It doesn't matter if you ran a dungeon 20 times or one time before it dropped. Therefore logically only the people that are there when it does drop are responsible for producing the item, and the people who ran it previous times have no legitimate claim.

Though it may be percieved as unfair by people with a poor understanding of statistics that a person who ran the one time gets an equal chance to recieve the item and possibly does recieve the item, it may not be percieved as unfair by someone who understands probability. In this case educating people would be just as effective as replacing the often embedded random systems with much more complicated systems that rob casual players of their equal chance to get rarer items when they are there.

See Memorylessness, or Geometric Distribution for verification of these claims.

The other ideas behind these systems are also not universally accepted. Some might say the guild's right to control who gets the loot (regardless of weather it would help the guild or not) is limited to the amount the guild put more effort into making the raid succesful. If the leader of a dungeon group has the ability to determine who he can succesfully run a dugeon with and do so, then each person is solely responsible for meeting those requirements and equally participating in the guilds success. If such leaders exist then why should someone join a guild where they fail more often and want to claim greater responsibility for the loot than newer players who come along that could meet all requirements and equally contribute in a current dungeon group ran by such a leader?

Regarding the "Players who put great effort in obtaining a particular item should be able to get it reliably" issue, again it should be noted that this is only fair to other players by any standards if he is giving up items equal in value to that which he is being gauranteed on a dungeon run where this rare item drops. If a dugeon can only be run once a week, and that player (lets call him a farmer) goes every week only wanting one rare item, he does not cause the item to be produced more often than if he still wanted everything the dungeon had to offer. If he is given this rare item because of hsi prior efforts, his teammates are being taken advantage of unless they are given something equal in value to their chance to get the rare item, and while the increased probability of getting items that the "Farmer" no longer wants or needs is worth something, it is often not worth as much as the chance to get the rare item the "Farmer" still wants.

One might also wish to consider the elements of human nature that go into making DKP systems popular. If someone runs a dungeon 10 times and was not able to produce the item he will be frussterated. He will be looking for anything or anyone he can blame... and someone that doesn't understand that the unlucky raider's previous efforts towards getting an item did not contribute to the items appearance when it happens to drop is the perfect target. Without this knowledge to use to defend himself it only makes sense that he would feel he has no choice to give in to the selfish demands of the unlucky raider.

You have that exactly backwards. The whole point of DKP is to give memory to a memoryless system. The article already states "But many players find this system, though "fair" in the sense that any player in the group has equal probability of receiving the item, unsatisfying." --Readams 22:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
You have missed the point. The idea of there being a premise behind what makes DKP valuable in the eyes of its proponents means that most people when asked "Why DKP?" will claim something about how its not fair that a person can raid 10 times and when an item drops the 10th time a person raiding for the first time gets the item over them. The only case where this is not "Fair" is when running the previous times makes the item drop the final time. If it is memoryless, then there is no basis for the claim that it is unfair. You might have an animalistic intuition that causes you to get mad when this happens (probably based on your past experience which makes you believe you can get away with robbing the person who would have won the roll) but this has no bearing on the ACTUAL situation. There is no justification for DKP. And it does rob people who do not come as often of a chance to loot rare items and uses that to make veterans more likely to get rare items.
Again, you have missed the point. No one who runs a DKP system believes that just because you've ran an instance 10 times there is a higher chance for an item to drop. DKP is about compensation for past efforts that went unrewarded. Your argument fails to take into account the "wasted" effort that the "Farmer" has previously put in. The argument that the premise is flawed relies on the fact that the casual raider is "being taken advantage of unless they are given something equal in value to their chance to get the rare item". However, it can be said that the "Farmer" is being taken advantage of unless he is compensated for being on a raid that offers nothing for him. The compensation that you are claiming the "casual raider" needs is EXACTLY what DKP offers. You can just say "tough luck, it didn't drop you don't get it" or rather than taking each raid as a completely seperate event you turn it into a long endless stream of events WITH a memory. If it wasn't for DKP people who needed nothing from a raid wouldn't go to that raid, why would they? They'd gain nothing. Your "casual raider" would be left to solo raid or take advantage of people who have no need to be there. DKP is a system that aims to eliminate the random aspect from loot as much as possible, in doing so it has to provide a memory to what has previously dropped and who got it. This is exactly what it does. DKP works on the princaple that "if you kill something enough you will eventually get the item that you want dropping" which is why someone who kills something 10 times has a higher chance of getting a drop from it than someone who kills it once (no, not that there's a higher chance that it WILL drop, that there's a higher chance that they'll get it when it does).
A) If "casual gamers" with only preraid gear could not be succesful in defeating a dungeon with only others like them, then how was the raid defeated the first time?
B) A leader can come up with a scheme that basically says something like this.. With 40 x people with this much fire resist, main attribute, listed dps etc this raid can be succesful. If you have lower than that you can't come because you would not be contributing to the success. If you have higher than that its irrelevant because we could have beaten it with less powerful players anyways. It can allow some breathing room as well... it doesn't have to be "well guild x on server y once beat it with all poorly geared players". It's not going to be that you need the best possible geared players in the game for the obvious reason outlined in A.
In the absence of an argument which claims better geared players contribute more to the success of the raid, what justification do you have for claimin that a "farmer" deserves compensation (at the expense of others) for his previous raids which played no part in producing the dropped item on the raid it drops?
Random guilds also give a higher chance to get an item when it drops the more times you go. If you see an item drop 10x and are on avg rolling against 4 people for it, there is avg 25% chance of getting it per time and avg 94.4% chance of getting it over 10 times. Going more times makes you more likely to get the item in a random system, thats why you go more times. Not to earn the right to ninja the item from other players who have never seen you before or benefitted from your efforts on some future time when it drops.

DKP guilds are certainly not satisfying for the people who are being robbed of the chance to loot rare items that they put equal effort into producing so that people who falsely believe they are entitled to them because they ran the dungeon previously can get the items instead.

The problem with what you are saying is that previous players do contribute to the groups ability to kill the particular mob that may or may not produce that item. In World of Warcraft for instance it may take several attempts at a given target before it is successfully killed. The purpose of DKP in that regard is to make sure that the players who contribute to the successful strategy are rewarded for it. You are right about the probablility side of it, however that is not what the guilds I am aware are using DKP for. Certainly someone who starts coming to raids only after they know that they will be successful does not deserve the same priviledges as someone who went and many times previously only to help nail down a successful strategy. -Matt
But this argument was already addressed. The claim is that veteran players provide no marginal benefit such that they deserve priority except in the case of incompetent leadership.

In this case the only fair order of distribution is random.

I ran a guild in WoW that defeated MC (one of the most difficulty end game raid dungeons) on the first try. As raid leader I got the strategies for defeating each mob off of WoW wiki and got information as to how well equipped players need to be to survive there (including tank) etc and made sure everyone made the requirements. I used different tactics than other guilds which rely on long term players participation that everyone works to equip first (like main tank), such as having multiple tanks building up aggro on a mob at once and then eventually having one die and be battle rezzed etc. As well as tactics which relied less on everyone knowing the instance like the back of their hand (such as percentage healing instead of group healing)
If someone can come join a guild like mine where there was absolutely 0 start up costs (at least for that one dungeon), and the so called "veteran" or "senior" players provide no additional benefit over other guild members, then why should they have to wait till last to get items in guilds where those people are needed to compensate for the incompetent leadership?

Stop adding long sections containing badly written and badly reasoned rants about DKP -- they simply have no place here. This article should describe simple the basic goals of DKP, and the systems that are currently in use. It's especially heinous because now there's this huge section of nonsense right at the top of the article. It makes me sad when I apply a great deal of effort to make an article coherent then someone comes along and bolts on garbage. Compare the prose style of most of the article to that section about how much you hate DKP. Notice how one is written in a nice encyclopedic style, and the other is a barely legible rant? --Readams 17:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I was thinking just the opposite. Hey maybe thats because you wrote yours and I wrote mine? Anyways people can edit the writing to be "pretty" without deleting the argument. Also you might want to reread the disclaimer where it says "If you don't want your submissions mercilessly edited by others, don't submit them". No one person has any more claim to the wiki article than anyone else.
Just visited this article for the first time looking for some info regarding DKP. The "sidebar" on DKP is way to early in the article if it even belongs there. Everyone knows that DKP is designed to remove most of the random chance out of running an instance. It is simply a mechanism to reward players who are active in the guild and frequentley run the instance. Plus the criticisms are not written in an encyclopedic fashion, maybe a quick NPOV section could be added to the end, it really belongs in a "Critcisms of DKP" if those authors are dying to rant. The fact is that this is the classic argument of casual players vs. active players. Ranting about how DKP isn't statistically sound makes little sense since DKP is set up to circumvent the statistics. Can someone Neutral and familiar with Wiki move this either to the end of the article or create a Criticisms of DKP? That would greatly improve the look of the page.
This section of back and forth in the article reads like a whining session on 1. General. As a newbie trying to understand DKP in WoW I just want an entry that tells me what DKP means and basically how it works. A later section describing variants like zero sum seems legit, but the "It's valid" "It isn't valid" bit is not appropriate here.
OK I just went through page and did a general cleanup. The "DKP is Flawed" section is highly POV, and in places makes assumptions that are only exposed in the Talk: page. I've moved some of those assumptions to the main page, and stripped the language that is clearly non-encyclopedic. The next step will be to edit boldly to cut both the "flawed" and "not-flawed" sections to manageable size, as there's considerable bloat.
Still at issue is whether the sections are appropriate at all. I'd lean toward saying that they are. Clearly, the casual gamer would like to argue that strategy guides and gear requirements make end-game raiding experience obsolete. While I don't think the facts bear that out, the criticisms are at least as common as the DKP systems in the first place. There's also the social dynamic: casual gamers need hard-core players to open up content and make them farmable, while the hard-core players need casual gamers to combat turnover and burnout in the core group.
I'd like to hear some opinions about the structure of the article.
Wellspring 16:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
OK didn't hear any more feedback, and the one edit was along the same track I recommended (more NPOV, cut down the length). So I rewrote the section entirely, using bullet points so it doesn't drag. I think I covered every argument adequately without getting bogged down in rhetoric, and even added new arguments to both sides.
Wellspring 14:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matrix is uselss!

The matrix doesn't grasp the advantages and disadvantages of different DKP systems. It should be something like:

Traditional DKP

- Marked driven price (no unwanted items but class imbalance causes problems).
- Easy to manage
- Prone to inflation
- Prone to callusion (in theory)

Zero Sum DKP

- Fixed price (leads to unwanted items, but no problems from class imbalance).
- Complex to manage
- Not prone to inflation.
- Not prone to collusion.

Spend all DKP

- Fixed price (leads to unwanted items, but no problems from class imbalance)
- Very easy to manage
- Prone to collusion
- Not prone to inflation
- Potential to be very unfair

Probablistic DKP

- Fixed price (leads to unwanted items, but no problems from class imbalance)
- Very easy to manage
- Not prone to collusion or inflation
- Potential to be very unfair.

etc.

I think that this is a good idea; if you have some time you should go ahead and improve it --Readams 16:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No original research

While certainly there are other possible DKP systems, please only describe systems with features widely used. If a system is used by only one guild, it doesn't belong here. Most guilds have systems which vary slightly from the systems described here. --Readams 00:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and modified the effective dkp entry to be less specific to a guild. I think its a method used by multiple guilds and is a decent implementation. So it does merit a mention.--PopsGG 19:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/k/p/Talk%7EDKP_8577.html"