Guild Loot Distribution

Hey guys, just getting back into the groove of posting to the forums. My guild and I have recently been debating loot distribution since alpha 2 is rumored to be nearing by the end of the year/early 2024. We have been talking and are thinking about using a mixture of traditional DKP systems as well as loot council for very specific gear. I guess what I am asking is...

- What loot distribution system does your guild plan to use?
- What systems have you had luck with using in the past?
- Has anyone used the systems I mentioned above? If so what are some general pros and cons?

Thanks in advance!

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

tautau

@JamesSunderland
I totally agree with your last post. I misunderstood your earlier one, I thought you meant that a healer would have to fight a DPS in order to try to get guild gear, hence my comment (as a healer) I would not want to be in such a guild.

I play a healer and certainly would want to be in a guild which respects healers and values the really good ones, so Yes, we agree, thanks! TT

Noaani

JamesSunderland wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

JamesSunderland wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

if i get something i dont need i give it to a guildie who does and has contributed.

if we do a boss or an activity, whoever gets the loot gets it. everybody is contributing. taking all the loot to redistribute it seems a lil bit communist to me lol. probs the only exception is if someone already has it and someone who has contributed a lot needs it.

Seems like a combination of charity + utilitarianism, and i don't think DKP fits a communistic idea(even with the DKP being equally distributed) nor a capitalistic one, with DKP you aren't properly rewarded by your performance(meritocracy) but by your mere presence, so even if you basically carry the content but isn't as constantly present as a slacker, they still get DKP advantage over you, a weak system for the weak that doesn't reward the most deserving if you would ask me.

A reasonable system must properly reward those who contribute the most and "carry the guild on their backs" and those who can barely carry their own weight.

From my perspective, mere presence deserves DKP being awarded.

In terms of people being carried by the raid, that simply shouldn't happen.

A DKP system is only really applicable in an organized guild. In such a guild, no one is being carried. This is why top end guilds are selective in regards to recruitment - we weed out people that may need to be carried. Basically, if you aren't pulling your weight, you aren't raiding.

In terms of these kinds of things, it is much the same as work. You get taken on if we think you will be a good fit and do your part, and as long as you are doing your part you get compensated for your presence. That isn't to say raiding is work, just that this aspect of it kind of is.

For me "mere presence" should only be deserving of reward if your "mere presence" is meaningful and couldn't be missed.

This part I agree with.

My point is - if this doesnt apply to someone, they aren't even in the guild, let alone the raid.

We dont drag dead weight with us.

It isnt exactly much of a strain on the guilds leadership, you shouldnt need to recruit any more than 1 in 10 people a year (we had multiple years in a row with no new recruitments in EQ2). If you find yourself needing to recruit more than that, then there is probably something wrong with tour guild (quite possibly your loot policy).

and when you add in the notion of PvP it becomes even easier. With pure PvE, you only need what you need. With PvP, someone just being present with your guild tag can alter the decision making of your opponent.

JamesSunderland wrote: »

In a proper kratocratic system the members basically sort themselves, the strong gets nicely rewarded the weak perishes in misery leaves or doesn't even enters in the first place.

This only works in a game where loot isnt all that important.

In a game where loot makes a difference, the strong are usually strong because they have better gear - at least in part. If you set up a system where the strong are rewarded and the less strong are not, you are depriving the less strong of the opportunity to become stronger. Clearly, this is a shit system.

What you seem to be forgetting here is that the guild has as much of a responsibility to its members as its members have to the guild. If you were playing any game other than L2, this kind of loot distribution would guarantee your guild wouldnt last more than a year. The only reason there may be an exception for L2 is because not all top end gear was obtained via guild activities - in any game where this is the case the guild has that aforementioned responsibility to its members.

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

The only reason there may be an exception for L2 is because not all top end gear was obtained via guild activities - in any game where this is the case the guild has that aforementioned responsibility to its members.

Nah, any and all top end (and even high end) gear can only be acquired if you have a guild. Not only because you need a party for the content, but also because there's gonna be several other parties trying to farm that content and they'll definitely fight you for it, so you might need help if you want to assure your farm.

And in later updates L2 got instanced bosses that requires 36+ people to even enter the instance and those bosses had the best loot. But even this didn't change the gear distribution (at least in my experience).

JamesSunderland

Noaani wrote: »

It isnt exactly much of a strain on the guilds leadership, you shouldnt need to recruit any more than 1 in 10 people a year (we had multiple years in a row with no new recruitments in EQ2). If you find yourself needing to recruit more than that, then there is probably something wrong with tour guild (quite possibly your loot policy).

and when you add in the notion of PvP it becomes even easier. With pure PvE, you only need what you need. With PvP, someone just being present with your guild tag can alter the decision making of your opponent.

Not much of a strain but a extra strain nonetheless, unless in a already well stablished guild specially in a PvE Focused game where competition mostly pales in comparison and such system becomes unnecessary.

Noaani wrote: »

This only works in a game where loot isnt all that important.

In a game where loot makes a difference, the strong are usually strong because they have better gear - at least in part. If you set up a system where the strong are rewarded and the less strong are not, you are depriving the less strong of the opportunity to become stronger. Clearly, this is a shit system.

What you seem to be forgetting here is that the guild has as much of a responsibility to its members as its members have to the guild. If you were playing any game other than L2, this kind of loot distribution would guarantee your guild wouldnt last more than a year. The only reason there may be an exception for L2 is because not all top end gear was obtained via guild activities - in any game where this is the case the guild has that aforementioned responsibility to its members.

Nope, not at all, in a game where loot/gear is important for PvP and you desire a system to have the strongest amongst the strong, you must prioritize gear for the most skilled, so the most skilled and geared can secure gear for the not as skilled and less geared in a extremely efficient cascade effect.

The absolute majority of top end gear was indeed obtained via guild activities, but by "guild activities" it doesn't mean just Raids but also means securing farming spots for clan groups which also required PvP.

A strong guild requires strong members, hierarchy is important and necessary, not just "diplomatic strength" like Guild Officers, but a proper hierachy to determine the Top 1 group of the clan to the Top 10 group.

Creating direct incentive for members in the pursuit of becoming stronger and more skilled was simple necessary to become and maintain Top 1 Clan status for as long as our clans maintained.

A system that equally rewards the most skilled and the less skilled is certainly a shitty system bound to failure in L2, it creates no incentive for constant personal improvement.

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

The only reason there may be an exception for L2 is because not all top end gear was obtained via guild activities - in any game where this is the case the guild has that aforementioned responsibility to its members.

Nah, any and all top end (and even high end) gear can only be acquired if you have a guild. Not only because you need a party for the content, but also because there's gonna be several other parties trying to farm that content and they'll definitely fight you for it, so you might need help if you want to assure your farm.

And in later updates L2 got instanced bosses that requires 36+ people to even enter the instance and those bosses had the best loot. But even this didn't change the gear distribution (at least in my experience).

You've said a few times on these forums that bosses in L2 just had increased/100% chance to drop the same gear as regular mobs - as well as other drops iirc.

To me, assuming people give a shit about those drops, they are top end.

Perhaps I misunderstood you, but that was the basis for the above comments.

Noaani

JamesSunderland wrote: »

Not much of a strain but a extra strain nonetheless, unless in a already well stablished guild specially in a PvE Focused game where competition mostly pales in comparison and such system becomes unnecessary.

Proper recruiting in a PvE game is less of a strain than having an underperforming person in the guild is. Keep in mind, in my guilds in EQ2, we could go multiple years in a row without needing to recruit a single new member - in part because we treat each member of the guild well.

I can't speak to L2 in this regard, but with PvP focused guilds in Archeage (or - L3), having an underperforming person in your guild wasn't an issue - you just basically ignore them.

This seems to me to be the basis for what it is you are saying here. If someone isn't good, you just ignore them and don't give them any loot. Perhaps this is just the way more PvP oriented guilds think.

If we are going to assume that this kind of treatment is wide spread in PvP focused guilds, I now have to start to wonder what part this kind of treatment of guild members has on the longevity or lack thereof) of most PvP focused games.

If this is indeed standard among PvP guilds, the starting point to the above question is "some", there is literally no scope left to say it has no impact. The question is how much of an impact.

Either way, it would seem fairly obvious to me at this point that top end guilds in non-WoW PvE MMO's give far more of a shit about their members than any PvP based guild does.

Nope, not at all, in a game where loot/gear is important for PvP and you desire a system to have the strongest amongst the strong, you must prioritize gear for the most skilled, so the most skilled and geared can secure gear for the not as skilled and less geared in a extremely efficient cascade effect.

This is a logical fallacy.

It may be a widespread fallacy, it may be that many believe it, but it is a fallacy.

Imagine a scenario - you have two people of the same class, one having significantly better gear than the other. Both players are present equally for guild activities. An item drops that is an upgrade for the better geared player.

According to you, your guild would give that item to that player with the better gear. Unless that person is then handing the item they are taking off to the other player, the guild is objectively worse off than if you gave the item to the other player. It is an outright objective fact that the value of an item is 100% relative to the item it is replacing. The greater the gap, the more of an impact the item has.

In a scenario where you are not limited on the number of people present, there aren't even any mitigating factors to this.

Sure, that may well be the way it was done in L2 - but I guarantee you that it was originally done this way because the people making that decision were the ones getting the gear, and everyone else was either unable or unwilling to speak up about how factually incorrect they were.

JamesSunderland

Noaani wrote: »

I can't speak to L2 in this regard, but with PvP focused guilds in Archeage (or - L3), having an underperforming person in your guild wasn't an issue - you just basically ignore them.

This seems to me to be the basis for what it is you are saying here. If someone isn't good, you just ignore them and don't give them any loot. Perhaps this is just the way more PvP oriented guilds think.

Even with the similarities i would hardly call Archeage something like L3, it was a way more Solo-style game with top end gear acquirable throw entirely PvE means with far less guild necessity other than literally Kraken and Red Dragon for a nice portion of its existance especially considering its Faction vs Faction context.

In L2 with the kratocratic system ignoring those would mean occupied clan slots for way better players so the absolute majority of times the weak groups would leave by themselves after losing too many times the PvP standoff for the loot, and them join weaker clans were they could actually shine alongside weaker players

Noaani wrote: »

If we are going to assume that this kind of treatment is wide spread in PvP focused guilds, I now have to start to wonder what part this kind of treatment of guild members has on the longevity or lack thereof) of most PvP focused games.

If this is indeed standard among PvP guilds, the starting point to the above question is "some", there is literally no scope left to say it has no impact. The question is how much of an impact.

Either way, it would seem fairly obvious to me at this point that top end guilds in non-WoW PvE MMO's give far more of a shit about their members than any PvP based guild does.

You are free to assume that, what i can tell you is that the kratocratic system wasn't the standard and there were plenty of casual guilds with limited and weak styles like DKP and such, the kratocratic system was simple the meta for those who desire the apex of the game, those whom aimed for Top 1 and possible achive Hero Status in their respective classes.

Noaani wrote: »

This is a logical fallacy.

It may be a widespread fallacy, it may be that many believe it, but it is a fallacy.

Would you mind telling me which logical fallacy would it be?

Noaani wrote: »

Imagine a scenario - you have two people of the same class, one having significantly better gear than the other. Both players are present equally for guild activities. An item drops that is an upgrade for the better geared player.

According to you, your guild would give that item to that player with the better gear. Unless that person is then handing the item they are taking off to the other player, the guild is objectively worse off than if you gave the item to the other player. It is an outright objective fact that the value of an item is 100% relative to the item it is replacing. The greater the gap, the more of an impact the item has.

According to me? Have you really read what i wrote?
In the scenario you presented, there would be a dispute, which would be settled through PvP, both players or their respective groups would duel against each other, the winner would receive the item.

If the item wasn't a upgrade for the better geared player, the better geared player simple wouldn't be considered or qualified in the dispute for the item, as it simple wouldn't make him stronger in terms of gear.

Noaani wrote: »

Sure, that may well be the way it was done in L2 - but I guarantee you that it was originally done this way because the people making that decision were the ones getting the gear, and everyone else was either unable or unwilling to speak up about how factually incorrect they were.

Nope, Clan Leader and his group, Officers and all Party group leader were all bound by the same rules,
want the item?
Fight over it, prove yourself more worthy of it than your fellow clan member/group.

Noaani

JamesSunderland wrote: »

If the item wasn't a upgrade for the better geared player, the better geared player simple wouldn't be considered or qualified in the dispute for the item, as it simple wouldn't make him stronger in terms of gear.

I specifically said in the scenario that it was an upgrade.

But that aside - holy shit that is a horrible way to treat people. And here I was thinking WoW was bad. Blizzard developers at their worst have nothing on you guys.

So, here is the question I have for you (both of you, really). How long did these individual guilds last, and what is the record for the longest such guilds went without any people leaving?

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

You've said a few times on these forums that bosses in L2 just had increased/100% chance to drop the same gear as regular mobs - as well as other drops iirc.

To me, assuming people give a shit about those drops, they are top end.

Perhaps I misunderstood you, but that was the basis for the above comments.

Yes, bosses were the faster way of getting the items, but both bosses and general farming spots required a party to farm. And parties fought each other all the time, so you'd want a guild to support you if you were losing vs another party. This usually just led to any high-top lvl party being in some guild, which would then war against other guilds.

Noaani wrote: »

So, here is the question I have for you (both of you, really). How long did these individual guilds last, and what is the record for the longest such guilds went without any people leaving?

I'll leave this to James because my L2 experience is way too different from his (private vs official servers). What I can say of my experience is that across the years I've gathered a ton of friends, who were all happy to play with me on a new server under my leadership. And I was using that exact system. They trusted my judgement and never left the guild due to a gear argument. There could be other personal arguments or people just stopped playing the game, but I cannot recall a single leave over a gear dispute.

If I had the same situation of "my favorite game gets amazing updates super often and none of them go wildly against the general preferences of the players", I'd also play that same exact game for years and years with the same people. But alas, L2 was not that. I might've experienced that had I played the game since the release of its official servers back in 2004, but I was too young and poor to do that. Which is exactly why I'd assume James had a different experience.

p.s. a small clarification on the "who gets the item" thing. If there's, say, player A with tier4 gear and player B with tier5 and their guild manages to drop a tier6 item that fits them both - the item goes to player B and his tier5 gear goes to player A. The tier4 item would either go down the line or left for any newcomers, or just sold on the market (or broken into crystals for crafting).

That tier6 item would let player B help out player A in future pvp fights, which would make A's farm faster and more reliable. This system works on the logic of "you're only as strong as your weakest link". The strong links do their best to support the weakest links, because it's in their own interest.

JamesSunderland

Noaani wrote: »

I specifically said in the scenario that it was an upgrade.

i Literally addressed your scenarion above this alternative scenario quote.....

Noaani wrote: »

But that aside - holy shit that is a horrible way to treat people.

So, here is the question I have for you (both of you, really). How long did these individual guilds last, and what is the record for the longest such guilds went without any people leaving?

That's the fairest way to treat people.

Throught the absolute majority of my time in the official L2 servers(2004-2012) i played in 2 Clans, 1 clan for each official server i played in, and the clan in the second server had alot of members from the clan of the first server who migrated alongside us, i played for about ~3 years in the first and about ~5 years in the second.
The clan in the first server lasted for about ~4 years, the clan in the second one is still active till this very day on the official server, even tho the main groups left alongside me back in 2012 for private servers.

As for "the record for the longest such guilds went without any people leaving" probably a week at best.
A weaker group leaves a stronger enters, the eternal cycle. (clans would have up to 200 players)
On the other hand, for those groups whom managed to keep their positions in the hierarchy remained for years.

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

There could be other personal arguments or people just stopped playing the game, but I cannot recall a single leave over a gear dispute.

In my experience of managing people, disputes are almost never argued over what the actual issue is.

When people have an actual issue, they will often fabricate some other issue with the same people, and argue that instead.

This is something I learned long before I got in to MMO's in general, let alone being in a leadership position. It is something that happens both on small scale (this situation with loot is a small scale version) all the way up to very large scale (the situation in your country right now, and the originally stated reason for it over a year ago being a very large scale example).

Fact is, people don't want to actually talk about the things that are actually pissing them off. Sometimes it is for real reasons (not wanting to show their true motivation in order to prevent it being blocked), and sometimes it is just because they think their real reason for being upset seems stupid and so fabricate another.

Point is, if you had people leave your guild over what seemed to be an argument unconnected to loot, but with someone they may well have lost an item to, assume that argument was actually about loot.

What I will say about a system like this is that it absolutely will cause you to have a core group of people that will follow you - the ones getting all the loot. They will look at what they are getting with this system, and contrast it to a system that is more evenly spread. They have no reason to go to a guild with a different system.

However, you shouldn't measure yourself as a guild leader based on how happy those that are doing the best under you feel, you should rate yourself as a guild leader based on how happy those that are doing the worst under you feel.

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

Point is, if you had people leave your guild over what seemed to be an argument unconnected to loot, but with someone they may well have lost an item to, assume that argument was actually about loot.

That's a very strong assumption in a game that had a ton of reasons to argue about. I picked up a ton of people along the way with a ton of different opinions. Quite often they'd argue on the basis of that difference. In each case I'd personally talk with all sides of the argument and try to reach an agreement of sorts. And this is the exact reason why I won't assume that their arguments were over gear, because, as I said, I don't recall any such arguments ever leading to someone leaving the guild. You're free to trust or mistrust my memory or judgement of those arguments.

Noaani wrote: »

What I will say about a system like this is that it absolutely will cause you to have a core group of people that will follow you - the ones getting all the loot. They will look at what they are getting with this system, and contrast it to a system that is more evenly spread. They have no reason to go to a guild with a different system.

However, you shouldn't measure yourself as a guild leader based on how happy those that are doing the best under you feel, you should rate yourself as a guild leader based on how happy those that are doing the worst under you feel.

That is true, but considering that I kept picking up new friends over the years and that I didn't always pick only the very strong players on the server to invite to my guild, I'd imagine all of them either liked me enough to stick with me and my system or I did in fact treat everyone as equally as possible. I'd have to ask all of them for their reasoning to sticking with me, but I haven't really talked to a ton of them, because I left the mmo genre a long time ago and haven't kept in touch with most people from those times. Not because I couldn't, but mainly because I didn't want to at the time.

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

You're free to trust or mistrust my memory or judgement of those arguments.

I have no doubt at all that the arguments you were dealing with were as you are saying. You've not given me reason to doubt you in the past, I am not going to start doing so now.

What I am saying is that arguments are not always about what the actual issue is. In fact, they are usually not about what the actual issue is. If you are coming in and attempting to mediate the argument that is being had, that is usually not addressing the actual issue.

NiKr wrote: »

That is true, but considering that I kept picking up new friends over the years and that I didn't always pick only the very strong players on the server to invite to my guild, I'd imagine all of them either liked me enough to stick with me and my system or I did in fact treat everyone as equally as possible.

Again, don't look at the success stories for how well you do as a guild leader, look at the least successful.

If you have 20 happy people in your guild and 1 person leave because of your leadership, that 1 person is demonstrating how good a leader you are, not the 20.

This is why recruitment is key.

Coronaids

DKP systems are not without their flaws.. I played Classic WOW through the start of Classic WOTLK and here are some of the things we saw attempting to run a DKP guild

1. Loot Council in WOW is "In" .. all of the top speed guilds run Loot Council and that trickles down all the way through the semi-hardcore guilds. People see LC as "optimal" and don't want to accept anything suboptimal. Meta mattered a lot in classic as well... BIS items were not going to off meta specs until every meta spec had one. Want to compete at a high level? Funneling all of the best gear to the most meta classes to win.
2. How do you convince someone to join an established DKP guild? Say u get 1 DKP per event for math's sake here.. Are you going to join a guild where people have 100s of DKP? You would expect to get nothing for weeks/months
3. DKP hoarding... people completing for BIS forever items will undoubtable hoard their dkp for these items by passing on literally every other item. The first 2 expansions of classic wow had these items (Drakefang Talisman / Dragonspine trophy being BIS for every physical class in their respective expansions) ... people will hoard DKP to buy these items passing on everything else... do you know what happens when this happens? Gear that these people need as an upgrade will rot since spending any DKP will put them behind for the big ticket item. The best way to combat this is to hope the gear is more balanced in AOC lol
4. Next "tier" hoarding... consider the scenario in which you know new gear is being added into the game in a month that out classes the gear that is currently available (Raid tiers in WOW) ... what happens? Well you have the same problem as 3 albiet more temporary. People will sandbag the second half of a tier in order to hoard dkp to scoop up a full set off the rip in the next tier.
5. Gear utilization the scale of upgrades between classes can be widely different. Say an item gives class X 10 DPS upgrade, whereas it would give class Y 50 DPS. The item is more beneficial on class Y (and for the group's DPS) but with DKP you can't direct the item to the right person despite it being better for the guild. (You can if you begin making extra rules, but at that point what are you doing)
6. Player skill - Player 1 is higher skilled than player 2.. (WOW this is measured by parses which is a whole another animal) if someone can get more DPS out of an item vs another person based on skill ... why wouldn't you want them to have it? Again its better for the group for your best players to have the best items. Adding onto this almost certainly there will be players who do not know what they need to max their performance and will just go "X item more shiny than what i am wearing me want" are you going to stop this? in a true dkp system you wouldn't be allowed right

Additionally I don't agree with the statement that people won't leave over loot. I've seen it play out time and time again in a DKP system. Someone doesn't like that the "meme spec" got an item that is BIS for a meta class....guess what they do? spend all of their DKP collect as much loot as they can and then quit the guild. And guess what? They weren't the only one unhappy with the outcome and more people follow suite in the weeks to come once they can burn their DKP.

Then you have the point that a loot council can be corrupt. Well I am here to tell u that DKP is not corruption free either. Blocked bids to benefit people / classes. DKP bonuses for people doing things outside of official events. Shady book keeping if not using an addon. Ect.

Coronaids

Now to be fair ...what are the downsides of LC in AOC?

1. The game is not solved like wow is- it will be hard to judge upgrades/meta/ BIS for a while.... Don't know what kind of addons the game will allow/support but I imagine if possible people will go for a warcraft logs style parsing system (if allowed or supported)
2. No developed combat sims - related to 1 but yeah will be hard to gauge which class benefits most from upgrades
3. Meta (assumedly) won't be stagnant and will have class balance patches as needed
4. So much unknown about balance/ what is to come ... again in other MMOs we know what the next patch or tier will hold gear wise (retail wow ...higher item level = better , classic wow is solved...., lost ark higher item level = more win always)
5. won't be wide spread knowledge of how to distribute loot optimally right off the bat

Personally what do I think is the best loot system in AOC? I don't think it can be decided yet I think on launch especially with how many people will be playing and moving through guilds to find their place in the game you might as well just roll gear off /roll style until the dust settles and then probably go into a loot council when a meta has developed

Ludullu

Coronaids wrote: »

Personally what do I think is the best loot system in AOC? I don't think it can be decided yet I think on launch especially with how many people will be playing and moving through guilds to find their place in the game you might as well just roll gear off /roll style until the dust settles and then probably go into a loot council when a meta has developed

I think that a simple "trust and share" system will be the best for the first several months. You farm stuff together and you let it pass through any and all who want it in order to figure out what's best for whom. And once that's figured out, those who ended up with better items can help the remaining people with their gear.

Obviously some guilds will have dudes who try to fuck over the guild or smth like that, but the first months won't produce the absolute BiS in the game, so it'll be the perfect time to get fucked over.

Noaani

Coronaids wrote: »

DKP systems are not without their flaws.

All systems have flaws.

However, the flaws you talked about are all due to a poor implementation of a DKP system.

JamesSunderland

The flaws of the DKP system are simply grotesque and can greatly harm a guilds potential without a hell lot of customizations, truly a suboptimal system with a false sense of equality for casuals.

In a PvE centric game with ultra fast stablishment of the meta like WoW the Council system flaws are greatly diminished.

Even tho better than the DKP system, the Council system still have flaws such as decision disputes that can be removed through the Kratocratic system that even before meta stablishment is still somewhat effective in the moment for determining the stronger and the weaker in the PvP side of the equation that rewards the PvE, through the PvP evaluation of a player/group strength.

Coronaids

Noaani wrote: »

Coronaids wrote: »

DKP systems are not without their flaws.

All systems have flaws.

However, the flaws you talked about are all due to a poor implementation of a DKP system.

I disagree for the most part we were as close to true “free market” DKP system as we could be

A lot of the “better” implementations that people tout as solutions to the drawbacks of DKP are even worse.. decay is a popular one (we eventually ended up decaying only when entering the next tier) but decay punishes people who have more DKP either by being unlucky or just being super active

EPGP - is especially punishing to take pieces that aren’t huge for you as it raises your GP

Enforcing class restrictions on items - this is a loot council concept not a DKP one

Noaani

JamesSunderland wrote: »

The flaws of the DKP system are simply grotesque and can greatly harm a guilds potential without a hell lot of customizations, truly a suboptimal system with a false sense of equality for casuals.

The problem is in having casual players in a guild.

If you have a DKP system in place, you shouldn't have casual players.

Child Item