Talk:Dragon kill points

Whole new DKP page
Wikipedia had a fantastic page on DKP, but it was deleted. After contacting a Wikipedia admin, I was given a copy of the article. Honestly, it beats the pants off the DKP article here. I posted it at DKP2 and am working on removing alot of the bad links.

I highly recommend we use the article I posted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by. 23:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Bad links removed. I'd like to note, if it isn't bitterly obvious, that I fail ad Wiki procedures and etiquette. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by . 23:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * DKP2s contents are already available at DKP Overview . -- 23:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, don't know how I missed that.Phfor 01:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Alternate DKP Proposal
[Posted By Ganzir of Eredar]

Suppose every member upon joining the guild was given an arbitrary amount of DKP, say 100. When a boss is killed and drops an arbitrary item, players make a silent bid for the item. The highest bidder pays an amount of DKP equal 1 + (THE SECOND HIGHEST BID). After the player recieves the item, the DKP payed for said item are then evenly distributed among the players who participated in the fight.

Example. A newly formed guild of 5 downs hogger.

A: 100 DKP B: 100 DKP C: 100 DKP D: 100 DKP E: 100 DKP

Hogger drops an arbitrary item and a silent bid is sent to the loot master.

A's bid: 100 DKP B's bid: 45 DKP C's bid: 49 DKP (for simplicity's sake) D and E do not bid because the item is of no use to them.

A wins the bid and pays 50 DKP for the item. Then, to balance the DKP in the system, each member gets 50/5 DKP which puts the new standings at: A: 60 = (100 - 50) + 50/5 (Having received 1 item) B: 110 = (100 - 0) + 50/5<BR> C: 110 = (100 - 0) + 50/5<BR> D: 110 = (100 - 0) + 50/5<BR> E: 110 = (100 - 0) + 50/5<BR>

Say on a second raid, hogger drops the same arbitrary item plus a second different item. The raiders bid like this:<BR><BR>

A doesn't need either item.<BR> B bids 45 on the first item.<BR> C bids 55 on the first item and 55 on the second.<BR> D bids 100 on the second item.<BR> E bids 72 on the second item.<BR>

C wins the first item and pays 46 DKP, D wins the second item and pays 73 DKP. Each particapent is then given 113/5 DKP leaving us, after two successful hogger runs, with the following standings (rounded to the lowest integer):<BR><BR> A: 82 = (60 - 0) + 113/5 (Having received 1 item after 2 raids)<BR> B: 132 = (110 - 0) + 113/5<BR> C: 86 = (110 - 46) + 113/5 (Having received 1 item after 2 raids)<BR> D: 59 = (110 - 73) + 113/5 (Having received 1 item after 2 raids)<BR> E: 132 = (110 - 0) + 113/5<BR>

Let's say A doesn't show up to the third raid, so a newcomer, X, is called in to fill the vacant spot. Hogger goes down and drops one item. Suppose...<BR><BR> B bids 80 DKP<BR> C bids 85 DKP<BR> D bids 59 DKP<BR> E bids 90 DKP<BR> Q bids 100 DKP<BR> This would leave Q receiving 1 item on his first raid with E and B going unrewarded after their third raid.

To prevent this, a new member raiding with the guild for the first time can receive a probationary number of DKP equal to 100 or 1 less than than the amount of DKP of the lowest DKPed member, whichever is lower. In this case, Q would have a maximum bidding power of only 58 DKP for his first raid. In this case, the bidding would like like this...<BR><BR> B bids 80<BR> C bids 85<BR> D bids 59<BR> E bids 90<BR> Q bids 59<BR><BR> E wins and pays 86 DKP leaving the standings at...<BR><BR> A: 82 (with 1 item in 2 raids)<BR> B: 149 = (132 - 0) + 86/5 (With no items in 3 raids, but a significant bidding advantage in the next run).<BR> C: 103 = (86 - 0) + 86/5 (Having received 1 item after 3 raids)<BR> D: 76 = (59 - 0) + 86/5 (Having received 1 item after 3 raids)<BR> E: 63 = (132 - 86) + 86/5 (Having received 1 item after 3 raids)<BR> Q: 75 = (58 - 0) + 86/5<BR>

ZEROING THE SYSTEM<BR><BR> Since incoming members will always have bidding power just below that of the existing member who had the lowest DKP and since the values of the items are set by the bidders, the system doesn't suffer the same way from inflation as other DKP systems. However, bookkeeping the system can become a nuisance if the total bidding power of the guild continues to escalate. Likewise, if the numbers were to continually diminish by truncating decimals, players would be more likely to bid equal amounts. In our example, the guild started with 500 DKP as a whole. After the first run, the guild still had 500 DKP. After the second run, due to decimals being truncated, the guild only had 491 DKP. After the third run, because of the DKP awarded to the newcomer, the guild had 548 DKP.

To adjust inflation, the DKP totals of all members can be scaled periodically to keep the DKP pool close to the original total of 500. Conversely, the DKP of all players can be increased by a fixed percentage to accomadate a growing guild. For example, we could adjust the numbers of our six-man hogger guild down to reflect the orginal 500 DKPs:<BR><BR> A: 74 = 82 * 500/548<BR> B: 135 = 149 * 500/548<BR> C: 93 = 103 * 500/548<BR> D: 69 = 76 * 500/548<BR> E: 57 = 63 * 500/548<BR> Q: 68 = 75 * 500/548<BR><BR> In this case the guild would have a total of 496 DKP with an average of 82.7 per member. If we were to adjust the numbers up to reflect the original average of 100 DKPs per member we would see this:<BR><BR> A: 89 = 82 * 600/548<BR> B: 163 = 149 * 600/548<BR> C: 112 = 103 * 600/548<BR> D: 83 = 76 * 600/548<BR> E: 68 = 63 * 600/548<BR> Q: 82 = 75 * 600/548<BR>

Distribution Schemes
"Endgame loot distribution in MMORPGs is inherently unjust." Awesome. Someone should check out social philosophy works by people like Rawls, Walzer or Cohen. Societal good redistribution is a common theme in their works. :)

DKP is teh suk
Personally, I hate DKP. I feel that aside from some items such as lava cores, if someone is pulling their weight in a raid they deserve a share of the loot, as it would not have been available without them. If they're not pulling their weight, they should be booted from the raid and replaced with someone who is. (And yes, I deliberately missleppd the title.) --Azaram 01:17, 26 February 2007 (EST)
 * Arguably, that's the point of any DKP system, even if the system is actually Guild Officer decided distribution. The point is to help distribute loot fairly to those involved.  Otherwise it's just random, and there have been various models that show how random roll doesn't seem to consistently reward the effort put forth by the raiders.  -- Shazear 15:24, 26 February 2007 (EST)
 * That may be the point, but I feel it doesn't work. Everyone who joined after the first few people get nothing until the others already have all they want. And, since you're always moving into new territory, there's always new stuff and upgrades, so an entire raid ends up working for four or five people, everybody else gets nothing but repair bills. Better to roll randomly so everyone has an equal chance at things they can use. --Azaram 23:43, 26 February 2007 (EST)
 * Then you haven't evaluated all the systems. I believe a ratio/relative system can equally/fairly distribute loot.  That's why it was developed.  To give to everyone based on how much effort they put in, relative to how much work everyone else has put in.  IE. if a hardcore raider gets loot every 3rd raid, then so should the guy that only comes 1x per month, on his 3rd raid, probably get something.  We found it worked quite well for our guild. --Shazear 02:46, 27 February 2007 (EST)
 * That one does sound at least reasonably fair, but I've never heard of anyone using one like that. (Not saying they don't exist, just that I've not run across them.) Everyone I know who has been in a guild that used dkp used either the same system or a very slight variation of it, that amounts to 'people here first get everything and you get screwed'. Ganzir's, above, looks reasonable too, although again I don't think anyone that I know of uses it.
 * The sole exception is one that a friend of mine's guild uses, where every full run gains a person five points on a standard roll, to a maximum usable bonus of 85 points. This gives even one-shot pug people a chance to get something out of a raid, as they also earn the points. So everyone rolls on an item they want, and they can either use or not use their accumulated bonus, thus everyone gets a reasonable chance at it and people with a run of bad luck (it would, after all, take 17 runs without using one's bonus to reach the cap of 85) will eventually get something as well. Unfortunately, their site isn't responding at the moment or I'd post a link to it here. (Also unfortunately, they're alliance and I'm Horde, so I don't have the option to join. :-p)
 * Me, I feel that with the single exception I can think of being the AQ mount for opening the gates, nothing is unique and it will all come around again. I'd rather congratulate someone for winning a lucky roll and wait my turn than have them be piffed because they weren't allowed to get something they wanted and thus it makes it harder for me to get it later because they won't want to go again.
 * (/me climbs the Wall of Text and meows from the top...) --Azaram 06:14, 27 February 2007 (EST)
 * Take a look at this system: Relational DKP. The links at the bottom are the 2 addons that were developed at around the same time to implement this idea. Obviously using different methods.  As the author of RDKP, I know there's my guild plus at least 6-12 more that have contacted me that are using RDKP.  I'm sure the EPGP guy has a few different guilds using his addon as well.  So while not the most popular, it is being used, and with growing frequency. --Shazear 21:09, 28 February 2007 (EST)


 * Just add in my, i've yet to see any system better than the NDKP, which using calculated pricing, zero sum and an attendance system, remains completely fair and easy to use/manage. However, with tBC, there's no real need to for DKP anymore, and most guild's i've asked have stopped running DKP now and simply used a very basic master looting or need/greed. --<span style="background-color: #111; border-left: 1px #444 solid; border-right: 1px #444 solid; padding: 0 0.2em;"> Zeal  talk   contr  web 08:18, 4 March 2007 (EST)