An alternative to variance

[Troubled]

Originally Posted by Juryiel [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The 2 main reasons for reduced leverage from smaller guilds is 1) because in an interesting turn of events lockouts protect the larger guilds in that situation , and 2) because some of the smaller guilds smartly decided that if they're going to sock, they may as well do it in class C where there is more mobs to be had.

Also this is an odd way to see things. You may be able to get more loot than before, but I'm going to bet the man hours you invest per piece of loot is much larger now with the socking in R and increased FFA competition. So that is the leverage the small guilds have have - you can get more stuff than them sure, but it costs you proportionally much more to get every single piece of loot than it did in the rotation. Clearly this is not what BDA wants given the existence of this thread asking GMs to essentially intervene to further reduce smaller guilds' leverage in class R. You say no leverage yet this thread exists specifically because of that leverage forcing you to poopsock more than you like.

Furthermore, even if some group of players has no leverage you'd probably enjoy EQ more to try to work with them anyway. It's nice to help and be considerate of other people just of your own free will, rather than only considering how much leverage they have to compel you to cooperate.

What? I gave no thought to class R when I made the thread. Not sure why you'd claim that. I've always hated variance. Your claim that higher variance would help has also been tried and proven false. Lowered variance would help you more than us anyway. Feels like you're just arguing to argue.