Quote:
|
AKA Zerging, I wouldn't even call that raiding... When you can just yank it in one hand and slap 1 2 3 in the other while raiding and still down the mobs, you're either a warrior, rogue, or in BDA.
|
These are just ballpark numbers. BDA rarely has more than 30 ppl per raid - the 100 was just a number of people i'd say have been semi-active in the last few months - they don't show up for every raid.
The most people we will have is 50-60 during repops, that's really the only thing that people will drop real life for to log in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by loramin
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Ah, now you've gotten to the crux of the matter: rotation slots/loot piles are allocated by guild (irrespective of size), but any individual player's chance of getting some loot depends on their guild's size. I think this is a legitimately unfair aspect of the current system: taken to it's logical extreme every guild would want to be as small as possible, and tons of tiny guilds isn't in anyone's best interest.
But if guild size is really the issue (as it seems to be), couldn't it be solved by adding a minimum guild size requirement to be able to join the rotation? Or at least a minimum guild size to ally (eg. if you want to raid with 18 badass people then you get your own slot, but if you want to work with another guild you both have to have at least 40 players). Or what if raid slots were just allocated by guild size, so an 100 person guild would get the same number of slots as two 50 person guilds?
A guild-size-based solution would address the issue far more directly and with a lot less controversy. After all, most reasonable people would agree that 100 people should get twice the loot of 50 people, regardless of who belongs to what guild, so why not solve the guild size problem instead of worrying about who can kill Gorenaire?
|
Yes, this is what it all boils down to. I'm not part of the negotiations but it seems like Gorenaire part should be changed.