Logged Out
Create an Account
Login:
Password:

Forgot your password?
Complicated Raid Signups

Complicated Raid Signups
[Back to Index]  [Bottom of Thread]
Thread Tags
Primary: [General]
Secondary: None
Our guild has two groups of playrers.. Raiders and Casuals.

We want to create raids so that Raiders have priority signups over Casuals, but Casuals can still sign up.

So, we created our events.. set the raid compositions and then made the raids require approval. We then set all raider characters to auto approve.

The problem is that auto approve also means "ignore your set maximums". So now I get 11 ranged DPS for 9 spots.

Obviously, I could do a few things:
  • Make two raids.. one for raiders to signup from a set roster and one for casuals.
  • Turn off the auto approve and manually approve each raider

Neither of these is the best option in the world.

Perhaps we can have a check box for events that says "Enforce Group Compisition Caps" so that auto-approve can't get around it?

--
Anybody have an ideas here?

This is generating uncessesary guild drama for me

--
I know of your problem as well.

The issue with enforce a max limit with the auto approve is that you don't always want the first 25 signing ppl to be the actually 25 to go.

example - you have 9 ranged spots, and the first 5 ppl signing are the same class, meaning you won't get the right class mix.

So you will have to make some ajustments yourself anyway, unless you are very very lucky or don't care that much about ur class mix.

What we do is we use the autosignup system where our entire raid grp is signed up when I schedule the events.

I then allow casuals/socials to sign as well, but when they sign themselves they are put as waiting.

The day before the actual raid I look over my grp and if we still have more then 25 signed, then I waitlist the ppl I dont see fitting for the encounter.

Either way you will have to do some work yourself as I see it.

What could be really cool though, would be to have a third option when setting your signup by......

The third option should actually be a mix of the two we have today, so we both can set number of class in each role.

Example:

priest healers needed 2-3
Resto Druid needed 1-2
Warrior melee needed 0-1
Warrior tank needed 1-2
and so on and so on

If this was an option then you could work with a limit in total - but still only in a way, since it will still risk a wrong setup. But it would be closer though
Yeah.. in our guild we define the 4 primary roles so it would be nice for it to detect those things.

Click a button that says "Build Class/Primary Role Combinations"

And then have min-max boxes for that.

That doesn't solve my over-max signup issue at all.

--
This is a rather simple fix. You need to create separate rosters for the two groups of raiders you have. Create one "Hardcore" roster and one "Casual" roster. Then you populate each roster with the characters you wish to correspond with them. You can also set characters to "Auto-Signup" on calender events based on whichever roster they are on.

Does this help?
That is basically how we do it now.

The problem that exists is that the "auto-approve" characters still ignore the cap for that class/role.

--
Quote by Frommers
That is basically how we do it now.

The problem that exists is that the "auto-approve" characters still ignore the cap for that class/role.


That "cap" is a range of toons you are looking for in the raid.
IE. 6-8 healers. Your saying at minimum you want 6 healers and max is obviously 8. It's more or less a guideline. Registration does not close if you meet your quota. Because, some people who have yet to sign up for the role may be better suited then say a 4th pally healer (someone who was one of the first to sign up)... especially if they are a raid healer. Along the same lines, you could be very precise in what you are looking for in a raid. IE. 2-3 Single target healers - 3-4 raid healers et al.
We don't specify a range. We say we want 8 healers. 8 min 8 max.

Auto-approve will let 9 healers signup.

--


[Back to Index]  [Top of Thread]