TOPIC: Proposed GT Class Lottery Approach

Mike Steele wrote: I understand the issue from Matthews post, and see nothing wrong with him proposing a possible solution for consideration.

I didn't say he did anything wrong.

Discussing a "solution" when there was no consensus that there was a problem was, IMO, less effective than he might have liked, but certainly not wrong. He has as much right to say whatever he wants on this forum, within the bounds of propriety, as anyone else does.

After I got to post #33, I'd like to formally retract my earlier "non-problem" comment.

I still think the lottery is an overly complicated solution.

Rob F wrote: If someone can point out a drawback for randomizing class selection order I'd be happy to listen. So far no one has.

I know one major potential drawback.

I'm not saying this particular drawback couldn't be worked around, but let me tell you what used to happen, before GT runs were organized the way they are now.

***** feel free to skip wall of text if you want ****

The very first year of GT runs, it was different from the way they are distributed now. They were distributed as a (paper!) certificate which was included in your order if you bought more than $X of tokens.

So 50 or 60 people showed up on GT night, with their certificates in hand, and we had to sort ourselves into groups. A few of the people had coordinated on the forums, but many of the people who showed up weren't forumites at all, and it took something like half an hour before everyone was kinda in groups of 8 (the party size limit at the time). Then there was still a lot of back &forth over who got which class, since most folks were geared for only one, and a couple left their groups to join a different group rather than play a non-preferred class (again: only 8 classes. No spares to pick from. It *was* possible to end up with your very least preferred class). Which caused more delays, as things got sorted again.

Long story short: It delayed the start of the GT run significantly, and groups were still coming out of the dungeon about an hour after the event was supposed to be over. There was no "bonus" room at the time, but there was food for people... except that much of the food was gone before the last groups got out, and I remember some people being a little bit bitter about that. And some were still a bit pissed about their class and group assignments, too.

The next year of Golden Tickets, they were done as tokens randomly inserted in 10-packs. There was no organiziation online. We just showed up at the appointed time, and _again_ spent pretty much half an hour just getting people's classes sorted. There were a couple of brand new guys who got the shitty end of the stick, as they desperately needing training, but we used up all our training room time just getting the classes & party card sorted.

The next year, Someone (okay - it was me) got the idea* to have people sign up online, and we were able to have *most* of the classes sorted before anyone showed up at the GT run. It wasn't first come - first served, but it was mostly sorted out, and then we did a bit of juggling onsite to accommodate a newbie who hadn't signed up on the forums (I think that's the year I ended up playing Barbarian, because the new guy really wanted rogue, so I grabbed what was left over. Tho I could be misremembering.)

BUT! For the first time, the GT runs went in On Time!! And we even had our difficulty levels picked ahead of time, and several people had their builds ready, to Coaching went quick, and we actually had time in the training room!

The next year, someone (which was not me. Laz, maybe?) had the brilliant idea to put the web page address on the GT tickets, so the lucky winners would know to come to the forums and claim their spot in the run.

That's when we started having the official sign-up thread.
And because I'd started the previous year with organizing people into groups, and we'd selected our classes online, that because the unspoken way of doing things.

It's not perfect, and I understand that it has evolved into something that it probably wasn't meant to be (ie, the first come - first served system) but it beats the *pants* off the old system of having people show up 10 mins before the GT run and start discussing which class they want when a dozen other folks only brought the kit for their favorite class.

******** resume reading my actual point here ****

Your suggestion might get around that argumentative & time-sucking mess by sorting it out online well before the actual event... but I suspect we don't really need the randomization. People are pretty accommodating in these groups. What we might need, is a bold/italicized/highlighted note that these classes are not hard & fast, but requests from people as they sign up. Or perhaps we should get people to sign up with a list of preferred classes (as Fiddy and Master Ed suggested) and once the group reached its full 10, people sorted it out within the group.


I'm kinda in the same place as Brad, here. I can see now that there is a problem with the (perception of?) how GT runs are organized. But I'd rather look for a simpler solution than the randomized selection suggested.


*The reason I first started organizing the GT online, it wasn't because I wanted a specific class. I wanted to be able to run my very first run of the con on *Nightmare* mode! And that meant everyone had to agree to it. So I had to coordinate a group of 8 who were as crazy as I was.

Brad Mortensen wrote: What happened in this thread was, skip to the last step with a very detailed solution that works better for people who live in California without considering any effects on anyone else.

I can't think of a logical manner in which my proposed system could both:

A. Work better for someone in California than it does for someone in Illinois.
B. Work better for someone in California than it does for someone in Australia.

So - I don't understand your comment about how this system is designed to benefit those in California. It is designed, somewhat, at benefiting people who by accident of postal routing systems, get their tokens later than others.

My motivation for starting this thread was posts, not all of which were by me, on the True Hoard thread expressing a dislike for the current system of GT class reservation. The charge then that this was conceived "without considering any effects on anyone else" is as false as it is hyperbolic.



I find your ad hominem attacks here frustrating, and it discourages me from wanting to productively engage with your other ideas.

One possible solution is to wait awhile before assigning classes, giving people a chance to get signed up. I'm not sure what the cut-off point would be - maybe a month or two before GENCON? So, people would sign up as they get the Golden Tickets. And then, when the cut-off date arrives, everyone that's on the list would work out what classes they play. Anyone getting a Golden Ticket after that date would take one of the remaining classes, unless someone was OK with swapping.

That seems pretty reasonable. There's no reason classes need to be identified in March for an August event, in my opinion.

Raven wrote: I know one major potential drawback.

***** feel free to skip wall of text if you want ****
snip

******** resume reading my actual point here ****

I'm glad we have continuity in the community to help make sense of these things! Sounds like it was a real mess, and the current system solves a real coordination problem well.

People are pretty accommodating in these groups. What we might need, is a bold/italicized/highlighted note that these classes are not hard & fast, but requests from people as they sign up. Or perhaps we should get people to sign up with a list of preferred classes (as Fiddy and Master Ed suggested) and once the group reached its full 10, people sorted it out within the group.

That sounds great to me.

As it is, coming into it midway, the official-ness of the signup page caused me to interpret first come, first served as a rule - just like I'd never ask someone in front of line for me to change their order at a food truck if the chef announced they "got the last one" of something I'd been planning to order, I wouldn't ask someone who has been allocated a class to change.

But - if the purpose of the signup is to encourage coordination for a smooth event, but also horse trading, simple wording to that effect would go a long way.

I do really appreciate Fiddy's system of listing 3-4 classes you're willing to play.

Wasn't really planning to offer any thoughts on this because the chances are very remote I'll see another GT any time soon.

A lot a good ideas, but from my limited observation, here's what I see.

Some people are concerned that because their shipments arrive later than others, they don't have the same priority in selecting their class for the GT runs. I think the reality is that if they say something there is a high likelihood that something will be worked out. I think 90% of the people in the GT runs have some flexibility and just because they select one class, I think they'd be open to switching. In this case the issue is that some people aren't comfortable asking the question, because they don't know the response. They may be afraid someone will angrily reply "they made their selection first and won't change it". I doubt many would respond that way.

There is an idea to wait to pick class, but what real difference does that make? Someone will still be the first one to offer their preference, someone will be second, or so forth. You can assign a random selection order, but in the end you still won't completely avoid potential conflicts.

What I like about the current system is that if people list their preferences I can see if someone already listed my preferred class and I can pick another run to avoid a conflict. If 10 people select their run and then pick class later, you could end up with 4 people in the same run who wanted the same class, with no one wanting that class in the other 3 runs. The bottom line is that you can pick whatever method you like, but I think you'll still have some conflicts and the best way to resolve them is to have a party willing to negotiate, which I think we generally have today.

Dave wrote: Wasn't really planning to offer any thoughts on this because the chances are very remote I'll see another GT any time soon.

A lot a good ideas, but from my limited observation, here's what I see.

Some people are concerned that because their shipments arrive later than others, they don't have the same priority in selecting their class for the GT runs. I think the reality is that if they say something there is a high likelihood that something will be worked out. I think 90% of the people in the GT runs have some flexibility and just because they select one class, I think they'd be open to switching. In this case the issue is that some people aren't comfortable asking the question, because they don't know the response. They may be afraid someone will angrily reply "they made their selection first and won't change it". I doubt many would respond that way.

There is an idea to wait to pick class, but what real difference does that make? Someone will still be the first one to offer their preference, someone will be second, or so forth. You can assign a random selection order, but in the end you still won't completely avoid potential conflicts.

What I like about the current system is that if people list their preferences I can see if someone already listed my preferred class and I can pick another run to avoid a conflict. If 10 people select their run and then pick class later, you could end up with 4 people in the same run who wanted the same class, with no one wanting that class in the other 3 runs. The bottom line is that you can pick whatever method you like, but I think you'll still have some conflicts and the best way to resolve them is to have a party willing to negotiate, which I think we generally have today.

Applause erupts and the crowd goes wild!
Exactly!!

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote: What happened in this thread was, skip to the last step with a very detailed solution that works better for people who live in California without considering any effects on anyone else.

I can't think of a logical manner in which my proposed system could both:

A. Work better for someone in California than it does for someone in Illinois.
B. Work better for someone in California than it does for someone in Australia.

So - I don't understand your comment about how this system is designed to benefit those in California. It is designed, somewhat, at benefiting people who by accident of postal routing systems, get their tokens later than others.

My motivation for starting this thread was posts, not all of which were by me, on the True Hoard thread expressing a dislike for the current system of GT class reservation. The charge then that this was conceived "without considering any effects on anyone else" is as false as it is hyperbolic.


I find your ad hominem attacks here frustrating, and it discourages me from wanting to productively engage with your other ideas.

I wasn't impugning your motives. In fact, I think I specifically said you said and did nothing wrong, and that I agreed with you that this need to be addressed.

I'm sorry I didn't read any of the Horde thread so had no context for this thread.

I'm sorry I missed the one sentence in the two-screen post that would have let me understand it. That was my oversight. To be honest, when I see anyone's long post I skim it to try to find the point. I homed in on the part your subject was about.

I'm sorry you feel I was attacking you personally. I thought I was giving constructive feedback. I won't do so in the future.

I'm sorry you don't want to think about my other ideas. That's fine, because I don't really feel like discussing them anyway. I still think picking a solution is premature, but I'm not in charge of anything.

Dave wrote: What I like about the current system is that if people list their preferences I can see if someone already listed my preferred class and I can pick another run to avoid a conflict. If 10 people select their run and then pick class later, you could end up with 4 people in the same run who wanted the same class, with no one wanting that class in the other 3 runs. The bottom line is that you can pick whatever method you like, but I think you'll still have some conflicts and the best way to resolve them is to have a party willing to negotiate, which I think we generally have today.

That's a really good point.

Given the discussion so far, I'm thinking the best approach may be:

1. Clarify it's not first come first served, and people are encouraged to work together to come to mutually agreeable class assignments.

2. Encourage people to list a few alternate classes.

That would allow your point (can slot into a run where your preferred class is not contended as much) to work as well.

Brad Mortensen wrote: I wasn't impugning your motives. In fact, I think I specifically said you said and did nothing wrong, and that I agreed with you that this need to be addressed.

Thanks - I posted my thing before I saw that note.

Dave wrote: A lot a good ideas, but from my limited observation, here's what I see.

Some people are concerned that because their shipments arrive later than others, they don't have the same priority in selecting their class for the GT runs. I think the reality is that if they say something there is a high likelihood that something will be worked out. I think 90% of the people in the GT runs have some flexibility and just because they select one class, I think they'd be open to switching. In this case the issue is that some people aren't comfortable asking the question, because they don't know the response. They may be afraid someone will angrily reply "they made their selection first and won't change it". I doubt many would respond that way.

There is an idea to wait to pick class, but what real difference does that make? Someone will still be the first one to offer their preference, someone will be second, or so forth. You can assign a random selection order, but in the end you still won't completely avoid potential conflicts.

What I like about the current system is that if people list their preferences I can see if someone already listed my preferred class and I can pick another run to avoid a conflict. If 10 people select their run and then pick class later, you could end up with 4 people in the same run who wanted the same class, with no one wanting that class in the other 3 runs. The bottom line is that you can pick whatever method you like, but I think you'll still have some conflicts and the best way to resolve them is to have a party willing to negotiate, which I think we generally have today.

Thanks for your observations, Dave, and your concise summary.

I add my applause to those recognizing the wisdom in your post.

Matthew Hayward wrote: As it is, coming into it midway, the official-ness of the signup page caused me to interpret first come, first served as a rule - just like I'd never ask someone in front of line for me to change their order at a food truck if the chef announced they "got the last one" of something I'd been planning to order, I wouldn't ask someone who has been allocated a class to change.

Thanks for sharing your perspective on that Matthew.

Being around TD as long as I have & seeing the way things evolved, it never occurred to me that newer players would see it that way. Your food truck analogy is a good one, though, and I get how newer players would be reluctant to ask - or even assume it was possible - to switch classes around.

But - if the purpose of the signup is to encourage coordination for a smooth event, but also horse trading, simple wording to that effect would go a long way.

I do really appreciate Fiddy's system of listing 3-4 classes you're willing to play.

We're at a great point in the token life cycle here, where we can do something about this.

No one has a GT yet. No one has any right to expect that they'll get a specific class. Let's just add a line to the GT sign up page (do we have one for 2017 already?) saying something to the effect of:

Please sign up with a list of classes you are most interested in playing. (For example: Wizard > Elf Wizard > Bard.) Class selection will be sorted out once a group of 10 is full.