EPGP system: How do your guild adjust the GP charged for 2H off-handers?

[senturion]

TG warriors use 2-Handers effectively like dual wielding 1-Handers.

How does your guild handle the GP for the offhander? Of course this question only goes out to raiders under the EPGP system..

[Allacess]

We're not using EPGP, but WebDKP, and a percentage based system charging 30% for twohanded weapons, but as TG it only charges 15% of your current DKP.

[Oliria]

We just charge 2-handers as 1-handers if it's used for TG. Basicly just half price for warriors (but as far as I know the price is refunded after, so it doesn't screw the priority)

[Tankitbetter]

We just charge 2-handers as 1-handers if it's used for TG. Basicly just half price for warriors (but as far as I know the price is refunded after, so it doesn't screw the priority)

We were afraid of abuse with TG then swapping to arms, so we made the first 2h cost full 2h price and the 2nd one cost 75% less. This resets for heroic. If they buy a 3rd, it costs full price.

Example:

1st 2h: 40
2nd 2h: 10
3rd 2h: 40

1st h2h: 80
2nd h2h: 20
3rd h2h: 80

[marklar]

the numbers are built into the system.

normally, a 2H weapon has a 2x modifier, but an off hand weapon is 0.5x. therefore, an off hand 2H is 1x modifier, which is half what it would cost in the main hand.

http://www.epgpweb.com/help/gearpoints

[Blindman213]

The greatest moment in a guild is when you can all learn to just get along, and drop all DKP systems all together.

That's when you know your character has found a home and not an employer.

[Samoflange]

It should be full cost for both weapons IMO, I disagree with EPGP's logic in this. There are others competing for the same weapon that shouldn't have to compete with someone paying less DKP for coveted 2-handers just because of their chosen spec. It's a high-cost spec, if they choose TG fury then the burden of cost should be on the warrior, not the raid.

[Dungeonravor]

Wasn't even aware that this kind of system was still in use.

[Dakhath]

It should be full cost for both weapons IMO, I disagree with EPGP's logic in this. There are others competing for the same weapon that shouldn't have to compete with someone paying less DKP for coveted 2-handers just because of their chosen spec. It's a high-cost spec, if they choose TG fury then the burden of cost should be on the warrior, not the raid.

TG is the highest preforming Warrior spec currently, why would you punish the raid by encouraging people to go other routes? You're a Ret or a DK aren't you.

[Jaceo]

If the MH is 2000EP then the OH is 500EP. If you hover the tooltip from the EPGP addons even tells you both values.

[marklar]

It should be full cost for both weapons IMO, I disagree with EPGP's logic in this. There are others competing for the same weapon that shouldn't have to compete with someone paying less DKP for coveted 2-handers just because of their chosen spec. It's a high-cost spec, if they choose TG fury then the burden of cost should be on the warrior, not the raid.

they aren't competing. if you read up on EPGP you would know that someone paying more GP for the same item always has priority. so a warrior rolling MH would always beat a warrior rolling OH, no matter their PR.

TG already pays more total GP for their complete gear set than any other spec in the game, even with the OH having a 1x modifier. if you gave it a 2x modifier like the MH slot, it would be unnecessarily punitive.

an OH is much, much less of a contribution to overall damage than a MH, so it's fair both ways.

[Samoflange]

TG is the highest preforming Warrior spec currently, why would you punish the raid by encouraging people to go other routes? You're a Ret or a DK aren't you.

Couldn't give a rat's ass about its performance, it shouldn't be a factor. I play all three classes, try again.

they aren't competing. if you read up on EPGP you would know that someone paying more GP for the same item always has priority. so a warrior rolling MH would always beat a warrior rolling OH, no matter their PR.

Source? Cause there's no ruling I see that follows this and as far as I can see, it's all based on who is highest on PR.

[dalch]

we are in 2013 and the guys that shit on lfr players still can't live in an environment without dkp?

Infracted: Post constructively and stay relevant to the topic, please. - Senen

[Senen]

Guys, the topic of this thread isn't about whether or not you should use DKP/EPGP/whatever loot system in raid, but to give feedback about how to value OH with such systems.
If you want to debate about the relevance of such systems, feel free to start a thread about it (probably better to do it in the Raids & Dungeons forum, though). Else, bring constructive feedback here, pretty please.

[aGit]

we are in 2013 and the guys that shit on lfr players still can't live in an environment without dkp?

Infracted: Post constructively and stay relevant to the topic, please. - Senen

in a 25man environment some kind of loot system is more or less mandatory. While loot council would probs be ideal, it's also a lot of work for the officers. EPGP is easy enough to manage, albeit far from perfect.

[Trickname]

We just give offhands for free as-long as you already have a MH weapon you paid full gp for. However if someone else is below you and wants it for MH you must pay 50% GP (or pass).

[Deleted]

The best choice would be to split the cost 50:50 if the spec requires 2 weapons (100:0 is a good compromise if the class has a 1 weapon spec). If not it penalizes players for playing a spec that requires more weapons.

Having the cost go up because someone else wants the weapon is also, imo, not fair at all and rewards those players for not upgrading.

[senturion]

We have decided to 1/3 GP the OH. There was protests by the DKs and Rets saying that warriors wielding two 2H deprives the others of 2Hs.

But since TG warrior > DK > RET this tier.. Guild council says... "Go warrior! DKs and Rets suck it up ! " kd

[marklar]

Source? Cause there's no ruling I see that follows this and as far as I can see, it's all based on who is highest on PR.

do you really need a source on that? it's common sense; think about why it came about: gun drops, hunter and warrior both roll main spec. warrior is higher PR, but hunter pays 1.5x GP while warrior pays 0.5x GP. obviously, giving it to the hunter results in a much bigger personal and raid benefit so hunter gets it. yes, i know warriors don't have ranged slots anymore, but EPGP has been around a long time and the MH/OH argument is the same.

i'd link it if i could, but i read this rule years ago and i don't remember where. GP values are here.

- - - Updated - - -

We have decided to 1/3 GP the OH. There was protests by the DKs and Rets saying that warriors wielding two 2H deprives the others of 2Hs.

But since TG warrior > DK > RET this tier.. Guild council says... "Go warrior! DKs and Rets suck it up ! " kd

if your officers gave an OH weapon to a warrior over a MH DK/ret, then that just proves why using the GP modifier BEFORE considering PR is so important.

[Samoflange]

do you really need a source on that? it's common sense; think about why it came about: gun drops, hunter and warrior both roll main spec. warrior is higher PR, but hunter pays 1.5x GP while warrior pays 0.5x GP. obviously, giving it to the hunter results in a much bigger personal and raid benefit so hunter gets it. yes, i know warriors don't have ranged slots anymore, but EPGP has been around a long time and the MH/OH argument is the same.

i'd link it if i could, but i read this rule years ago and i don't remember where. GP values are here.

- - - Updated - - -



if your officers gave an OH weapon to a warrior over a MH DK/ret, then that just proves why using the GP modifier BEFORE considering PR is so important.

Nothing in the GP section states that. Yeah it would be common sense to give priority to one who could use it to the fullest extent, but it's not explicitly stated as part of the system, just that it adjusts the GP cost of an item based on which slot it is being used for. What you were claiming is that it inherently built into the EPGP system and I'm asking you for the source of this rule. I don't use EPGP, I was commenting on what I felt was a flawed logic in lowering the valuation of OH in an attempt to normalize total GP cost across the board.