LootCouncil_Lite

[Blacksen]

I just finished up my first major add-on project. While I'm no savvy coder and literally just started learning LUA about a week ago, I think the addon has turned out extremely well. I recently started up a raiding guild and we decided to use loot council as our form of distribution. After having a blunder on our second week of raiding, we realized that it would be extremely useful to have a very strong user interface for the council as a whole. So, I got to work.

The addon itself is pretty simple. When you first load it, you'll be prompted to select a minimum guild rank for participating in the council itself. The guild leader (or, if you're in a raid, raid assistant) simply needs to type /lc start (itemlink) to start considerations for the item.

While the addon certainly isn't the first loot council addon, it does have some unique features. First, it allows you to quickly see what people will be upgrading. In the loot council I run, size of upgrade is a very important factor for us in loot decisions. You can mouse over any itemlink in the addon to see the stats of it. Second, the addon allows you to quickly see how the council has voted. You can simply mouse over a player's name or select a player's row and it'll show you the votes.

The most important thing to me when tweeking the addon for a larger distribution was that it was secure - members couldn't probe for votes or submit unfair votes. Now that I've accomplished that, I'm looking to broaden the user base and get feedback for future iterations.

Later, I'll be posting a "full" version (just LootCouncil, without the Lite) that ideally broadens the suite out a lot more. The full version would almost become a massive raid tracking tool - tracking attendance, previous item loots, etc. Ideally, it would also have some companion script for data import and export. If you have any other major features that you think should be included, then please let me know!

WoWInterface: Download
Curse: Download


Video Tutorial/Demo: Link


Vote Modes:
You can mix/match the vote modes to fit your council's needs!
Private Vote Mode: All votes cast are private and cannot be seen by other council members.
Single Vote Mode: All council members are restricted to one vote per person.
Spec Detection Mode: Whenever someone links an item, you can detect the key phrases "main", "off", or "special". If someone says "MAINSPEC," it'll see the phrase "MAIN" and flag it as main spec.
Restrict Self Voting: Prevent council members from voting on themselves.



Recent Changes:
- Spec detection is now implemented. To display the "Spec" column and detect key words "main", "off", or "special", enable it in the /lc config window.
- Fixed a security hole in the private voting option. Votes are now private.
- Added a checkbox to prevent officers from voting on themselves. There are multiple levels of security to ensure this.
- Added the ability to sort columns. The ascending/descending order is switchable by clicking the column again.
- You can now link multiple items for the trinket, ring, and weapon slots. Mouse overs will work for these multiple items
- Added new options window. The window can be brought up by typing /lc config
- Added more ways for people to link their current item (raid chat, guild chat). These can be enabled (or disabled) through the options window
- Rearranged GUI to remove itemlevel column and place it in parentheses next to the item link.
- Added "guild rank" column to the listing.
- Added "one vote restriction" to options and voting process, giving one vote per council member. When enabled, each council member will be restricted to 1 for vote. The against button will be hidden.
- Added /lc add (name) (itemlink) functionality to manually add someone to consideration.
- Added a "remove from consideration" button. The button will only be visible to the initiator.
- Added a private voting option.
- Made the "Total Votes" column a bit easier to read.

[Deleted]

It looks really nice. Great job.

[Dalsheek]

That's pretty nifty. I assume it works based on items linked to you in a whisper or whatever?

[sscavenger]

Damn that is nice, quick somebody let the higher ups of this place know about this add on. I think they would be interested to see this. Like that ummm damn what was it WoW wish list site. If I knew how to search for posts I would find that link it is a nice site.

[Blacksen]

That's pretty nifty. I assume it works based on items linked to you in a whisper or whatever?

Yes. It also gets linked off of people speaking in officer chat. The guild I'm currently in had people link their item in /ochat instead of whispers.

However, most loot councils usually have you whisper someone, so the mod is fully operational for that as well.

An example sequence:
1) Master looter types /lc start (itemlink)
2) Voting interface opens up for the master looter and all officers
3) You whisper the Master Looter with your current item.
4) Voting interface syncs among all officers for the item you linked.

You can mouse over the item links of people to see other things, such as gems and enchants. We have a policy that we don't award upgrades for gear that isn't properly gemmed/enchanted.

[sscavenger]

Bump.

[gaymer77]

What I don't get about this mod is that it has multiple people being discussed for the item to go to but instead of the option of "I vote for so & so" there are multiple "for" and "against" votes to be cast. How exactly does that narrow it down or determine who wins an item? Just from looking at it, it would appear that the whole for/against voting just narrows down who you discuss being able to have an item go to not who they feel should get it.

[Googolplex]

What I don't get about this mod is that it has multiple people being discussed for the item to go to but instead of the option of "I vote for so & so" there are multiple "for" and "against" votes to be cast. How exactly does that narrow it down or determine who wins an item? Just from looking at it, it would appear that the whole for/against voting just narrows down who you discuss being able to have an item go to not who they feel should get it.

I thougt the exact same thing

Btw, you shouldn't be able to see what other officers are voting until after the vote is complete - people always influence each other in some way.

[gaymer77]

Btw, you shouldn't be able to see what other officers are voting until after the vote is complete - people always influence each other in some way.

That right there is 100% truth. If you can see how people are voting as the votes come in then people might not care how going another way. If the first 2 votes that come in are for the same person that might influence someone on the fence to vote that way too instead of making their own decision for someone based on their own reasoning.

IE:

Loot council is made up of 7 people & healer trinket drops and those people who link are
pally 1
pally 2
shaman 1
priest 1

First vote comes in for pally 2
Second vote comes in for pally 2
Third vote comes in for priest 1
Forth vote comes in for pally 2
Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh voters are going between priest 1 and pally 1 but haven't voted. Those 3 are going to be more prone to going with the flow and voting for pally 2 simply because they figure someone else will cast 1 vote & it would go with that person anyway.
Result is that pally 2 gets it when it would have possibly went to pally 2 or priest 1 or cause a second vote between the two because of a tie. I've actually been on loot councils before where someone mentioned in private that they voted a certain way because they felt their person wasn't going to get it anyway so they just went with what the others had said....actually heard that A LOT of times.

[Blacksen]

What I don't get about this mod is that it has multiple people being discussed for the item to go to but instead of the option of "I vote for so & so" there are multiple "for" and "against" votes to be cast. How exactly does that narrow it down or determine who wins an item? Just from looking at it, it would appear that the whole for/against voting just narrows down who you discuss being able to have an item go to not who they feel should get it.

I guess it's just how individual councils work. My guild's loot council evaluates each person on an individual basis. So, for each person, you would say that you either have a "strong feeling that they should get it" or that you have a "strong feeling that they shouldn't get it." To give an example of how we did it before the mod, let's say Bryntroll drops and we have 6 people who want it. Each officer would say "a or b, but not d". We would evaluate votes that way.

You're absolutely right though in that it's both confusing and annoying if your council works on a "one vote per officer" philosophy.

Btw, you shouldn't be able to see what other officers are voting until after the vote is complete - people always influence each other in some way.

I'll look into this.




If anything, one of the goals was just to have an interface that makes it very easy to see who wants an item and what they're upgrading.

[Chronicle]

If you could add something that you can click to inspect the rest of the gear the people who want the item have, then I will definitely recommend this to fellow officers.

[gaymer77]

I guess it's just how individual councils work. My guild's loot council evaluates each person on an individual basis. So, for each person, you would say that you either have a "strong feeling that they should get it" or that you have a "strong feeling that they shouldn't get it." To give an example of how we did it before the mod, let's say Bryntroll drops and we have 6 people who want it. Each officer would say "a or b, but not d". We would evaluate votes that way.

Your guild has a very unique way of doing a loot council. I've been in a few guilds that used it and have been on many councils as the random raid member who gets one of the votes. They all worked pretty much the same way.

- Dragged into another vent channel where only those on LC can go into after all loot on the boss is linked to the raid
- One item is linked for raid members to link what they would replace it with
- Take an initial vote on who they feel it should go to
- If its not a concrete decision or split then discussion is made
- Talk in vent (or ochat if you don't have a mic) about why you feel "so & so" should get the item
- Another vote is made
- Item is looted to winner

Most LCs don't go past the initial vote because its typically unanimous who it would go to but on those rare occasion where its not is when things take longer and lots of discussion is involved.

[Eats Compost]

As someone already mentioned, I think votes should be private until everyone's done voting. Peer pressure can seriously alter results.

[Blacksen]

Future Development
- Add more ways for people to link their current item (raid chat, guild chat) and incorporate the method into the options window.
- Allow people to link multiple items for weapons, trinkets, and rings.
- Rearrange GUI to remove itemlevel column and place it in parentheses next to the item link.
- Add "guild rank" column to the listing.
- Add "one vote restriction" to options and voting process, giving one vote per officer
- Add /lc add (name) (itemlink) functionality to manually add someone to consideration.
- Add a "remove from consideration" button and/or method.
- Add ability to make votes private.



Should have most of these released by Saturday night.

[gaymer77]

Future Development
- Add more ways for people to link their current item (raid chat, guild chat) and incorporate the method into the options window.
- Allow people to link multiple items for weapons, trinkets, and rings.
- Rearrange GUI to remove itemlevel column and place it in parentheses next to the item link.
- Add "guild rank" column to the listing.
- Add "one vote restriction" to options and voting process, giving one vote per officer
- Add /lc add (name) (itemlink) functionality to manually add someone to consideration.
- Add a "remove from consideration" button and/or method.
- Add ability to make votes private.



Should have most of these released by Saturday night.

These new features will make this mod basically a must-have for those guilds who run with a LC.

[cidic]

I have to give you credit. I was talking to a few guildmates lastnight about this addon and while my guild does not use LC anymore we all pretty much said the same thing. "Why has it taken this long for a LC addon to be made". Very nice work

[Blacksen]

Bump. Would love more feedback.

[Hypernetic]

Hey, my guild loves the mod, but would really like some additional features to make it 100% viable for us.

We use wishlists with our loot council, people with an item on their wishlist receive higher priority on voting than people who don't. So, as an example, if player X sends in a tell with the item he is replacing and then types "wish list" after it, we could see that in the voting window. If you could add that into your mod it would be absolutely perfect for us.


On a side note, an improvement that I think could be made would be if you could select individual ranks instead of a minimum rank. For example, the officer rank in my guild is rank 3, but we have a special rank for officer's alts that allows them to see O-chat and such, but is rank 8. We'd have to restructure our ranks to allow officer alts to get in on the voting. Sometimes officers sit from a raid for whatever reason and we also allow alts on farm content. Restructuring the ranks isn't the end of the world, but it would be a nice feature to allow selecting specific ranks as opposed to a minimum in future iterations.

[Kassatsu]

Wow looks really nice and thought out. Definitely going to have to test it out.

[Blacksen]

Hey, my guild loves the mod, but would really like some additional features to make it 100% viable for us.

We use wishlists with our loot council, people with an item on their wishlist receive higher priority on voting than people who don't. So, as an example, if player X sends in a tell with the item he is replacing and then types "wish list" after it, we could see that in the voting window. If you could add that into your mod it would be absolutely perfect for us.

I'm working on this, but it probably won't make tomorrow's update. A lot of people seem to be wanting the text after an item link to be significant (another example is "main spec" and "off spec"). I think the functionality I'm going to add will be to detect "main", "off", and "special". Guilds can do what they want whenever someone says "special" or they can turn it off completely.

On a side note, an improvement that I think could be made would be if you could select individual ranks instead of a minimum rank. For example, the officer rank in my guild is rank 3, but we have a special rank for officer's alts that allows them to see O-chat and such, but is rank 8. We'd have to restructure our ranks to allow officer alts to get in on the voting. Sometimes officers sit from a raid for whatever reason and we also allow alts on farm content. Restructuring the ranks isn't the end of the world, but it would be a nice feature to allow selecting specific ranks as opposed to a minimum in future iterations.

Unfortunately this is technically challenging. I'll see what I can do.



Thanks for the comments :-D