Re: Another raid day for NA team
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 9:57 pm
I think we've got two potential motivations for a second raid on Sunday: timing flexibility and demand. Scheduling is hard, and figuring out a "better" time for NA 9s sounds vaguely Sisyphean to me. However, determining if there is sufficient demand *at the current time* is something we can discover by just allowing for an unlimited number of Sunday sign-ups (for a limited set of time), with the caveat that there is only 1 guaranteed raid team of 10 that will come of it. Like I said, I understand why sign-ups are limited to 13, but it does prevent us from knowing if there are 14 or 24 people that want to raid at the current time on Sunday.
So, I propose that we leave the sign-ups open-ended for a limited time and attempt to run two raids *at the same time*. If we get more than 13 but less than 20, then yes, up to 6 additional people may be disappointed by not being in the raid. If we get 20 or more, I will volunteer to lead a second group - Provided that Claretta and I can coordinate and attempt to get 2 viable teams vs. one Über-powerful team and one non-viable one. If we can't make 2 viable teams, then Claretta's team has precedence. Additional work, yes; But it shouldn't be odious. As a bonus, with simultaneous raids comes fun social opportunities (Lurker races: Guys vs. Girls, Ciritty & Claretta vs. everyone else, etc.)
We do this once, maybe twice. If we don't get two viable raids out of it, we go back to the way things were. To me, a couple weeks of crazy signups is a small price to pay for getting 10 more cabbies an additional Lurker kill each week.
I respect the current system, and think it has a well thought out steady-state. However, I'm not convinced that a second raid will get off the ground without help. As it stands, just designating a second leader and asking them to organize the second raid shifts *all* the risk onto that leader. They need to give up their chance for the current raid just to investigate if a second one is possible. Meanwhile, all the current regulars will probably sign for the raid that is most likely to down the Lurker easily, which will further hamper the development of a second team. I believe in altruism, but am also firm believer in the behavioral economics theory of bounded rationality. Individually assuming all the risk of getting a second raid off the ground may be enough of a cost to discourage anyone from putting together a strong second raid.
Hopefully this comes across as I intend it, as an attempt to make helpful suggestions, and not as an armchair quarterback.
I'll shut up now.
So, I propose that we leave the sign-ups open-ended for a limited time and attempt to run two raids *at the same time*. If we get more than 13 but less than 20, then yes, up to 6 additional people may be disappointed by not being in the raid. If we get 20 or more, I will volunteer to lead a second group - Provided that Claretta and I can coordinate and attempt to get 2 viable teams vs. one Über-powerful team and one non-viable one. If we can't make 2 viable teams, then Claretta's team has precedence. Additional work, yes; But it shouldn't be odious. As a bonus, with simultaneous raids comes fun social opportunities (Lurker races: Guys vs. Girls, Ciritty & Claretta vs. everyone else, etc.)
We do this once, maybe twice. If we don't get two viable raids out of it, we go back to the way things were. To me, a couple weeks of crazy signups is a small price to pay for getting 10 more cabbies an additional Lurker kill each week.
I respect the current system, and think it has a well thought out steady-state. However, I'm not convinced that a second raid will get off the ground without help. As it stands, just designating a second leader and asking them to organize the second raid shifts *all* the risk onto that leader. They need to give up their chance for the current raid just to investigate if a second one is possible. Meanwhile, all the current regulars will probably sign for the raid that is most likely to down the Lurker easily, which will further hamper the development of a second team. I believe in altruism, but am also firm believer in the behavioral economics theory of bounded rationality. Individually assuming all the risk of getting a second raid off the ground may be enough of a cost to discourage anyone from putting together a strong second raid.
Hopefully this comes across as I intend it, as an attempt to make helpful suggestions, and not as an armchair quarterback.
I'll shut up now.