Cultural Lotting Changes, now with no risk of being closed

[Nawesemo]

Servers are back up

[Korpg]

There is nothing new about linkshell leaders giving out favours to favourite people. Just like there is nothing new about ninja lotter (IYO). As I have previously stated everyone who is in my linkshell has the right to lot on anything that drops. If you took part in the activity then it is fair that you can lot on it. It can be the first time it dropped, it doesnt matter, you helped it happen. This is a much fairly system than most linkshell run. I dont care if you want it to store in your mog house when someone else could be using it, your reason for wanting it is as valid as someone elses. This is in my opinion there is no such thing as a ninja lot. I can see a need for people who want to stop other people from lotting to have a system change. Maybe it would be better for leaders to say who cant lot or leaders to have the right to pass it from others. Ive seen examples where people argue over who has what rights and as you have all said you all signed up to the linkshell leaders rules so the linkshell leaders should have the rights to do what they want people will just leave if its a bad shell. I would like to see the quartermaster applied but dont see how it can work with ex rare gear.

If you are in a linkshell that you don't like the lot distribution policies (only certain people get drops, everyone else gets scraps from the tables, and good luck being one of the "certain person" category) then don't join that shell, or if you are in that shell, leave.

Ninja lotters only happen when somebody outside of the linkshell lots on an item that the linkshell won (relic armor used to be a main "ninja lot" item, but not anymore). That or a pick-up group YOYD (your orb, your drop) policy ends up that somebody got XXuber time that wasn't from their "orb".

Your example of Walk-of-Echos is a poor one, because loot distribution is not limited to one group of people (like oldstyle dynamis) but everyone in the "zone" and since anyone can enter that zone up to a limit without a need for an item to trade (like Einherjar) anyone can cast a lot on anything. That is probably why most linkshells don't do WoE (that and the rewards suck mainly).

The lotting system is not flawed, except for WoE. Now most shells (on Asura at least) have a policy of "Pass items or get kicked out of the party within 2 minutes" which is probably the best. It would allow people who have certain items prevented from being stolen from other members (outside of the linkshell mainly, because most, if not all linkshell members are honorable).

What you are asking is a complication of the code and acceptance of cultural viewpoints in the distribution of shared items. Real life does not work like this game, you can't kill a tiger and expect a tiger fang and tiger hide to fall down from the tiger's body. You can expect an arrest warrent on your happy butt for killing an endangered species though, unless you did so in self-defense (good luck proving that one).

Oh yeah, and don't expect tigers to pop out from the ground after you kill them either.

[Ravenmore]

not 100% on how WOE treasure system is but if its like every other area in the game where only the people in the party can lot whats in the treasure pool then i woulda have had that person agree to the terms if they did not you boot them and if they agree and then ninja loot call gm (it doesnt matter what one you call) they will handle the situation if they find in the chat log that person agreed to the terms.

Its zone wide lotting. Coins are open to anyone in the zone no matter if thier party killed the mob or not. So you can enter the zone as long as there is more then 50% of the time remaining for the group that entered.

[Kimble]

No. We dont need it done through the system because its way to much work to even make something like that possible.

They system was made very basic so then people can make their own rules as they see fit. This isnt just done this way in FFXI this is done on a lot of mmos.

[Karbuncle]

I would redesign the lotting system so it could be as flexible as possible.

I'd introduce a simple base system, Like "Cast lot" or "Pass". This allows two simple options. Then I'd allow the community to use their intelligence, courtesy, understanding, and abilities to make regulations/rules/agreements between themselves to govern which drop goes where in a fair manner.

Like DKP, Attendance Based, or Job Based.

This way every play could work and build off the base idea of the lotting system in a way they find fair. This would also make it to where players who don't agree with 1 set of rules could still make their own set of rules based on the base Lotting System.

That way everyone is happy because they can either join another group with pre-determined agreeance on lotting, or simply solo/make their own group to determine lotting.

So a simple base lotting system, where players could build off of using "player made" agreements for distributing loot fairly.

[StingRay104]

First off Thank you Korpg for reviving this post cuz I really wanted to ask Katz something.

@ Katz. Are you on the list of BG warnings?

Second: If I got this job for sitting in a chair and making sure no one press this read button on the wall, and then pressed the button because no physical barrier of any type kept me from pressing it, then I would be fired, and that would follow me around in my work history. If you don't like LS rules then don't join the shell, find one or make one the way you want it to be.

Third: Personally I would love to have Party/Alliance leader to be able to manually select who gets what, it would make it so much easier to deal with afkers.

Fourth: Their is nothing cultural about making peoples names known who hav edone bad. Wanted posters have been posted for thousands of years, and not just for criminals, generic rulebreakers who may know valuable info to. To say its wrong to post someones name on a shame list is cultural is wrong, after all in ancient egyt if you steal fruit you lose your hand, if you speak ill of those in charge you lose your tongue, and this isn't the only example every culture has their own means of dealing with miscreants and online its best to just post the offenders name. BTW if you go to a place and pay by check and its bounces for any reason your name and photo gets posted at all cashiers stations as a don't accept checks from this person list. If you get caught stealing your name and photo gets posted and you can no longer be served at that store. No matter how minor the offense their is always repercussions for your negative actions.

Finally if you don't think its fair then don't agree, sure you won't be allowed to do the run with those people but aleast you won't have to put up with their stupid rules, this is called freedom of choice, you have the choice to accept the rules or not go with that group.

[Korpg]

LALALALA still ignores the original question asked in the op and wonders why it was closed.
Is it that people believe the lotting system need to be overhauled so that Leaders have to right to assign "winnings" to people? If you could change the lotting rules how would you do it?

This is the highlighted paragraph that specifically was ignored by everyone who answered about linkshell rules. Still waiting for answers instead of what linkshells do with their rules.

What about "events" that there is no set linkshell to determine who gets what? Like Pick-up Groups for BCNM/KSNM/ISNM/KCNM/WoE/Dynamis/Abyssea? Are you suggesting that the leader of that group decides on who gets what drops? Think that is fair?

<Leader> Ok, so you BLM who used his orb, I determined that you get the 2 Pearls and the 1 Black Pearl while I get the Kraken Club and the 3 Oxbloods. If you don't like that, too bad cause SE made it possible for me to decide who gets what.

Sounds fair, right?

That is basically what you are asking.

Also, lets assume the following: 3 man BCNM60 Up in Arms. Myself and a shellmate with another person in the group from outside our shell. Under your system I determine who gets what because of the group, 2 people are in the shell and from the group, I am the sackholder, so I'm technically the leader, no matter who actually has the leader spot. So I'll pick the most expensive/useful item for myself, without regardless of who's orb it was that was used. Sure, we could have agreed on your orb/your drop but leaders of shells get to determine under your system.

See the flaws?

[Vold]

LALALALA still ignores the original question asked in the op and wonders why it was closed.
Is it that people believe the lotting system need to be overhauled so that Leaders have to right to assign "winnings" to people? If you could change the lotting rules how would you do it?

This is the highlighted paragraph that specifically was ignored by everyone who answered about linkshell rules. Still waiting for answers instead of what linkshells do with their rules.

Maybe we ignored it because no one cares except you. We're all fine with how lotting works. We don't need the system to do the work for us. You're the one who has a problem with it, except you push that problem onto us so that we're the ones with the problem and not you in your eyes. Everyone will never agree with everyone on anything, since the beginning of time until the day time stops rolling. Just how it is. If you want to free lot everything that's great. I hope you free lot until the cows come home. But don't expect the rest of us to bend our rules long enough for you to free lot all 4 Empyrean seals that just dropped of a NM in a pick up group so your #5 job that you play once a month can be pimped.

I would redesign the lotting system so it could be as flexible as possible.

I'd introduce a simple base system, Like "Cast lot" or "Pass". This allows two simple options. Then I'd allow the community to use their intelligence, courtesy, understanding, and abilities to make regulations/rules/agreements between themselves to govern which drop goes where in a fair manner.

Like DKP, Attendance Based, or Job Based.

This way every play could work and build off the base idea of the lotting system in a way they find fair. This would also make it to where players who don't agree with 1 set of rules could still make their own set of rules based on the base Lotting System.

That way everyone is happy because they can either join another group with pre-determined agreeance on lotting, or simply solo/make their own group to determine lotting.

So a simple base lotting system, where players could build off of using "player made" agreements for distributing loot fairly.

No thanks karb you're just trying to make it 10 times more complex than it already is. Oh wait.

[Bagel]

Also, lets assume the following: 3 man BCNM60 Up in Arms. Myself and a shellmate with another person in the group from outside our shell. Under your system I determine who gets what because of the group, 2 people are in the shell and from the group, I am the sackholder, so I'm technically the leader, no matter who actually has the leader spot. So I'll pick the most expensive/useful item for myself, without regardless of who's orb it was that was used. Sure, we could have agreed on your orb/your drop but leaders of shells get to determine under your system.

See the flaws?

I understand what you're saying but this example is awful and incredibly obtuse. Introducing an option for a leader to distribute drops would do a whole lot of nothing to the way loot is distributed. In any group, be it linkshell group, pug or what have you, there is an agreed upon standard to which loot is distributed. Just because someone has the ability to hand out drops doesn't change that they are bound socially to abide by the rules they agreed upon when forming the group.

Your argument says that someone agrees to a YOYD bcnm run, then simply because the option exists for them to give themselves the loot, they will ignore the previous agreement and take the KC another member won. I fail to see how this is the distribution methods fault. It's the player for being selfish. You're blaming vidya games for columbine here.

[Korpg]

I understand what you're saying but this example is awful and incredibly obtuse. Introducing an option for a leader to distribute drops would do a whole lot of nothing to the way loot is distributed. In any group, be it linkshell group, pug or what have you, there is an agreed upon standard to which loot is distributed. Just because someone has the ability to hand out drops doesn't change that they are bound socially to abide by the rules they agreed upon when forming the group.

Your argument says that someone agrees to a YOYD bcnm run, then simply because the option exists for them to give themselves the loot, they will ignore the previous agreement and take the KC another member won. I fail to see how this is the distribution methods fault. It's the player for being selfish. You're blaming vidya games for columbine here.

But you are saying that this won't happen? It may be obtuse, but it is plausible, and creates a new breed of stealing.

Why create an additional option for stealing items? This option will abolish pickup groups when it starts to become abusive, and it will be abused because there are people out there who like to abuse things like this constantly! If they didn't, they wouldn't have stolen other's items in the first place!