Quote Originally Posted by Korpg View Post

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.