Small Rant on Seal Rolls in Hamlet parties

[bobbygunz]

The guy who wasn't rolling for seals originally obviously joined the party purely to help his friend. If he won the roll on the seal, it's his to do as he pleases, whether that be to give it to a friend or not.

It is sometimes hard to find people to join a party, so having him in the party to begin with meant that everyone had a chance to get a seal. He won the seal fairly, and he did what he wanted to with it. End of story.

[Meatdawg]

The guy who wasn't rolling for seals originally obviously joined the party purely to help his friend. If he won the roll on the seal, it's his to do as he pleases, whether that be to give it to a friend or not.

It is sometimes hard to find people to join a party, so having him in the party to begin with meant that everyone had a chance to get a seal. He won the seal fairly, and he did what he wanted to with it. End of story.

This...

You lost the roll, doesn't matter what the guy did with it who won the roll because you had your chance at it.

He could destroy it at that point if he wanted too.

[Wynn]

This...

You lost the roll, doesn't matter what the guy did with it who won the roll because you had your chance at it.

He could destroy it at that point if he wanted too.

Well then, I do hope we end up in party together sometime so that I can switch my drop priority in order to lot on loot you want and then give it to anyone else who was lotting on it in the party other than you. Since that is perfectly acceptable behavior, I trust you will have no issues with this.

[Meatdawg]

Well then, I do hope we end up in party together sometime so that I can switch my drop priority in order to lot on loot you want and then give it to anyone else who was lotting on it in the party other than you. Since that is perfectly acceptable behavior, I trust you will have no issues with this.

I hate to tell you this, but life isn't fair. The loot switch is irrelevant. Lets say the loot the guy switched from dropped. Since he changed to seal now you all get to roll on the digger helm (example). You win it. He runs here and post a QQ thread like you saying he wanted the digger helm and didn't need seals and this guy that had a seal took his helm.

So instead of having to read his QQ i have to read yours.

Basically your QQ'ing because you didn't get 2 seals. Guess what, ive run 100's of hamlets. Probably over 300 total. Everyone was rolling on seals back when I did it. Suck it up and run it again.

[Wynn]

I hate to tell you this, but life isn't fair. The loot switch is irrelevant. Lets say the loot the guy switched from dropped. Since he changed to seal now you all get to roll on the digger helm (example). You win it. He runs here and post a QQ thread like you saying he wanted the digger helm and didn't need seals and this guy that had a seal took his helm.

So instead of having to read his QQ i have to read yours.

Basically your QQ'ing because you didn't get 2 seals. Guess what, ive run 100's of hamlets. Probably over 300 total. Everyone was rolling on seals back when I did it. Suck it up and run it again.

I'm not QQing at all. Just discussing something I find to be unethical and to see what everyone else thinks as well. It is pretty much as I expected.

If you read my initial post I specifically stated I hold no ill will toward the players since I had already won a seal that evening.

[Meatdawg]

I'm not QQing at all. Just discussing something I find to be unethical and to see what everyone else thinks as well. It is pretty much as I expected.

I was in a hamlet party and before the last run, one player asked to switch his loot preference from one of the other drop items to a seal. I wasn't sure at the time why they wouldn't want seals to begin with if they still needed seals but when put to vote by the party leader, I said sure.

If he wins, whatever happens after the fact is irrelevant because you agreed to it. He can keep it, he can pass it to you, he can pass it to his friend, he can destroy it.

This whole thread is a QQ because he passed loot he won in rules that you agreed with.

[Raikki]

Let's scale this up a bit. Say there's a group of 7 friends who shout for an 8th and you join their hamlet party. Only 1 of the people in the group of 7 needs a seal, and the other 6 are helping him out. Do you deserve 50% of all seal drops even though you're contributing 1/7th as much as they are? And how is that party any different to you than if you joined a party of 8 individuals who all needed seals for themselves? Why does it matter to you?

You lost a fair roll that you knew the odds on in advance. The fact that the winner passed his reward to his friend doesn't change the fact that he contributed to the hamlet and is just as entitled to a reward as anyone else.

[Wynn]

Let's scale this up a bit. Say there's a group of 7 friends who shout for an 8th and you join their hamlet party. Only 1 of the people in the group of 7 needs a seal, and the other 6 are helping him out. Do you deserve 50% of all seal drops even though you're contributing 1/7th as much as they are? And how is that party any different to you than if you joined a party of 8 individuals who all needed seals for themselves? Why does it matter to you?

You lost a fair roll that you knew the odds on in advance. The fact that the winner passed his reward to his friend doesn't change the fact that he contributed to the hamlet and is just as entitled to a reward as anyone else.

If those were the rules of the party and it was communicated before joining that would be fine. I would simply pass on the party, just like I did the very next party I was going to join.

Let's be clear here. There was no rule for this and no I did not know in advance what they planned to do. In fact, they had an opportunity to explain what they were doing and chose to be silent. Most likely because they knew if they had explained what they were doing we would have said no. Go back and read the original post.

I think your 50% argument is smoke and mirrors and here is why:

There is a reason for establishing loot priority in the first place. If everyone really believed what I described was ok, there would be no loot priority at all. Everyone would just lot on everything and let the chips fall where they may. That is not how it works in this community/game and there is good reason for that.

I'm sorry, but I do not believe it is right to give someone more lots on an item than someone else. If other people are lotting for a different person who is also lotting for the same item, it is no different than letting that person roll more than once. It is an unfair advantage.

However, it is fine with me that you guys disagree.

[Raikki]

If those were the rules of the party and it was communicated before joining that would be fine. I would simply pass on the party, just like I did the very next party I was going to join.

Let's be clear here. There was no rule for this and no I did not know in advance what they planned to do. In fact, they had an opportunity to explain what they were doing and chose to be silent. Most likely because they knew if they had explained what they were doing we would have said no. Go back and read the original post.

I think your 50% argument is smoke and mirrors and here is why:

There is a reason for establishing loot priority in the first place. If everyone really believed what I described was ok, there would be no loot priority at all. Everyone would just lot on everything and let the chips fall where they may. That is not how it works in this community/game and there is good reason for that.

I'm sorry, but I do not believe it is right to give someone more lots on an item than someone else. If other people are lotting for a different person who is also lotting for the same item, it is no different than letting that person roll more than once. It is an unfair advantage.

However, it is fine with me that you guys disagree.

I was in a hamlet party and before the last run, one player asked to switch his loot preference from one of the other drop items to a seal. I wasn't sure at the time why they wouldn't want seals to begin with if they still needed seals but when put to vote by the party leader, I said sure.

You agreed to change your seal odds to what they were when the seal dropped. You knew exactly the odds you were getting into. You got the odds you agreed to, you have absolutely nothing to complain about.

[Wynn]

You agreed to change your seal odds to what they were when the seal dropped. You knew exactly the odds you were getting into. You got the odds you agreed to, you have absolutely nothing to complain about.

If that player genuinely needed the seal, I'd be more than happy to let him loot on it which is why I said ok. That person made the change under false pretense by means of omission. Don't sit here and try to tell me what they did was on the up and up and that it was somehow my fault so I should shut up.