Small Rant on Seal Rolls in Hamlet parties

[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.

[Raikki]

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.

The nature of a pickup group is that everyone's in it for themselves. That's what you're signing up for by participating in one. It's not unethical. There was nothing shady about his omission because what matters to individual members of a PUG is their loot odds, not what other people do with their drops. Your problem is that you want more than the "PUG selfishness" out of your groups, yet you're participating in PUGs. You can't change the nature of a pickup group. Accept that you're playing as an individual and if you want to forge friendships and break out of that, that's great.

[Wynn]

The nature of a pickup group is that everyone's in it for themselves. That's what you're signing up for by participating in one. It's not unethical. There was nothing shady about his omission because what matters to individual members of a PUG is their loot odds, not what other people do with their drops. Your problem is that you want more than the "PUG selfishness" out of your groups, yet you're participating in PUGs. You can't change the nature of a pickup group. Accept that you're playing as an individual and if you want to forge friendships and break out of that, that's great.

Or SE could just fix it so that players who want to manipulate the system in their favor can no longer do so.

[Raikki]

Or SE could just fix it so that players who want to manipulate the system in their favor can no longer do so.

Doing a hamlet with nothing in it for yourself except to help a friend is "manipulating the system in your favor"? I think not. You can't impose your own subjective morality on the rest of the world. The only fair way to handle PUG loot is objectively and individualistically. You agreed to loot odds and you got the loot odds you agreed to. What the winners do doesn't matter, because you're there as an individual and your agreed-upon chance at a seal is the reward for your effort. You're better off taking this as a lesson in how PUGs work than complaining about how the world won't agree with your idea of "fair".