Quote Originally Posted by Raikki View Post
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.