Small Rant on Seal Rolls in Hamlet parties

[Raikki]

Except it's not true. Three people were rolling on seals. Three people that still needed them. A fourth in the group changed their roll only to fluff one of the three's rolls.

So in actuality, three people have 1 out of 3 chance. When a fourth is added it reduces to 1 out of 4. When that person decides to roll on an item only to give it to one of the other rollers it boosts that roller to 2 out of 4, or 1/2, while at the same time lowering the chances of others from 1/3 to 1/4. It was nothing more than an arbitrary shift of odds in one person's favor.

The only reason this person did this was to increase their friend's chance at winning a seal over the other lotters. They certainly didn't do it just for the lulz. There is no other reason than that.

But I guess that is what passes for fairness in the XIV community.

This is basic math guys. It's not that hard.

You never had a problem with having a 1/4th chance at winning the seal, so why are you complaining about that now? If having a 1/4 chance wasn't worth your time you wouldn't have voted yes. You're just upset that someone else gets a better chance than you because they have a friend helping them and you don't. This guy's friend deserved his choice of reward like any other party member. The two of them (2 people) contributed twice as much as you (1 person) and therefor got twice the probability of a reward. That's basic math, like you said. It's not that hard.

[Wynn]

If I join a hamlet party to get someone seals, if I am not taking any other items you will bet your ass that I will be lotting and passing to my friend. It's not a question of who deserves it or not, I'm putting in my own time and effort without any sort of reward save for getting my friend their seals. You can't even run hamlets without a full group in the first place so having any sort of chance at a seal at all helps you out too.

In a mostly-LS party though, I end up avoiding this altogether by just shouting for people that want gear only and forfeiting all gear claims to whoever joins.

I like your approach simply because you are up front and honest about it. And while I certainly wouldn't join one of your hamlet groups with that set up, I would definitely respect your right to create a group and run that way.

[Haibel]

Hi Haibel

I'm really not bitter over it. I'm not upset at all. But I do assert that this is not cool behavior and it shouldn't be something that people think is ok to do. Cause it's not.

Oh I know from last night that your not really upset about it happening. I know your more
Concerned with the logic behind it. Me and you roll the same way. I would never do something
to give myself or somebody else an advantage over other party members. At least if I'm the one
controlling things. At least that how I rolled in XI with the Sky/Sea shell I ran. I followed the same
rules I held the rest of my shell to.

I also take things like this with a grain of salt. Anonymity brings out the worst in people. The main
reason I only run events for drops with people I know.

[Mjollnir]

As people have pointed out repeatedly, your own chance didn't change from 1/4 at any point (once you had agreed to the change, ofc). It's an identical situation for you personally, no matter anyone else's actions.

So it sounds like the problem is that you are more concerned about your party members' chance at the drop than your own. This is purely envy and is what has divided the thread so evenly - some people find envy acceptable behaviour, others think it intolerable. Personal choice, but I'm on the side of envy yadayada dark side being a bad thing in my life, so that guided my opinion on the matter!

I hope you get your full quota of seals soon, and have the chance to help a friend get theirs by similarly joining a Hamlet PUG with them and winning your entitled lot on the seal and passing it on to them. Perhaps even doing so without telling them that's what you were intending beforehand so that you can make the gift a pleasant surprise (which I always find increases the appreciation tenfold!)

Good luck in future runs!

[IBloodmoon]

If the person that switched his lot to the seal had the item he originally was letting on drop, then he would not have gotten to roll for that item, right? You agreed that he could roll for the seal, right? You understand that your chances of getting the seal were exactly the same and aren't any less just because another player's chances are higher.

I honestly can not understand the difference between joining a group with four people that need seal for themselves and joining a group where three people have agreed to roll for one person and another person is rolling for themselves. That person would have the exact same chance at winning the seal regardless of what the other players decided to do with it.

The only thing they did that was "wrong", was trying to hide the exchange. Even then they are not required to get your permission or inform you of their intentions.

I'm sorry you feel like you were wronged, but nothing unethical happened.

[Shougun]

. . . If there are more people /randoming there is a higher chance you will fail.

1/ X players

So if you have two people 1/2, three 1/3, four 1/4. Not sure how people took statistics but it does change the chance of winning. Edit: (This part not directed at IBloodmoon, looked like it - was on accident lol)

So if you change one person to be rolling for another you have changed "their" chance of winning.

Your rate of failure is still the same however. But compared to someone else's rate of failure - it is unfair. Since not everyone has the same rate anymore.

[IBloodmoon]

I understand that more people lotting lowers each person overall chance, but once the number of people lotting has been determined, then the chances are the same, regardless of what the winner does with the drop. Wynn's chance at winning the seal was the same whether the winner kept it, passed it, sold it or dropped it.

If I am going to help a friend get seals, why would I want to do 100 runs to help them and 6 other people I probably don't know, when I could do it in 50 runs, while still helping 6 other people I don't know.

@Shougun - You can disagree with me. I won't take it personally.

[Shougun]

I understand that more people lotting lowers each person overall chance, but once the number of people lotting has been determined, then the chances are the same, regardless of what the winner does with the drop. Wynn's chance at winning the seal was the same whether the winner kept it, passed it, sold it or dropped it.

If I am going to help a friend get seals, why would I want to do 100 runs to help them and 6 other people I probably don't know, when I could do it in 50 runs, while still helping 6 other people I don't know.

@Shougun - You can disagree with me. I won't take it personally.

I think, for me, what makes it appear underhanded is that they didn't join the group as a seal taker. But rather later said they needed seals (obviously didn't) and traded them to someone else giving them an unfair advantage. Because joining the seal loot group ruins everyone's chances (1/(n+1)) but the person who he will pass it to, who gets a better chance (1/(n-1)).

If he had started out with "hey im going to be lotting for my friend", then people could decide if they want the chances to be all screwed up.

[IBloodmoon]

I think, for me, what makes it appear underhanded is that they didn't join the group as a seal taker. But rather later said they needed seals (obviously didn't) and traded them to someone else giving them an unfair advantage. Because joining the seal loot group ruins everyone's chances (1/(n+1)) but the person who he will pass it to, who gets a better chance (1/(n-1)).

If he had started out with "hey im going to be lotting for my friend", then people could decide if they want the chances to be all screwed up.

This I can agree with. If Wynn was upset that this person changed his lot and was outvoted by the rest of the party, that were part of the same linkshell, I would agree with him 100%. From his original post, it sounds like he agreed to he change though. I do not, however, see anything wrong with trying to get seals for someone else, since I would be giving up my chance at something else. I will make sure that I am up front about it when I do it myself, just to prevent any unnecessary drama.

[Wynn]

This I can agree with. If Wynn was upset that this person changed his lot and was outvoted by the rest of the party, that were part of the same linkshell, I would agree with him 100%. From his original post, it sounds like he agreed to he change though. I do not, however, see anything wrong with trying to get seals for someone else, since I would be giving up my chance at something else. I will make sure that I am up front about it when I do it myself, just to prevent any unnecessary drama.

The point was that what they were actually doing wasn't communicated at all. I just assumed that this person still needed seals and maybe an item was more important to them at first but they changed their mind for the last run. That's perfectly cool, right? Sure you can lot on seals if you need em! Why not?

I agreed to the change because I didn't see what the actual intention was and that information was not freely provided. To that person's credit, they didn't actually say they needed seals. They just didn't say anything at all other than they wanted to change and was it ok. I just assumed that they needed them because why else would you lot on them, right?

If a person needs seals, of course I want to include them and I would have no issue lotting between four instead of three people to give someone else that needs them a chance. Or any number for that matter. That's just the kind of person I am.

But this wasn't the actual case in this scenario.

Thinking back on it, I should have known this is what was occurring but you see I just don't think that way. I simply wouldn't do that kind of stuff to others because I truly believe it is wrong since you're not just helping someone else by giving them a better chance, you are reducing the chance of other people by adding in an additional roll they could lose to in order to help that person. Other people that should have an equal opportunity to gain that item since they still need it.

This is one thing nobody can argue, try as they might. It is a mathematical fact that, unless the entire party is already lotting for the item in the first place, each additional roll reduces the chances of the people lotting for the item. Now when one person is actually benefiting from that because they will get the item if either they or the new person wins, then it is not a reduction across the board and therefore not very fair to the others in question. In this case two players had their chances reduced while one person's chances were doubled. Totally different scenario than just four people who all need the item, wouldn't you agree?

Now whether or not that is an ethical question is up for debate. Some say no, I say yes. I don't believe that just by virtue of being in a group a person has the right to decide that one person should have a better chance at a drop than the others who also need it by lotting on something they themselves can't use and giving it to the person of their fancy. Unless that is known before hand and agreed upon by all parties involved. That's really where the issue stems from.

What it all boils down to is if they had just said this is what we're doing, I would have thanked them for the party, bowed out, wished them luck, and that would have been that.

The truth is that I wasn't given the opportunity to agree to what occurred because I wasn't given all the facts. And yes, my agreement is necessary because if people can insist it is that person's right to roll on that item to give to somebody else because they put effort into the party then it is my right to say I will not put effort into your party to give someone else a better shot at my expense especially when the party was reaping the fruit of provisioning labor necessary to get hamlet to level 2 that I significantly contributed to.

The party leader actually said no to the guy at first so I can only assume they knew what the others planned to do even though the rest of us did not. They should have laid it out on the table right then and there so that the rest of us could make an informed decision before asking if it was ok. And that is really where I get stuck because I can't imagine someone actually saying that nothing wrong occurred here based on these facts. I can accept they believe it but it is literally dumbfounding to me.

Do I believe that these people who did this necessarily meant harm? No, not necessarily though I have to say it is a little suspicious that they had the wherewithal to try and hide this act. I think that they, like most people in this thread, see it simply as just helping a buddy out or possibly their right. What they don't realize is they were also screwing over the other people lotting for the same item for the reasons I mentioned above and having the capability to do that to other people doesn't mean it is right or that you have the right to do it. I have the capability to do a lot of things that wouldn't be very nice or fair but I don't do them because I have a moral compass.

Truth be told, I really can't really say what their intentions were. If they felt in their heart of hearts it was wrong so they hid it but did it anyway, or if it didn't even occur to them. I can't say for sure. But I do know what they did and what information wasn't given that allowed them to get away with it.

In the end it really doesn't matter. I laughed about it when it happened, told my guildies about it, and went about my business. And then came to the forum later to start a discussion and see what other people thought about it. It's pretty much what I expected.

And on that note I thank everyone for the discussion, even if I don't agree with you.

P.S. sorry for the book

TL;DR: Helping a buddy at the expense of others is wrong now matter how you spin it unless you are honest about it and people agree to it beforehand.