Small Rant on Seal Rolls in Hamlet parties

[Wynn]

I wan't to talk about a looting behavior that I find disturbing.

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.

At the end of that run, a seal dropped and the guy who changed to seal won the roll over me by 3 points. As soon as he got the seal he gave it to another player who rolled a zero on that seal.

You might think, maybe he felt bad for the guy rolling a zero. Except, that player had already won a seal during our runs.

And while I don't hold ill will toward these two players for doing what they did since I had already won a seal tonight, I can't help but feel robbed since, without the guy who didn't need the seal rolling on it, I would have won the roll. For that matter, the other guy also rolling for seals was wronged by this.

These two players basically doubled the one guy's rolls on an item and at the same time reduced my and the other player's chance for a seal.

I know some of you are going to jump on this thread and say people can do whatever they want with their drops, but we are talking about someone who had no intention of keeping this seal adding an additional roll for his friend. This behavior is wrong and it amazes me that these two players did this right in full view. If these players had divulged what they planned to do if the guy who originally didn't want seals won a seal, I would have surely voted no and I'm sure the other player would have as well.

It is not ok to rig people's chances at drops and SE should do something to ensure this can't happen.

[Antanias]

Two point oh?

[tymora]

Sounds like jerks to me in your example.

However, if everything has been stated beforehand clearly, then I think it is ok to lot for another.
E.g. 5 people from one LS and 3 PUGs. The 5 people using their lot chances for 1 person from said LS while the 3 PUGs are left to fight on their own. I think that is perfectly fine.

[Wynn]

Sounds like jerks to me in your example.

However, if everything has been stated beforehand clearly, then I think it is ok to lot for another.
E.g. 5 people from one LS and 3 PUGs. The 5 people using their lot chances for 1 person from said LS while the 3 PUGs are left to fight on their own. I think that is perfectly fine.

Personally, I don't. I don't think it is ok to artificially increase a person's roll value. At that point one player is getting five rolls, five chances to win, over everyone else's one. However, if they are upfront about it then it at least gives me a chance to say no thanks and move on.

[Mikita]

Unless the loot system is revamped in 2.0 there isn't really much that can be done about this right now.

I would also feel cheated since the odds are being tipped in one person's favor by having an "extra chance" at winning the roll.

The flip side of the coin also has a valid argument in that there are no real rules against this type of behavior, and a person should be free to do what they will with an item that they rightfully won.

It's a moral grey area, and I guess it's up to us as individuals to decide where we stand on it... and for the party leader to make a call when necessary.

Side note: This exact same behavior sparked the one and only time someone was asked to leave our LS, because the majority felt it was an unethical practice. Of course the person who was asked to leave does not feel he was wrong in any way. It's often futile to try to change someone else's beliefs, so probably best to just move on and remember who you do and do not want to play with again in the future.

[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.