Proposed amendment to Scout Roll

[Hisamori]

Originally Posted by Trexller [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What is more fair than a /random 1000 ?

a list system simply will never be implemented. the list system was a good idea on green, so logically it could work on blue. Rog-bog knew they were gonna use the /list system for green over a year ago. They had it worked out. They could implement it on blue anytime they wanted. They did not do so, because blue is "done".

So that leaves you with the existing system. Where fairness is determined by a roll.

Everyone that has won the roll has been thankful that a kill force was present.

When you win the roll you will be thankful that a kill force IS present.

I don't have an issue with /roll or a player maintained list (not /list) or clickfest. My point was modifying an agreement is no different than have an agreement to begin with. Both are valid ways to try structure loot distribution. Saying one is because someone/people are upset about the way access to loot is structured but not the other is disingenuous.

I don't have a particular need/want for the roll to change, I was only laboring under the assumption that a different system was needed because that was the premise of OP's post.

Making it lvl 60 only is fine. I see that as fair. The quest designer clearly screwed up itemizing the rewards for this back in 1999 as the bracer and talisman are far too good for the simplicity/ease of the quest. So adding other artificial constrains into the agreement is one way to make the limited availability of loot satisfy the players actually able to complete the quest.

Another would be to have a minimum roll to win. This would be harder to keep track of than regular roll but would ensure less RNG unfairness. As it is, sometimes a 992 can lose (have seen it) or an 868 can win (I won with this not long ago, actually). Rolling against a static number vs. rolling against what others happen to roll is statistically a different picture.

Again, these are just suggestions based on OP's premise. This conversation is a thought exercise more than it is a dire need to change the current agreement as I see it.