Scout's an absolute joke. So let's change the "rules"

[JackofSpade]

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

While I like the idea of treating Scout like guild loot .... who is going to show up to every scout roll to take attendance? And what three other players from different guilds are going to keep copies of those attendance records to ensure that no one cheats and changes the numbers?

Making sure attendance was tracked honestly would obviously be the most difficult part of this type of system but if enough people were in favor of something like that I am sure it could be worked out to make cheating very very difficult. And if staff was behind the idea a permanent account ban if caught manipulating would make for an excellent deterrent.

[Jorgam]

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

Making sure attendance was tracked honestly would obviously be the most difficult part of this type of system but if enough people were in favor of something like that I am sure it could be worked out to make cheating very very difficult. And if staff was behind the idea a permanent account ban if caught manipulating would make for an excellent deterrent.

What we don't need at scout is a bureaucracy. An agreed upon lvl min and required no-role or anon toons where winning toon must loot the disk, would be enough to declutter the scout roll.

[aaezil]

55+ ammendment make it so just need 100 of us

[Jimjam]

38 low 50s are capable of killing captain so I don't see the sense in banning their participation.

[aaezil]

Its 2018. How long has it been velious a decade now or so?

[indiscriminate_hater]

Is this rule GM-enforced?

[remen]

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

What we don't need at scout is a bureaucracy. An agreed upon lvl min and required no-role or anon toons where winning toon must loot the disk, would be enough to declutter the scout roll.

You've described exactly how it already works unless I am missing something, and it is quite cluttered as is. It's not the worst way to do it but it's a massive crapshoot and can be frustrating that's some people are winning for the 4th / 5th time (or more), while others have gone 40 or 50 rolls and still haven't won once for their main.

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

38 low 50s are capable of killing captain so I don't see the sense in banning their participation.

While this is true, setting the min to 55 would reward people who have put more time into their char, increase the chances for people who still haven't won on their main, and raise the barrier to entry so that there are hopefully less roll offs consisting of 40-50 players.

[fortior]

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

While this is true, setting the min to 55 would reward people who have put more time into their char, increase the chances for people who still haven't won on their main, and raise the barrier to entry so that there are hopefully less roll offs consisting of 40-50 players.

Setting the min to 56 would reward people who have put even more time into their char and would make the pool of rollers smaller still.

[zodium]

Only I should be allowed to roll, IMO.

[Wonkie]

55 is very reasonable