![]() |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
|
||||
|
#2
|
||||
|
Quote:
All due respect to my former guild, this is the reason I left Dawn Believers. A /rand 1000 is not "fair" because you can be there for your 200th roll, be the only person that trains the giants to DN or the only person that rips the Captain off the train, and not get it, but someone shows up w/ their lvl50 alt for the first time and does a /rand 1000 and gets their item and dips. Is that fair? No. Is it still fairer than Clickfest where certain individuals will always get it first because of either low ping or automation? Sadly, yes.
__________________
Characters:
Nephinine - 60 Iksar Necromancer Krystaps - 60 Iksar Warrior Remember. . . Iksar is the master race. | |||
|
|
||||
|
#3
|
||||
|
Quote:
/random is an equal chance to win for any player who rolls Your bad luck does not mean unfair. It means the dice hate you. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] | |||
|
|
||||
|
#4
|
||||
|
Quote:
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. | |||
|
|
||||
|
#5
|
|||
|
pass, thanks
| ||
|
|
|||
|
#6
|
|||
|
I think 55-60 level range sounds fair.
Heck a level 50 would barely contribute to the fight unless it was maybe a cleric. If I was spending my time tryin to get a bracer and some level 40 logged in (probably been boxed) just to /ran I'd be pretty pissed too. Making it a 55-60 requirement puts a natural level barrier there. P.s. I went to about 10 rolls on my Paladin before deciding grinding to 60 was better then parking him there just for a bracer chance | ||
|
Last edited by White_knight; 06-27-2020 at 09:27 PM..
|
|
||
|
#7
|
||||
|
Quote:
Saying these characters barely contribute and don’t deserve loot is frankly ridiculous. You may as well say non of the level 60s deserve nToV or city leader gear as the 60s barely contribute (similar level difference and in fact even greater disparity of power). The fact is a force of 50s in mediocre velious gear could absolutely kill captain, and really I feel they deserve it more than a bunch of bottom feeding 60s fighting a single blue mob at zoneline. | |||
|
|
||||
|
#8
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
|
||||
|
#9
|
|||
|
I hear you can just edit the wiki to enforce your own personal player agreement
| ||
|
Last edited by REMEZ; 06-28-2020 at 12:13 AM..
|
|
||
|
#10
|
|||
|
Scout roll is literally the worst thing about p99, I support any and all amendments to this abomination
Force people to play the game for loot | ||
|
|
|||
![]() |
|
|