Scout Roll Agreement 2017

[ErlickBachman]

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

The poll is "Do you agree to roll on scout?" The thread and OP are talking about something else entirely. The yes votes aren't necessarily on his side, like mine for example. Whole thing feels like a dirty EULA.

Thats because it is a dirty EULA from someone who wants the server to bend the knee to his/her lack of skill in a 18 year-old elf sim.

[Smurflogik]

He outlined his stance pretty well with the first post. Guess everything is open to interpretation.

[Maner]

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

I thought this as well. The subsequent arguing thereafter with RMT lord and the OP reinforced the OPs specific roll suggestion.

I was also under the impression that for an entitire month the players involved have been rolling to personally loot, not sell, until recently (for the most part at least).

The typical poopsockers upsetting this month of friendly rolling is the reason for this threads existence. Sadly this will never be a "player made agreement" for the obvious reasons not every player is in agreement. However it could still be made to change based on a majority vote, no matter how unlikely that will be.

I also don't get the issue with rolling to loot. I imagine the Only people who would be against it are those that don't need it, have enough plat after 5 years of EQing so wants to purchase it out of laziness, want to snag one for a guildy/alt or want to snag one to sell. It being classic isn't a solid argument since this is p99, literally the least classic, classic EQ server in existence.

Personally I don't see anything changing about scout.

Nothing was different the previous month except maybe there was a streak where everyone who won the roll actually used it. But i can 100% guarantee that there were people there rolling with the intention of selling the loot rights.

[Legidias]

As they should be able to, since rolling only gives you rights to the mob. Theres no reason this one encounter is different. Everyone has earned their chance to roll, and no one is entitled to special benefits. This is not your guild showing up to raid a mob for your benefit, this is random people coming together to make it a fair shot for everyone involved.

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

If you didnt have BoB/Talisman and you were on ur first char and in a guild that eeryone needed those items and had no motivation to roll for others before themselves would you still say the same thing?

I have stated multiple times I have not ever won a charisa roll. I do not have a bob / talisman on my main or any alts. I still believe mob belongs to roller and any way they want to do loot belongs to them. Because this is completely fair and unbiased. You do not get to tell someone what they do with loot. I personally do not get any benefit from this. However, I am not greedy and do not feel self entitled to loot which everyone else here has spent time to try and get, selling the rights to loot or no.

[Kesselring]

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

As they should be able to, since rolling only gives you rights to the mob. Theres no reason this one encounter is different. Everyone has earned their chance to roll, and no one is entitled to special benefits. This is not your guild showing up to raid a mob for your benefit, this is random people coming together to make it a fair shot for everyone involved.



I have stated multiple times I have not ever won a charisa roll. I do not have a bob / talisman on my main or any alts. I still believe mob belongs to roller and any way they want to do loot belongs to them. Because this is completely fair and unbiased. You do not get to tell someone what they do with loot. I personally do not get any benefit from this. However, I am not greedy and do not feel self entitled to loot which everyone else here has spent time to try and get, selling the rights to loot or no.

It's not telling someone what they do with loot, its them getting the loot for an upgrade. That's how people want it, I'm just trying to get you to understand that. It isn't some sort of DKP system that just because you put in time you get to decide what u want to do with the item you spend your DKP on. Anyways, I don't care either way. If we gonna let other people loot it if their friend wins the roll then I'll start showing up for my friends, no biggie to me either way. Like I said I'm just trying to tell you why people think it should be this way and not the other.

[Savok]

I would like to think that I'm in a big guild and I will definitely say that I have won my fair share of wins (looking for 1 more!), but every roll I have won has been looted by myself. With the proposal of 'you win you do what you want' I can definitely see the bigger guilds coming in to out-roll (by numbers) smaller groups or individuals, and/or those who don't need or want to greed sell their win. If you think there are a lot of people at Scout now just wait for the numbers to explode. Keeping the roll 'you win you loot' will keep these numbers down for those who actually want the upgrade. Once I get another bracer I never want to see Scout again.

I do love seeing an unguilded toon who otherwise would have no chance of winning against the giants on their own come up with a pretty decent piece of gear as much as seeing a raid level toon looking to max out their resists. I'll congratulate either just the same on a job well done and notate +10 hours for the next cycle.

To me turning up to an item you don't need is the same as those who farm AC rings or Fungis or such - you know the person who is there every f$%#ing day to farm multiple drops to sell when they could just let the camp go to someone else who needs it. It becomes a vicious cycle of person A farms item to sell and person B has to farm pp to buy item from person A causing person C who would exp/use drops person B is killing to go and kill player D's mobs etc.

It's a game, play to have fun but don't play at someone else's expense. Grow the F$%k up.

[loramin]

It seems to me this could all be solved very simply. When you agree to the terms of the roll, you should have to specify whether or not you are rolling for yourself. This would have no effect on your winning the roll. Why? Because the roll is about avoiding autofire and similar macro clicking issues, nothing else.

So why declare that it's not for you? Because a lot of people who happily help with the fight after may not want to help someone doing it for a friend, or doing it to sell. If they're going to help someone, it seems reasonable that they should get to know who they're ultimately helping.

Maybe I'm missing something, but that seems like the option that will satisfy the most people. Equally important, it would actually be viable (since, as we have to remember, everything about this is "opt-in"), because as part of a valid player-made agreement the GMs could intervene if someone lies.

[Zemus]

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

It seems to me this could all be solved very simply. When you agree to the terms of the roll, you should have to specify whether or not you are rolling for yourself. This would have no effect on your winning the roll. Why? Because the roll is about avoiding autofire and similar macro clicking issues, nothing else.

So why declare that it's not for you? Because a lot of people who happily help with the fight after may not want to help someone doing it for a friend, or doing it to sell. If they're going to help someone, it seems reasonable that they should get to know who they're ultimately helping.

Maybe I'm missing something, but that seems like the option that will satisfy the most people. Equally important, it would actually be viable (since, as we have to remember, everything about this is "opt-in"), because as part of a valid player-made agreement the GMs could intervene if someone lies.

+1

Don’t know if I have ever ran into loramin in game, but his arguments are so damn reasonable. Big fan, big fan.

[Legidias]

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

It seems to me this could all be solved very simply. When you agree to the terms of the roll, you should have to specify whether or not you are rolling for yourself. This would have no effect on your winning the roll. Why? Because the roll is about avoiding autofire and similar macro clicking issues, nothing else.

So why declare that it's not for you? Because a lot of people who happily help with the fight after may not want to help someone doing it for a friend, or doing it to sell. If they're going to help someone, it seems reasonable that they should get to know who they're ultimately helping.

Maybe I'm missing something, but that seems like the option that will satisfy the most people. Equally important, it would actually be viable (since, as we have to remember, everything about this is "opt-in"), because as part of a valid player-made agreement the GMs could intervene if someone lies.

Sounds fair. Most assholes showing up to sell disk rights have kill force anyways.

[Pokesan]

you see, the people objecting to my rolling to sell are extremely self entitled. furthermore,