New Angry Goblin Agreement

[cd288]

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

What you're asking for is for anyone new to the roll to have a lesser chance: why would they agree to that?

While I don't disagree with your overall comment, I think people would agree to this because it means eventually they'll have a much higher chance. Somewhat analogous to why people accept DKP as a raid currency concept. Lower chance of getting items in the beginning/when you're low on DKP; higher chance once you have contributed/participated more because you have more DKP than some of the others who are also looking for that drop.

[shovelquest]

A system that rewards effort and not random luck? why would anyone work for a living instead of playing the lotto??

I'd much rather participate in something that I am able to calculate the investment/reward than worry about spending my life rolling 1's on something Ive had to work hard for.

Not that I care about the angry goblin just saying that I think that system sounds appealing.

[Jimjam]

Either way the """""effort""""" is show up a bunch of times and eventually win.

[shovelquest]

It's like real life!

Which I am sure anyone reading this feels is stacked against them [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So we invented socialism.

And if you play games and are against socialism you're a bad guy but if you ask for it with player made agreements you're the bad guy.

Sometimes I don't get you gamers.

[loramin]

Here's the thing: no agreement is going to make more goblins spawn. That's what you all really want, but since you can't make it happen you're trying to trick others into giving their chance at a goblin to you.

By definition, any system you propose will have winners and losers. By definition, half the people at the current roll will be losers if the system changes (... and in all honestly, I think some of the people who think they would be "winners" will actually be losers in the new system).

So you're welcome to try and get half the people at the agreements to vote against their own interests (and against classic EQ) ... but again, I don't think it's going to happen.

[Swish]

I think we need more rules.

[bcbrown]

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

BTW, it's also never going to happen. I say that as someone who helped make the original agreements, and who knows how difficult it is to get consent from everyone at those rolls. What you're asking for is for anyone new to the roll to have a lesser chance: why would they agree to that?

Disregarding the challenging bookkeeping requirements, I think there's a decent argument to make that the player dynamics would incentivize such a change. Assuming the systems starts from scratch at the moment of agreement, everyone who is voting is actually going to end up being in the "old guard" when the agreement has been in place a while. It's the people who can't yet vote because they aren't yet rolling who end up penalized.

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

By definition, any system you propose will have winners and losers. By definition, half the people at the current roll will be losers if the system changes (... and in all honestly, I think some of the people who think they would be "winners" will actually be losers in the new system).

I don't think it's necessarily true that half the people will be losers in the new system. Who do you think would end up being losers?

The way I'm thinking about it, you would be less likely to win after only a few rolls, but also it would be less likely that it would take very very many rolls. It would reduce the tails of the probability distribution, or reduce the variance. The number of rolls you'd have to attend in order to win would end up being more predictable and consistent. I think everyone wins under this change, except I don't see how it could be implemented and operated.

[loramin]

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

everyone who is voting is actually going to end up being in the "old guard" when the agreement has been in place a while. It's the people who can't yet vote because they aren't yet rolling who end up penalized.

The root of this scheme: a current roller wants to screw the chances of future rollers to increase their own [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

... except, as I keep repeating, it won't work. Player agreements require consensus, and the staff only enforces them as long as there is consensus.

As soon as people realize they're getting screwed, they're just going to go back to the click fest. If it's just one guy, the GMs might step in, but when it's 5? 10? 20?

If I actually thought this idea had any chance whatsoever, I'd be worried that it would lead to disrupting the existing agreement (which was painful to get established) ... but again it has zero chance.

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

I don't think it's necessarily true that half the people will be losers in the new system. Who do you think would end up being losers?

This is not complicated math: every goblin I get is a goblin you don't get, and again there are no (more) new goblins entering the system. No matter how you shift the system, there will by definition be losers: everyone who doesn't get the goblin.

The beauty of the current system is that everyone who participates is equally a loser [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] Until they win that is.

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

except I don't see how it could be implemented and operated.

A turd cherry on this turd Sunday of an idea.

[Castle2.0]

/list fixes this.

Go back to work.

[Salaryman]

pvp for it, RED 99