Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 73 of 73
  1. #61
    Community Member Vellrad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Miasto Stołeczne Warszawa (The Capital City of Warsaw)
    Posts
    7,110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mobrien316 View Post
    I think you are looking at it backwards. If you have five people rolling with the intention of passing you the item if they win, your chances of winning go up, but my chances stay the same.

    If there is a raffle with 100 tickets for sale, and I buy one of them, I have a 1% chance of winning the raffle. If someone else buys ten tickets, they now have a greater chance of winning, but my chance remains the same. If nine other people buy tickets with the intention of passing any winnings to a tenth person, that tenth person has a greater chance of winding up with the prize, but my chance of winning is still exactly the same. If the other 99 people who buy tickets plan on setting the money on fire if they win, it doesn’t affect my chances of winning at all – they remain at 1%.


    This is half of the reason why I don’t care if people are proxy rolling; it doesn’t affect my chances of winning. The other half is that I believe that someone who is rolling on an item, whether they intend to bank it, use it, pass it to an alt, pass it to a friend or guildmate, or auction it off in the chest has just as much right to that item as I have. So if an item goes up for roll I have a 9.1% chance of winning if eleven people roll on it, which in my opinion they certainly can. If some of those eleven are planning to pass it to someone else that does not lower my chance of winning, even though it does increase the other person’s chance of winning.
    Not really.
    If 4 people rolls, and 2 of them are planning to pass, you got 25% to win.
    If all want to loot you also got 25% to win.
    But if those not planning to pass wouldn't roll then your chance to win would be 50%.
    Quote Originally Posted by Originally Posted by Random Person #2 View Post
    People who exploit bugs in code are cheaters cheaters cheaters. And they are big fat ****yheads too.

  2. #62
    Community Member mobrien316's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England, USA
    Posts
    2,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vellrad View Post
    Not really.
    If 4 people rolls, and 2 of them are planning to pass, you got 25% to win.
    If all want to loot you also got 25% to win.
    But if those not planning to pass wouldn't roll then your chance to win would be 50%.
    I already explained that. I believe that everyone has the same right to roll on any item that I want to roll on. If I want it for my character who is in that raid, and someone else wants it so they can use it, bank it, pass it, or whatever, it doesn't matter to me. The person who is rolling just so they can pass it to a friend doesn't affect my chances any more or less than the person who is rolling so they can bank the item on the off-chance that someday they might TR into a class that can use the item, or the person who is rolling so they can auction it off in the chest if they win.

    Believe me, I understand that some people get completely bent at the idea of proxy rolling. But it doesn't bother me when someone proxy rolls on an item I want and I don't care if people do it when I put something up for roll. Statistically, it doesn't affect my chances at all, and it actually improves my chances (infinitesimally) for future rolls because it means there is now one less person interested in the item I want.
    All on Thelanis: Archenpaul Sixblade, Archernicus Thornwood, Gregorovic Redcloak, Hermanius Brightblade, Jaklomeo Evermug, Jonathraxius Kane, and Praetoreus Silvershield.

    Guild: Guinness Knights

    Cogito ergo summopere periculosus.

  3. #63
    Community Member Cyiwin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    318

    Default

    If I kept going I'd just be repeating myself. Thanks all for your replies.

  4. #64
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    484

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyiwin View Post
    I must be missing something so please someone help me out. I don't understand how everyone is getting an equal chance with the current system.

    12 people finish a raid.
    6 are guilies
    6 are random puggers

    1 BTC item drops in the end chest

    50% chance the item drops to a guildy meaning either he takes it or it goes to 1 of the 5 remaining guildies.
    50% chance the item drops to one of the random puggers meaning he takes it or it goes to 1 of the 11 remaining members of the raid group.

    As presented it's clear that everyone doesn't have an equal chance, so where is my mistake?
    I think this post here of Cy's spells out thier views, and the flaws in thier thinking.

    In the above example 1 named item dropped in the chest, and they view it as dropping for the entire party. It however did not. It dropped for a specific person, and there was equal chance it could have been there 12 times over for each person to pull out potentially. 11 people had bad luck and now one or more are feeling entitled to that one members luck. Luck is like that, when its good everyone wants it, when its bad your never more alone.

    If the suggested changes ever took place it would actually reduce loot drop rates as only one copy of a given item would have a chance of spawning per group rather then per party member.

  5. #65
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    /not signed

  6. #66
    Community Member Xynot2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyiwin View Post
    I would like this for BTC items only and they must show up in a common area and not associated with a member of the party. Then everyone who is interested can check a box next to the item and has an equal chance at getting it. The item becomes bound to the winner to weed out proxy rollers. No more internal guild passing sounds like a good idea to me.
    EQ does this and it blows

  7. #67
    Community Member SiliconScout's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    1,268

    Default

    If they were to do this then I would be even more interested in soloing.

    Right now with Dungeon Scaling it makes more sense for me to solo even on Elite than group 9 times out of 10 (though I still group probably 7 times in 10).

    Add this so that a named item just goes for a roll and I say forget it, I'll just solo and always get the item.

    The way it works now is nice enough. We all get a chance and those who don't need it often (but not always) throw it up for a roll. Heck many times it's first to claim it gets it. This is far more fair when grouping.

    /not signed.


  8. #68
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    752

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyiwin View Post
    What is broken has been brought up more than once.
    No it hasn't.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyiwin View Post
    I must be missing something
    It's not often you see someone work so very hard to miss something. Blindfolded, turned around, and running the opposite direction kind of work.



    Not signed.

  9. #69
    Community Member fco-karatekid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    South Texas Hill Country
    Posts
    3,103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ssgcmwatson View Post
    The only change I would like to see is if someone leaves something in the chest and finishes out of a raid, then the game would randomly assign it to someone still in the instance.
    THIS I like.

  10. #70
    Community Member Gauthaag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,451

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ssgcmwatson View Post
    The only change I would like to see is if someone leaves something in the chest and finishes out of a raid, then the game would randomly assign it to someone still in the instance.
    yeah, that would be cool. it could solve all those misclicks on named raid loot and passing it to ppl already out of quest

  11. #71
    Community Member KillEveryone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Umpa Lumpa Land
    Posts
    3,684

    Default

    Thought about it,

    /not signed.

    You already rolled for a chance at loot. Sometimes you get a good roll and a named item drops in your name.

    I don't care if guildies want to pass to other guildies first.

    I don't care if a friend wants to pass their loot to another friend.

    I don't feel this is actually needed and won't really help anything.

    Since I already rolled on the loot and won, I'll do with my loot as I wish.

    Quote Originally Posted by ssgcmwatson View Post
    The only change I would like to see is if someone leaves something in the chest and finishes out of a raid, then the game would randomly assign it to someone still in the instance.
    This I can /sign, mostly because it is easy to misclick and assign a piece of loot to somoene that finished out already. Either that or anyone that finished out needs to have that name removed from the list of available people to transfer.
    Last edited by KillEveryone; 05-25-2012 at 09:15 AM.
    Disappointed and without trust in the powers that be.
    http://ddowiki.com/page/Fansites

  12. #72
    Community Member TDarkchylde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    KCMO
    Posts
    358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ssgcmwatson View Post
    The only change I would like to see is if someone leaves something in the chest and finishes out of a raid, then the game would randomly assign it to someone still in the instance.
    This here? Signed times infinity. Raid loot should not just rot. That would also eliminate a possible source of griefing.

    As for the suggestion in the OP? Not just no, but (censored) no. The game rolls for the players already. The player's being generous if they put it up for roll a second time because for whatever reason they don't want it (or can't take it in the case of exclusive raidloot.)
    .:Sarlona - ELH:. Inamorata (TR11 Completionist WIP) / Groundloop (TR2) / Signalmixer (TR) / Serraphiia (TR)
    Angelorum (TR) / Darqchylde / Aetherielle / Rashree / Colordepth / Wintremoon / Tarrynn
    Amarizi / Genozid / Arising / Tenpercenter / Ellixia / Zecele / Harika / Lainiel / Zephale

  13. #73
    Founder kitselli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Auburn, Washington
    Posts
    99

    Default What if...

    If you have named loot in a raid chest, a teleport lock is enforced until the item is taken or reassigned?

    Nothing we can do if they DC...but under normal circumstances, just don't let them leave until named is claimed.

    2cp
    Kit
    If you want to travel quickly, go alone; if you want to travel far, go together.

    Forum account 7286 of 424302 (and growing)

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload