LS + people who box

[FailureMidgard]

I also agree with that "people who box" sounds retarded.

I never had a problem with this myself because if I wanted something for my pocket WHM i got it freelot OR spent the points on it. Hell, most of the time's I was at events with my whm with my 'main' character being late glass holder / runner for people who couldn't find their way around area's.

You do realize half the people here are arguing you shouldn't be allowed to spend points on it, which is what some of us are arguing against...

[NynJa]

A mule(second character, it's the same thing) should never receive a drop over another real person. Unless the second real person in question is very new, unreliable or absolutely terrible at everything they do, they should never be shafted for someone's mule.

This is a mule:
WAR1 @ Jeuno holding a bunch of various pop items and gear for various jobs, often is seen selling stuff on the AH as well

This is a second character:
WHM BLM RDM 75 @ Whitegate with campaign ranks and possibly sea, with rather good gear and merits used in various HNM fights and events

You cant tell the difference?

Fucking hell...was that really 5 years ago? Didn't you quit interlopers after that or something? don't remember

Also on a slightly related note to the thread: I remember back when I first started dynamis. Doing Dyna-Beaucedine. Whm body drops, it goes freelot if I remember right. It was between me and another member. My whm was 74, his was 71. He won the lot >.> I was butthurt about that for a while, but it didn't really matter in the end. I still ended up with the body eventually, made good use of it.

No, I quit SD when I lost AA's to someone with less pts than me who was being 2boxed because they were in class, despite the fact I was pretty much the LS's main thf. I didnt quit Interlopers over losing to Genji...though a bunch of his pts may have been gained from coasting >.> I remember one xarcabard he spent the entire run at 300% TP, I think Raven remembers that too.


In the end, everyones entitled to their own systems. I'm curious how you expect to keep the people who've gotten their first and second sets around...now that they're amassing points and aren't allowed to use them because "oh nono its for a mule, mules suck, nya nya", watching all the slightly newer people with less points then them getting the items they feel they should be able to get their hands on.

[Zhais]

No, I quit SD when I lost AA's to someone with less pts than me who was being 2boxed because they were in class, despite the fact I was pretty much the LS's main thf. I didnt quit Interlopers over losing to Genji...though a bunch of his pts may have been gained from coasting >.> I remember one xarcabard he spent the entire run at 300% TP, I think Raven remembers that too.

Ah yea, other way around. 5 years ago, really rusty memory ;p

[ZhiGaruda]

But you think the guy with 10 jobs plays that job a lot more? I think in both cases, unless it's someone's main JOB, not main character, it's going to take a back seat. I actually think the guy with 2 different characters will use a secondary/tertiary job far more than the guy with 10 jobs on 1 character. And this is partly based on the fact I have 10 jobs on 1 character, and 3 jobs on a 2nd, and whenever a bard is needed, I generally just played the 2nd character (because it was the 2nd character's main job). If I had to pick of giving myself an item for my bard, or the mule an item for bard, I'd pick that mule every single time.

Past that, as in my earlier examples, it's still stupid to always say main first. If a main just got a sponsored relic, a dring, 2 pieces of valhalla, and the guy with 2 characters has gotten 1 rdm hat on his main, then a 2nd rdm hat drops and he wants it on his mule, fuck the guy that's already gotten a ton of shit. It's completely and utterly unfair to just give him more.


Really, people should pick 1 or 2 main jobs, not main character, and have priority on that. When it's your 5th job on the same character, it's the same fucking thing as a mule.

Honestly, I completely understand what you're talking about. It's just that, in the eyes of greedy linkshell members, it isn't fair that this person should get items for both characters. And I definitely see where they are coming from, too. I've found that in many instances, the second character is a recently bought account, that this person suddenly wants to get items for as well. Now, this isn't always the case, but it is definitely an issue.

I let this happen several times in my old HNMLS, and every time, it ended in drama. Due to this, surely you can understand my blanket statement which would be, pick one character to be your main, and receive drops for this only. If you're capped on an item, and it's going to fall or go free lot, that's different.

[Renzy]

In my LS I give incentives for people to box at King Camps, but outside of that they aren't really expected to use them for events.
And with it being a points LS, if they choose to spend their points to benefit their other character then so be it - there points, there decision.

[ZhiGaruda]

I suppose a lot of my more strict rules came from years of just getting fed up with drama. For instance, by your rules, someone could earn enough points to be first on D Ring, and then decide they want to have their level 1 mule take it for the lulz.

While I can't imagine anyone is stupid enough to do that, it's theoretically possible, and I consider that a major flaw in the system.

[Renzy]

That is where job priority would come in

[ZhiGaruda]

That is where job priority would come in

You can't say their points, their decision and also have a job priority system. That's retarded.

[ringthree]

But you think the guy with 10 jobs plays that job a lot more? I think in both cases, unless it's someone's main JOB, not main character, it's going to take a back seat. I actually think the guy with 2 different characters will use a secondary/tertiary job far more than the guy with 10 jobs on 1 character. And this is partly based on the fact I have 10 jobs on 1 character, and 3 jobs on a 2nd, and whenever a bard is needed, I generally just played the 2nd character (because it was the 2nd character's main job). If I had to pick of giving myself an item for my bard, or the mule an item for bard, I'd pick that mule every single time.

Past that, as in my earlier examples, it's still stupid to always say main first. If a main just got a sponsored relic, a dring, 2 pieces of valhalla, and the guy with 2 characters has gotten 1 rdm hat on his main, then a 2nd rdm hat drops and he wants it on his mule, fuck the guy that's already gotten a ton of shit. It's completely and utterly unfair to just give him more.


Really, people should pick 1 or 2 main jobs, not main character, and have priority on that. When it's your 5th job on the same character, it's the same fucking thing as a mule.

Two things.

1. It is not the same thing when they are lotting on the same item for different characters.

2. Why doesn't determining drops by the player and not by the character solve everything you brought up?

Your examples of why a second character should get an item over a "main" are borderline ridiculous. I think the original question was about a case where by some metric the second character and the other "main" would have about equal right to lot.

[ZhiGaruda]

Two things.

1. It is not the same thing when they are lotting on the same item for different characters.

2. Why doesn't determining drops by the player and not by the character solve everything you brought up?

Your examples of why a second character should get an item over a "main" are borderline ridiculous. I think the original question was about a case where by some metric the second character and the other "main" would have about equal right to lot.

You see, I followed these rules for some time. However, a new issue arrived some months later. Said person who got say, a Dalmatica on his second (BLM) character, has now leveled RDM on his main. He now wants a Dalmatica for his RDM - what do I do? There are still people who want a Dalmatica for their main character, and this person feels entitled to a second. It just doesn't work. Drama ensues.

[orson]

I'd love for anyone in Interlopers who was around when I finally got my AA's and when Genjistar got his AA's to recall exactly what happened..because it sounds so coincidental, you wouldnt believe me.

When I first joined Interlopers, I was a bit hazy to the rules. I showed up late to one run, and wasnt aware I could 'buy back' the point I lost for being late. Runs passed, I was amassing up points saving up for the precious AA's (this is like 2005 fyi), and I had a marginal lead over Genjistar. One weekend, I got a lil angry at kings, and I was suspended for a very stupid search comment, which I still dispute because it contained no profanity, no names, nothing of the sort...but I was suspended, and missed a dynamis durring my suspension. From that one run I missed, I had lost my marginal lead on Genjistar, and was behind him by one point. Two runs later, Xarcabard, AA's drop, and I cant lot because I'm down by one point, one point that had I been fully aware of the rules when I first joined I could have bought back and gone to a lot off, 3 points (while now we work on a 3 point system, at the time it was 1 point per run, but because it was our first successful CoP run, they were given triple pts, fuck yeah!) that I lost because of a fucking suspension, that would have not even made a lot off.

So fuck you, I've been through that shit.


So, one...more...time:
points = value of worth. Item goes to highest bidder. If highest bidder is an secondary account (I'm not calling it a mule anymore, its clearly not a mule if they're being used to kill shit) or for storage, I dont care, its not my business, because the fact they have more points shows that they've spent more time doing events for the LS with 0 return. That's who I want to get the item.

Ya so that's pretty clear you're a greedy person who just cares about getting what you "deserve" over everything. That story just sounds like you're whining to me and you totally missed my point. Point systems don't take into account a lot of things. I'm not going to go into more examples but either way I bet you could care less. I'm just glad I don't have any douchebags like you in my LS atm.

[FailureMidgard]

Two things.

1. It is not the same thing when they are lotting on the same item for different characters.

2. Why doesn't determining drops by the player and not by the character solve everything you brought up?

Your examples of why a second character should get an item over a "main" are borderline ridiculous. I think the original question was about a case where by some metric the second character and the other "main" would have about equal right to lot.

Your assumptions on the original question are quite far off. It started with "should a player get extra priority for putting more effort in" and quickly turned into "main>(sell)>mule ALWAYS AND FOREVER RAH". I'm pointing out scenarios where I feel the mule should get an item over a main. You say it's ridiculous, and I'm gonna ask why. Do you think that this situation never occurs? Or do you agree with me there's no way the main should get it over the mule? If you think this type of stuff never occurs, I think you are completely delusional. There is 100% of the time in any point system going to be an unbalanced situation where 1 person has received more than another person. Period. You never have every single person at equal footing.
Past that, if your point system says the higher player gets it, then just let them have it. The ONLY cause for drama is wishy-washy bullshit like this. Hell, if you hate mules that much, go with what Zhi said and make it always have a mule at last priority, even in my "borderline ridiculous" scenario. Just realize when you set up the system in that manner, you aren't trying to be fair. But if the goal is to avoid drama, oh well, unbiased is more important than fair.

If you want to talk about a best system, in my personal opinion that involves everyone picking X main jobs, be that on their main or their mule, and having priority there. Say everyone can choose 3 main jobs - I could pick Sam/Rdm/Whm all on 1 char, or I could pick Rdm/Rdm/Rdm across 3 different chars I play. Everyone gets the same chances at priority, and once you get past your first 3 picks, if anyone is seriously trying to create drama for their 4th job or think it's super unjust that someone's alt/mule they use is getting an item over your 4th job you probably play 5-10% of the time, well, just tell them to fuck off. Anyway, that's just an outline, and you can easily make it more complex (I would if I actually set it up), but I personally feel it's the best way to go about it, because I still feel that your 4th job on 1 char is no less a "mule" than the 1st job on someone's 2nd char.

[Marihoki]

A mule(second character, it's the same thing) should never receive a drop over another real person. Unless the second real person in question is very new, unreliable or absolutely terrible at everything they do, they should never be shafted for someone's mule.

was bored
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v5...boxdiagram.jpg

I'm not advocating the same piece of gear on two chars (that imo is a gray area, I understand where people are coming from but I'm not going to advocate it) but I don't see what the difference is if its two different sets of gear. If they have an account, that has been theirs for a decent amount of time, and isn't going to be loosing the account for some reason or another, then I don't see what the big deal is about them lotting gear.

What if someone has one account with three different characters and three different jobs. Would you only let them lot on one character or would you treat each character as a different job and treat the account as one player?

[ZhiGaruda]

When you really dive into it, the details of it make the situation far too complicated to even bother with. You speak of gray areas, but in further discussion, the problems become far more evident, far more often. I find that anyone and everyone is replaceable - if someone wants to lot gear on two different accounts, then they won't ever be in an LS I am running ever again. It's not worth the hassle / emo / QQ.

[ringthree]

You see, I followed these rules for some time. However, a new issue arrived some months later. Said person who got say, a Dalmatica on his second (BLM) character, has now leveled RDM on his main. He now wants a Dalmatica for his RDM - what do I do? There are still people who want a Dalmatica for their main character, and this person feels entitled to a second. It just doesn't work. Drama ensues.

I understand their position only in so much as they are not recognizing the position of the person that would be "taking away" the Dalmatica from. If they are unable to put themselves into the position of the other person, then I would not offer them the Dalmatica because it is going to be a recurring problem. I also have to wonder why someone would lot on a Dalmatica for their BLM when there are easier alternatives.

If I were you, I would tell the person in question to spend some time in Salvage and look for alternatives for now, and if after some time and some other people have gotten what they needed then let them ask again. A Dalmatica also just isn't what it used to be, and we have a level cap raise to consider.

In general, the question I would ask is simply why does the person that is dual boxing feel they need desired gear for two characters when someone else is only trying to do it for one. Again, I am assuming this is a situation where the people in question have equal right to lot.

[ringthree]

Your assumptions on the original question are quite far off. It started with "should a player get extra priority for putting more effort in" and quickly turned into "main>(sell)>mule ALWAYS AND FOREVER RAH". I'm pointing out scenarios where I feel the mule should get an item over a main. You say it's ridiculous, and I'm gonna ask why. Do you think that this situation never occurs? Or do you agree with me there's no way the main should get it over the mule? If you think this type of stuff never occurs, I think you are completely delusional. There is 100% of the time in any point system going to be an unbalanced situation where 1 person has received more than another person. Period. You never have every single person at equal footing.
Past that, if your point system says the higher player gets it, then just let them have it. The ONLY cause for drama is wishy-washy bullshit like this. Hell, if you hate mules that much, go with what Zhi said and make it always have a mule at last priority, even in my "borderline ridiculous" scenario. Just realize when you set up the system in that manner, you aren't trying to be fair. But if the goal is to avoid drama, oh well, unbiased is more important than fair.

I said that the example you gave was borderline ridiculous because it is. You hardly ever have a situation where D. Ring, E. Body, Relic person is lotting against dual boxer (and if you do then you probably have bigger problems with the person in question). You were engaging in hyperbole, but it just went a little too far and was weakening your argument. I am not saying that a dual boxer should never be able to lot, especially considering the individual situation of the LS and players involved.

I will say this again, if you engage in a "person not the characters" loot system, it resolves all of your concerns about "wishy-washiness". To me, letting a dual boxed second character lot over a player with one character is pretty wishy-washy. If the first dual boxed character already has one of the items, in my opinion it takes more intestinal fortitude to say no than it does to just let them lot with everyone else.

If you want to talk about a best system, in my personal opinion that involves everyone picking X main jobs, be that on their main or their mule, and having priority there. Say everyone can choose 3 main jobs - I could pick Sam/Rdm/Whm all on 1 char, or I could pick Rdm/Rdm/Rdm across 3 different chars I play. Everyone gets the same chances at priority, and once you get past your first 3 picks, if anyone is seriously trying to create drama for their 4th job or think it's super unjust that someone's alt/mule they use is getting an item over your 4th job you probably play 5-10% of the time, well, just tell them to fuck off. Anyway, that's just an outline, and you can easily make it more complex (I would if I actually set it up), but I personally feel it's the best way to go about it, because I still feel that your 4th job on 1 char is no less a "mule" than the 1st job on someone's 2nd char.

This system is essentially the same as the "person not the characters" system.

To me, being unbiased is a prerequisite of fairness. Fairness is what you make of it. If you have a rule, then stick to it. I am just suggesting a system that I believe is fair, and resolves the conflicts mentioned above. I also believe that your system can resolve conflicts in a fair manner as long as it also awards participation fairly. That could also be a flaw in your system too, though.

[ringthree]

Your assumptions on the original question are quite far off. It started with "should a player get extra priority for putting more effort in" and quickly turned into "main>(sell)>mule ALWAYS AND FOREVER RAH". I'm pointing out scenarios where I feel the mule should get an item over a main. You say it's ridiculous, and I'm gonna ask why. Do you think that this situation never occurs? Or do you agree with me there's no way the main should get it over the mule? If you think this type of stuff never occurs, I think you are completely delusional. There is 100% of the time in any point system going to be an unbalanced situation where 1 person has received more than another person. Period. You never have every single person at equal footing.
Past that, if your point system says the higher player gets it, then just let them have it. The ONLY cause for drama is wishy-washy bullshit like this. Hell, if you hate mules that much, go with what Zhi said and make it always have a mule at last priority, even in my "borderline ridiculous" scenario. Just realize when you set up the system in that manner, you aren't trying to be fair. But if the goal is to avoid drama, oh well, unbiased is more important than fair.

I said that the example you gave was borderline ridiculous because it is. You hardly ever have a situation where D. Ring, E. Body, Relic person is lotting against dual boxer (and if you do then you probably have bigger problems with the person in question). You were engaging in hyperbole, but it just went a little too far and was weakening your argument. I am not saying that a dual boxer should never be able to lot, especially considering the individual situation of the LS and players involved.

I will say this again, if you engage in a "person not the characters" loot system, it resolves all of your concerns about "wishy-washiness". To me, letting a dual boxed second character lot over a player with one character is pretty wishy-washy. If the first dual boxed character already has one of the items, in my opinion it takes more intestinal fortitude to say no than it does to just let them lot with everyone else.

If you want to talk about a best system, in my personal opinion that involves everyone picking X main jobs, be that on their main or their mule, and having priority there. Say everyone can choose 3 main jobs - I could pick Sam/Rdm/Whm all on 1 char, or I could pick Rdm/Rdm/Rdm across 3 different chars I play. Everyone gets the same chances at priority, and once you get past your first 3 picks, if anyone is seriously trying to create drama for their 4th job or think it's super unjust that someone's alt/mule they use is getting an item over your 4th job you probably play 5-10% of the time, well, just tell them to fuck off. Anyway, that's just an outline, and you can easily make it more complex (I would if I actually set it up), but I personally feel it's the best way to go about it, because I still feel that your 4th job on 1 char is no less a "mule" than the 1st job on someone's 2nd char.

This system is essentially the same as the "person not the characters" system. The main difference is one determines fairness on the participation level, the other does it on a rewards level.

To me, being unbiased is a prerequisite of fairness. Fairness is what you make of it. If you have a rule, then stick to it. I am just suggesting a system that I believe is fair, and resolves the conflicts mentioned above. I also believe that your system can resolve conflicts in a fair manner as long as it also awards participation fairly. That could also be a flaw in your system too, though.

[lolwut]

was bored
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v5...boxdiagram.jpg

I'm not advocating the same piece of gear on two chars (that imo is a gray area, I understand where people are coming from but I'm not going to advocate it) but I don't see what the difference is if its two different sets of gear. If they have an account, that has been theirs for a decent amount of time, and isn't going to be loosing the account for some reason or another, then I don't see what the big deal is about them lotting gear.

What if someone has one account with three different characters and three different jobs. Would you only let them lot on one character or would you treat each character as a different job and treat the account as one player?

The correct answer here is that you would kick the War who uses Askar with Perdu.

[NynJa]

Ya so that's pretty clear you're a greedy person who just cares about getting what you "deserve" over everything. That story just sounds like you're whining to me and you totally missed my point. Point systems don't take into account a lot of things. I'm not going to go into more examples but either way I bet you could care less. I'm just glad I don't have any douchebags like you in my LS atm.

I'm convinced you're a fucking retard now...utterly convinced.

You said "you probably never lost a high ticket item over 2 points therefor you dont know what its like". I debunked that shit, on top of the fact saying I respected why I lost #1 lot on the AA's, and yet I'm still greedy. Clearly I cant fucking win, regardless of what I say. I could donate 1 million dollars to charity, and you'd still call me greedy, stating I should have donated more. You're a fucking moron, get bent.


I hate to quote Thorny on this, but I'm using it because its justified: My mule...sorry, my secondary account > your main.

[orson]

I'm convinced you're a fucking retard now...utterly convinced.

You said "you probably never lost a high ticket item over 2 points therefor you dont know what its like". I debunked that shit, on top of the fact saying I respected why I lost #1 lot on the AA's, and yet I'm still greedy. Clearly I cant fucking win, regardless of what I say. I could donate 1 million dollars to charity, and you'd still call me greedy, stating I should have donated more. You're a fucking moron, get bent.


I hate to quote Thorny on this, but I'm using it because its justified: My mule...sorry, my secondary account > your main.

Well ya that's a very simplistic view of what I was saying but the story you gave simply wasn't relevant. Just because you're an idiot and can't be bothered to get informed on rules in a new LS and then getting suspended for idiotic comments is not the same as getting cock blocked on gear by another player who already has the same gear. Again you're saying that it shouldn't bug people because it's all fair through points but your whole story just came off as whining that should deserved that gear as much as you LSmate because you didn't understand the rules. You're completely grasping at straws as to why it's fair for you to do something like that other than "cause I deserved it more than him for the short period of time where I actually cared to put in the effort."

Bottom line though your story doesn't put you on same level as someone losing an big item through no fault of your own other than not having quite as much time to spend on a game as the guy who wants 2 of the same fucking item. Let's not get away from that! We're not talking both people needing the same item. We're talking about your retarded belief that some how just because you have marginally more time to put into a game then the next person you somehow deserve to cock block someone out of a major increase so you can have the convenience of more inventory. I don't know what fucking LS actually agrees with you but the concept is completely bizarre. Even the LS you mentioned at least has a point spread for lotting, which I'm guessing you think is stupid given how adamantly for "My mule...sorry, my secondary account > your main," you are. If you actually don't think you're greedy then you're fucking delusional.