Level 55+ for scout roll, yay or nay?

[remen]

This idea seemed to have some support in the other thread, and a few people have PMed me to make a thread / poll to get a feel for if the majority of people are behind the idea of restricting the scout roll to characters level 55 and above, in order to reduce the craziness of roll offs with over forty toons. For full disclosure the character I am rolling on is a 59 monk, so I didn't pick 55 to just barely include myself.

My reasoning as posted in the other thread was that I picked 55 arbitrarily thinking it is a nice reward for getting through the hell level of 54. Plus, if someone has finished the grind through 54 they are pretty dedicated to that character and it's less likely the item will sit on some unplayed / barely played alt. Also, 55 is the speed limit on a lot of roads.

[Jan Jensen]

If you're going to implement a new level requirement, make it 60 - no half-measures.

[Swish2]

Keep it as it is. I would note down who is logging out/not helping the roll winner though.

Also I'm sure this thread will determine something definite ^^

[Jimjam]

Keep it as it is. I would note down who is logging out/not helping the roll winner though.

Also I'm sure this thread will determine something definite ^^

Yep, be. Clear in the rules that rolling means you agree to. Document and report the rollers that don't help as they are in violation of player agreement. Find player based solutions for roll/no helpers (exclusion?)

[Foxplay]

I voted for 55 but only because it benefits me personally :p

[Metham]

No level requirements, my alts need loot too. Your first 55 isnt more entitled to loot than my alt.

[Tetsuo]

55 +/60 doesn't seem like a bad idea to me, earn your levels then earn your disk. However if it isn't necessarily broken don't fix it is something that also comes to mind.

[yooperdave23]

80% of the people on the last poll voted to keep scout roll the same...why is this even a poll?

[Mead]

We just wanna poll bro

[Cecily]

This is a good start but too unrestrictive. You’re gonna have the whole server rolling. I would like to propose leaving roll open only to myself, my alts, and my associates. After all of which have their disk several times over the scout will return to FFA because that’s ultimately funnier to read about.

[zodium]

80% of the people on the last poll voted to keep scout roll the same...why is this even a poll?

Autism, friend.

[Jomar]

wait- so right now if i show up on my druid and win a roll, the other rollers will kill the giants for me? or do i actually need to supply my own group to kill?

because daddy jomar (server first level 55 btw) needs one of them steins.

[Jimjam]

wait- so right now if i show up on my druid and win a roll, the other rollers will kill the giants for me? or do i actually need to supply my own group to kill?

because daddy jomar (server first level 55 btw) needs one of them steins.

From what I understand the standard agreement is you roll: you help.

I think the bigger concern isn't the number of rollers, but the number of people that don't stay for the kill should they lose.

Considering it isn't unusual to have 70 people show up to ToV fights that might drop only a couple of loots per kill a 1/30 chance for a near BIS item isn't really unreasonable.

[Nibblewitz]

Scout gear is only good for naggy/vox alts. Get real people.

[remen]

80% of the people on the last poll voted to keep scout roll the same...why is this even a poll?

This idea seemed to have some support in the other thread, and a few people have PMed me to make a thread / poll to get a feel for if the majority of people are behind the idea of restricting the scout roll to characters level 55 and above

I know reading is hard but this was literally the first sentance of my post. At the moment this poll is about 50 / 50 by the way.

[Wonkie]

I voted for 55 but only because it benefits me personally :p

I voted for 55 because Bristlebane wills it.

[Phenyo]

delete scout

[yooperdave23]

I know reading is hard but this was literally the first sentance of my post. At the moment this poll is about 50 / 50 by the way.



again, 80% of the last poll said to leave it the way it was. the problem isn't my reading comprehension it is your unwillingness to see that most of the server enjoys scout roll the way it is.:p

[Baler]

Only level 60s

Anyone sub 60 rolling on a scout is wasting the level 60s time. They should be out exping not rolling for loot.

[Triode]

A derivative of my proposal in the other thread I believe /cheers

Simple fix: new minimum level req. of 60 to hand in tools to Charisa and complete the quest. Player agreement amended so only level 60's can roll. It would be a nice reward at the top, and there would be no more having to roll against dozens of low level alts.

55+ would be an improvement. 60 would be better. And to address those who suggested end runs around the above (i.e. relogging alts after the kill), it would be easy enough to make the disc hand in fail for sub-60's.

For context, my main is a level 55 monk who lost 30+ rolls, before giving up and returning to soloing in the Hole while wallowing in my hatred of RNG. The level 60 proposal cuts against my own eligibility but remains my vote.

[Baler]

Farm crew votes

https://i.imgur.com/gpBisol.png

https://i.imgur.com/UEAJXT8.jpg

[remen]

again, 80% of the last poll said to leave it the way it was. the problem isn't my reading comprehension it is your unwillingness to see that most of the server enjoys scout roll the way it is.:p

What do the results of the last poll have to do with this one? The alternative proposed there was terrible. It seems you are the one unwilling to see that it is untrue that most of players on the server enjoy the roll the way it is, evidenced by the fact that this poll is remaining about 50/50.

Now that isn't a large enough percentage to change it, but it does show that a lot of people would like for it to be changed.

55+ was my idea. I demand credit.

Noted, you can have all the credit dad

[Jan Jensen]

The problem with any poll is that you are asking the masses if they want free shit. Of course they're going to vote for free shit.

#Welfare99

[fortior]

if you're level 60 why the hell do you care this much about the scout quest items

[Baler]

if you're level 60 why the hell do you care this much about the scout quest items

Plat, farm crews are selling rolls by logging on other people's characters to roll.
Those people want there to be no level limit. They'll always vote against a level requirement change.

edit: Don't be surprised if people call me names or wrong for posting this info.

[Wonkie]

yeah it's pretty clear the no level limit voting bloc is largely russian bots

[White_knight]

yeah it's pretty clear the no level limit voting bloc is largely russian bots

I blame trump

[Cecily]

The problem with any poll is that you are asking the masses if they want free shit. Of course they're going to vote for free shit.

#Welfare99

The next thing they’ll want is free Everquest.

[Baler]

The next thing they’ll want is free Everquest.

I have an image for that!
https://i.imgur.com/YpXoYVm.gif

[mr_jon3s]

They should just turn the scout roll into a BR winner gets it.

[Wonkie]

lhance sockpuppeting again :o

[Baler]

lhance sockpuppeting again :o

https://i.imgur.com/cZutoyq.gif

careful I may not let up.


---
er-eh-hem Scout trolls.. Yeah they're a problem.

[JackofSpade]

I like the idea of making the roll more exclusive and voted to change to 55+ required. 60's only is too restricting imo, plus part of the fun of winning a nice item from scout is being able to use it during the final push through those last levels getting to 60, just hitting 60 is the end game for some of us.

[kaev]

This is a good start but too unrestrictive. You’re gonna have the whole server rolling. I would like to propose leaving roll open only to myself, my alts, and my associates. After all of which have their disk several times over the scout will return to FFA because that’s ultimately funnier to read about.

Also, failpoll lacks bush/towers option. Probably best to move to RnF, they're very bored there and in need of some fresh blood.

[Swish2]

I have an image for that!
https://i.imgur.com/YpXoYVm.gif

This was the other one, think Aeiouuoiea made them. She makes sigs, but of course... not ours.

https://i.imgur.com/HNoD3od.gif

[wagorf]

higher level doesn't make u entitled to more shit. you contribute then you get a fair share. killing the giant doesn't require 55+ only. u must be a big time loser to think you are superior cuz you have a higher level toon.

my next CE camp i am going to deny anyone below 55 or below 60 to roll for loots, because

Reason #1
the fun of winning a nice item from is being able to use it during the final push through those last levels getting to 60, just hitting 60 is the end game for some of us.

Reason #2

Anyone sub 60 rolling is wasting the level 60s time. They should be out exping not rolling for loot.

[Crom]

Resist on the rewards make them perfect for NV toons..so I see no problem with a 52 rolling.
Then again I have a hard time thinking that the staff would make a quest 55+ only just cause 5% of the server wants it or put any restriction on it unless someone can find prof that it was restricted in classic.
What are you going to do if a lowbie rolls and win, not help with the fight ?, I'm sure most can ask their guild mates to assist, if I am there I would help anyone with it even if it's a lev 1. (but he better be a gnome with a great name or else)
And if you go that way what happens when one of the ones that didn't help wins during an off hour time ? karma etc etc

[Jimjam]

I propose only people lvl 54 and lower can roll

I prefer this rule.

[Baler]

Duels!
Make everyone a day ahead duel in a tournament bracket.
Winner gets the prize!

[Ghostly]

At what level can you complete Scout? If its lower than 55, then it's ridiculous for you to try and say that no one under 55 can roll.

[kaev]

At what level can you complete Scout? If its lower than 55, then it's ridiculous for you to try and say that no one under 55 can roll.

Dude! This is a whinefest about loot, not a debate, logic has no place here.

[Metham]

Should only be able to roll if your guild can kill sontalak, otherwise youre just wasting everyones time for loot you have no business winning.

[Maliant]

No guild kills Sontalak

[remen]

higher level doesn't make u entitled to more shit. you contribute then you get a fair share. killing the giant doesn't require 55+ only. u must be a big time loser to think you are superior cuz you have a higher level toon.

my next CE camp i am going to deny anyone below 55 or below 60 to roll for loots, because

Reason #1

You seem very angry, calm down bud it's just a game.

Resist on the rewards make them perfect for NV toons..so I see no problem with a 52 rolling.
Then again I have a hard time thinking that the staff would make a quest 55+ only just cause 5% of the server wants it or put any restriction on it unless someone can find prof that it was restricted in classic.
What are you going to do if a lowbie rolls and win, not help with the fight ?, I'm sure most can ask their guild mates to assist, if I am there I would help anyone with it even if it's a lev 1. (but he better be a gnome with a great name or else)
And if you go that way what happens when one of the ones that didn't help wins during an off hour time ? karma etc etc

You are either very bad at reading or have very poor eye sight, right now over 50% have voted in favor of the change, so saying that only 5% want it is something you made up in your head.

And the staff will enforce whatever agreements the players come to. Having a roll off for scout wasn't ever done at all on many classic servers, yet it is enforced by the staff here because it is what the player base has come to agree upon.

At what level can you complete Scout? If its lower than 55, then it's ridiculous for you to try and say that no one under 55 can roll.

Again, the player base here can come to agreements that will be enforced by the staff, it is ridiculous for you to say that this change can never happen because...you don't like it? That being said, only a slight majority seem to be in favor of changing it so I doubt that's anywhere near enough to make this change happen, so you can relax.

The only thing that could be done at this point would be for players 55+ to agree to not help with the encounter if someone below 55 wins the roll, making it very difficult for them to complete it. I honestly don't care that much either way if there is a change, I just started this thread so we could get a feel for what the player base wants and because a few people PMed me asking me to create this poll.

[loramin]

right now over 50% have voted in favor of the change, so saying that only 5% want it is something you made up in your head.

Even 100% of this poll (with 133 responding at time of writing) doesn't make up as much as 5% of the server's population (which has 1002 active players at this exact time of writing).

People forget that there's a whole server full of players who never even look at these forums, let alone answer polls in them. It would be a pretty bad mistake to think that this (or any) forum poll somehow represents "the server".

[remen]

Even 100% of this poll (with 133 responding at time of writing) doesn't make up as much as 5% of the server's population (which has 1002 active players at this exact time of writing).

People forget that there's a whole server full of players who never even look at these forums, let alone answer polls in them. It would be a pretty bad mistake to think that this (or any) forum poll somehow represents "the server".

Ugh, I knew there would be some dumb response about how "only" 130 people voted in the poll and "only" 70 voted to change.

What would be a pretty bad mistake is to have no idea what a normal sample size in polling is, and try to draw your own conclusions without a basic knowledge of statistics. Using your estimate of 133 people being 5% of the server, that is actually a big enough sample to draw meaningful conclusions. We can say with 95% confidence that somewhere between 44%-60% (52% +/- 8%) of all the players on the server are in favor of a change based on the results of this poll. Facts are fun!

[Wonkie]

Even 100% of this poll (with 133 responding at time of writing) doesn't make up as much as 5% of the server's population (which has 1002 active players at this exact time of writing).

People forget that there's a whole server full of players who never even look at these forums, let alone answer polls in them. It would be a pretty bad mistake to think that this (or any) forum poll somehow represents "the server".

this but about polling in general

[remen]

this but about polling in general

Another one...dumb people make me sad :( Please read my last post so you can be less dumb and I can be less sad!

[Baler]

Let's count the multi account users shall we?

7thGate, anarch, Bakuryu13, bodenn, Buriedpast, bv2fg, Chucck, Core, Crawdad, Crom, d-tron, Doujou, DromalPhrenia, dyonak, Emmin, EQmerch, Feanoir, Femm, feniin, Flinky9234, fortior, garfo, HedleyKow, Hibbs, huron99, icedwards, jakerees, Jimjam, JohnT88, Just facts, kaev, Katran, Kindadar, Konfetti, Korpskugga, Lewkeng, loramin, Lunk, Mead, mefdinkins, Metham, MiRo2, misterbonkers, Narcol, Nexii, Officer, Olarin, Phenyl, Phenyo, Psyqo, publicexpo, Qtip, Shodo, Silmeria, Tiggles Mother, tolinwiz, Twochain, Vallaen, vandalin, wagorf, William_Munny15, yarmond1, yooperdave23, zodium

[fortior]

Using your estimate of 133 people being 5% of the server, that is actually a big enough sample to draw meaningful conclusions. We can say with 95% confidence that somewhere between 44%-60% (52% +/- 8%) of all the players on the server are in favor of a change based on the results of this poll. Facts are fun!

1 Forum posters don't represent the average p99 player
2 Your supposed facts don't show a significant majority either way

I suggest just getting good at rolling? You'll have time

[Ravager]

I voted other, as in, do something other than scout. You'll thank me later.

[beargryllz]

60 only

Kill all the noobs

[Ravager]

Ugh, I knew there would be some dumb response about how "only" 130 people voted in the poll and "only" 70 voted to change.

What would be a pretty bad mistake is to have no idea what a normal sample size in polling is, and try to draw your own conclusions without a basic knowledge of statistics. Using your estimate of 133 people being 5% of the server, that is actually a big enough sample to draw meaningful conclusions. We can say with 95% confidence that somewhere between 44%-60% (52% +/- 8%) of all the players on the server are in favor of a change based on the results of this poll. Facts are fun!
But you're polling sample is likely inherently biased one way or another so as not to represent the average server player who may find him/herself wanting a bracer some day.

[remen]

1 Forum posters don't represent the average p99 player
2 Your supposed facts don't show a significant majority either way

I suggest just getting good at rolling? You'll have time

1. Explain how you know this please? Putting up an open poll is a good way to draw a random sample in this situation; there is no selective polling of players with toons of a certaint level, or polling players from a particular guild / guilds. Anyone who sees the poll can vote if they want to.

2. Again, reading comprehension goes a long way. Where did I say it is a fact that the poll does show a significant majority either way? The fact I stated is that 5% of the population in this situation is a large enough sample to have a 95% degree of confidence that the results are accurate plus or minus 8% (i.e. 52% voted yes at the time of the calculation therefore there is a 95% chance that 44%-60% of the players on the server are in favor of limiting the roll to characters 55+).

I already said in a previous post that this is not a large enough majority to warrant a change in my opinion. Because of your difficulties with reading comprehension you misunderstood what was meant by my saying that we can be confident that the results of this poll are fairly accurate.

But you're polling sample is likely inherently biased one way or another so as not to represent the average server player who may find him/herself wanting a bracer some day.

What proof do you have that its biased? And in what way do you think it is biased? I am trying to understand how you are drawing this conclusion.

[Bakuryu13]

I was unaware I have a second account, I might have made it in error when I started playing. I usually lurk, but I saw I was tagged in a post and was curious about it - thanks for including me in the vote conspiracy! I have a 56 cleric and play pretty casually, and I voted for keeping it the same. If it changes, it doesn't really impact me, and if you've ever seen me roll, you'll know I won't win anyway.

[Baler]

I was unaware I have a second account

Sorry officer I didn't know I couldn't do that. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_nbG4HORig)

[Swish2]

But you're polling sample is likely inherently biased one way or another so as not to represent the average server player who may find him/herself wanting a bracer some day.

your*

...and it's sort of irrelevant because above all else people just want a bracer, so they vote to lower it below 55 until they become 55-56. People's votes are biased towards personal gain.

The bigger problem as mentioned earlier are those who log out and won't help the roll winner after they've won.

[skarlorn]

Yeah or nay?*

[Cecily]

Thanks for coming out of your retirement to bestow us that gem.

[d3r14k]

Gonna have to agree with Kekily here.

[fortior]

1. Explain how you know this please?

Yeah, no, this is not how it works. You have to show that the characteristics of the polled people are sufficiently similar to the characteristics of the population you're trying to infer something about.

You can't, because there's a reason prolific forum posters are called forumquesters. Ingame /OOC is simply too neurotypical for the P99 forums to be an accurate representation of the P99 ingame population.

[kaev]

Let's count the multi account users shall we?

7thGate, anarch, Bakuryu13, bodenn, Buriedpast, bv2fg, Chucck, Core, Crawdad, Crom, d-tron, Doujou, DromalPhrenia, dyonak, Emmin, EQmerch, Feanoir, Femm, feniin, Flinky9234, fortior, garfo, HedleyKow, Hibbs, huron99, icedwards, jakerees, Jimjam, JohnT88, Just facts, kaev, Katran, Kindadar, Konfetti, Korpskugga, Lewkeng, loramin, Lunk, Mead, mefdinkins, Metham, MiRo2, misterbonkers, Narcol, Nexii, Officer, Olarin, Phenyl, Phenyo, Psyqo, publicexpo, Qtip, Shodo, Silmeria, Tiggles Mother, tolinwiz, Twochain, Vallaen, vandalin, wagorf, William_Munny15, yarmond1, yooperdave23, zodium

f-u and f-off.

I have one forum account and one p99 play account, all my toons on a single account just like the overwhelming majority of players back in the day. Boxing happened, but it was far from routine back pre-Luclin.

[MiRo2]

Let's count the multi account users shall we?

7thGate, anarch, Bakuryu13, bodenn, Buriedpast, bv2fg, Chucck, Core, Crawdad, Crom, d-tron, Doujou, DromalPhrenia, dyonak, Emmin, EQmerch, Feanoir, Femm, feniin, Flinky9234, fortior, garfo, HedleyKow, Hibbs, huron99, icedwards, jakerees, Jimjam, JohnT88, Just facts, kaev, Katran, Kindadar, Konfetti, Korpskugga, Lewkeng, loramin, Lunk, Mead, mefdinkins, Metham, MiRo2, misterbonkers, Narcol, Nexii, Officer, Olarin, Phenyl, Phenyo, Psyqo, publicexpo, Qtip, Shodo, Silmeria, Tiggles Mother, tolinwiz, Twochain, Vallaen, vandalin, wagorf, William_Munny15, yarmond1, yooperdave23, zodium

Really curious to see who you think I am. For the record I play mainly on red, but I do have a 52 wizard on blue I wouldn't mind getting a scout robe on.

[Baler]

Really curious to see who you think I am. For the record I play mainly on red, but I do have a 52 wizard on blue I wouldn't mind getting a scout robe on.

I know who you are. Don't get bent out of shape because I posted how you voted in a public poll.
And don't let the 2014 fool you ;)

a 52 wizard is the among the last classes in the game to get a roll. Back in kunark sure okay. In velious however. Just no.
Warriors, monks and rogues out dps wizards in velious. Which you may know and be trying to use as bait. maybe,.

[Senescant]

It’s several years into velious. Telling someone they can’t roll because they’re not level whatever or not the right class is beyond dumb.

[remen]

Yeah, no, this is not how it works. You have to show that the characteristics of the polled people are sufficiently similar to the characteristics of the population you're trying to infer something about.

Actually, yeah, it is how it works. While voluntary non-probability samples aren't the ideal, they aren't invalid to draw inferences from. It has a lower generalizability than the type of sample you described, but that doesn't invalidate it. It is often impractical or impossible to draw a perfectly representative sample of a population, and a significant amount of research is done via polling methods that use alternate methods such as an open poll.

The only bias I can see in play here is that the poll is more likely to attract players that participate in the scout roll, which is actually a good thing since the population we are concerned with is players that participate in the roll, not 100% of the players on p99.


You can't, because there's a reason prolific forum posters are called forumquesters. Ingame /OOC is simply too neurotypical for the P99 forums to be an accurate representation of the P99 ingame population.

Thank you for your subjective, speculative opinion on the correlation between players who participate in the forums and players who participate in the game. I say the p99 forums are an accurate representation of the p99 in game population, so there!!!

Also, I would strongly disagree that in game /OOC is anything close to neurotypical.

[wagorf]

Ugh, I knew there would be some dumb response about how "only" 130 people voted in the poll and "only" 70 voted to change.

What would be a pretty bad mistake is to have no idea what a normal sample size in polling is, and try to draw your own conclusions without a basic knowledge of statistics. Using your estimate of 133 people being 5% of the server, that is actually a big enough sample to draw meaningful conclusions. We can say with 95% confidence that somewhere between 44%-60% (52% +/- 8%) of all the players on the server are in favor of a change based on the results of this poll. Facts are fun!

you're the dumbfuck

if you randomly draw 133 from the server, sure. Taking 133 who visits the forum AND clicks into this thread AND votes does not represent shit nor can be considered a valid sample from the population

you are the one without basic knowledge of statistics...dumbass

[Canelek]

Oh noes, my 10th alt didn't win the roll.

[zodium]

Ugh, I knew there would be some dumb response about how "only" 130 people voted in the poll and "only" 70 voted to change.

What would be a pretty bad mistake is to have no idea what a normal sample size in polling is, and try to draw your own conclusions without a basic knowledge of statistics. Using your estimate of 133 people being 5% of the server, that is actually a big enough sample to draw meaningful conclusions. We can say with 95% confidence that somewhere between 44%-60% (52% +/- 8%) of all the players on the server are in favor of a change based on the results of this poll. Facts are fun!

Fun fact: Drawing a sound inferential conclusion is an exercise in mind boggling difficulty. Like, you just won't believe how hard it is! Wow! It is, certainly, far too hard to bother going through for a P99 poll. No one qualified to do it would even try.

Now, savagely criticizing a gross misapplication of statistics? That is a different story. Here are a few minor problems with your attempt:

As even a first year statistics student would know, that is an on-its-face incorrect interpretation of your computed result. It's such a textbook mistake, the answer given appears as a standard lure in every first-year MCT question bank for statistics exams. Without, at least, a technically correct interpretation, we can never hope for our conclusion to be sound. Grade: C.
Your confidence interval, as computed, contains both possible outcomes. This implies the sample size is, in fact, too low to soundly infer a conclusion. Considering your tone, this is at best a very embarrassing error. Grade: F.
This is not something anyone who isn't like a statistician or methodologist are supposed to know, I guess, but bears stating to put into perspective how difficult sound inference is: a sound frequentist interpretation can't ever be inferred from this poll, because a stopping rule was not specified in advance. Any conclusion may theoretically be obtained, simply by arbitrarily choosing when to stop collecting data. Applying a Bayesian credible interval technique instead may technically resolve this, but at current sample sizes and proportions is uh, extremely unlikely to produce a result that is both sound and unequivocal in support of either possible outcome. Also, post-hoc/"fishing expedition" analyses ipso facto imply dramatically reduced validity.

Just take the poll on its face, friends. Don't grasp at statistical straws. As the old saying goes,

To consult the statistician after an experiment is finished is often merely to ask him to conduct a post mortem examination. He can perhaps say what the experiment died of.

In conclusion: Slay monsters, not statistics! :o

[Canelek]

Fun fact: Drawing a sound inferential conclusion is an exercise in mind boggling difficulty. Like, you just won't believe how hard it is! Wow! It is, certainly, far too hard to bother going through for a P99 poll. No one qualified to do it would even try.

Now, savagely criticizing a gross misapplication of statistics? That is a different story. Here are a few minor problems with your attempt:

As even a first year statistics student would know, that is an on-its-face incorrect interpretation of your computed result. It's such a textbook mistake, the answer given appears as a standard lure in every first-year MCT question bank for statistics exams. Without, at least, a technically correct interpretation, we can never hope for our conclusion to be sound. Grade: C.
Your confidence interval, as computed, contains both possible outcomes. This implies the sample size is, in fact, too low to soundly infer a conclusion. Considering your tone, this is at best a very embarrassing error. Grade: F.
This is not something anyone who isn't like a statistician or methodologist are supposed to know, I guess, but bears stating to put into perspective how difficult sound inference is: a sound frequentist interpretation can't ever be inferred from this poll, because a stopping rule was not specified in advance. Any conclusion may theoretically be obtained, simply by arbitrarily choosing when to stop collecting data. Applying a Bayesian credible interval technique instead may technically resolve this, but at current sample sizes and proportions is uh, extremely unlikely to produce a result that is both sound and unequivocal in support of either possible outcome. Also, post-hoc/"fishing expedition" analyses ipso facto imply dramatically reduced validity.

Just take the poll on its face, friends. Don't grasp at statistical straws. As the old saying goes,



In conclusion: Slay monsters, not statistics! :o

Well shit. Well done.

[Ghostly]

Again, the player base here can come to agreements that will be enforced by the staff, it is ridiculous for you to say that this change can never happen because...you don't like it? That being said, only a slight majority seem to be in favor of changing it so I doubt that's anywhere near enough to make this change happen, so you can relax.

The only thing that could be done at this point would be for players 55+ to agree to not help with the encounter if someone below 55 wins the roll, making it very difficult for them to complete it. I honestly don't care that much either way if there is a change, I just started this thread so we could get a feel for what the player base wants and because a few people PMed me asking me to create this poll.

You think it makes sense that even though a toon could finish it at 50, that because a bunch of people don't want him to, that its okay to lock down a mob so that he cant do it?

Hows that for a play nice policy.

[Jimjam]

I think the democratic solution is allow the attendees at each roll to form an agreement on an ad hoc basis.

If you as an individual have personally preferred prerequisites for the winner (melee only? Min level?) let them be known and establish that you will only help if these conditions are met, at the cost that other rollers may choose not to help you if you do win the roll.

[Metham]

Oh neat, i have a second forum account? News to me.

[MiRo2]

a 52 wizard is the among the last classes in the game to get a roll. Back in kunark sure okay. In velious however. Just no.
Warriors, monks and rogues out dps wizards in velious. Which you may know and be trying to use as bait. maybe,.

I thought anyone could show up and roll?

Also if it wasn't bait I would have said for my monk instead.

[Talisman]

yay

[wtsgoodtime]

imho, I said this to my friends back when I was going to scout every roll. When 40-50 people show up, it is wasting a lot of people's time. It should be enough people to do the quest, but not many more. I guess my point is to think about the aggregate wasted time and having a restriction helps everyone save time. Ad-hoc agreements won't work because 1) you've already spent the time showing up and 2) you won't form consensus in any reasonable amount of time.

55+ seems like a fine cut-off and it benefits everyone to have this restriction.

[Kiwix]

If you're going to implement a new level requirement, make it 60 - no half-measures.

[Sadiki]

It's a great idea, but the only reason I can't fully agree is because people should be allowed to gear Vox/Nag toons that are stuck at 52 for a purpose.

But yeah, everyone parking their shit alts they never play is super lame, especially when level 30s are there rolling. Restricting it to 52 is still better than nothing.

[kaev]

It's a great idea, but the only reason I can't fully agree is because people should be allowed to gear Vox/Nag toons that are stuck at 52 for a purpose.

But yeah, everyone parking their shit alts they never play is super lame, especially when level 30s are there rolling. Restricting it to 52 is still better than nothing.

I don't agree with restricting it at all, but your post makes a very strong case for restricting it to 60 just to ensure that the value of essence emeralds is driven ever lower.

[Xzorn]

The mob is level 58, this isn't a hard choice IMO.

If you can't contribute reasonably to the kill effort you don't get to roll against those who do.

[Jimjam]

The mob is level 58, this isn't a hard choice IMO.

If you can't contribute reasonably to the kill effort you don't get to roll against those who do.

Let's also limit Level 70 mobs drops to level 67 players.

[Xzorn]

Let's also limit Level 70 mobs drops to level 67 players.

That's not a reasonable comparison.

Does your guild bring lvl 30 mains into ToV with no resist gear, no clickies, completely unprepared? I'm betting they don't.

Do drops go to alts rather than rot? Yea, sometimes they do but the alt in question isn't making it more difficult for present characters who are prepared.

I want to be clear. There's nothing wrong with rolling for Scout on your 10th alt. What's unreasonable is allowing UN-invested characters to roll against invested one.

A level restriction is the most lenient manner to control this.

[Sadiki]

Does your guild bring lvl 30 mains into ToV with no resist gear, no clickies, completely unprepared?
Mine does

[Foxplay]

46+ to stay classic

Pretty sure a bunch of 46 cleric's could do the CH chain for ToV lol ;p

Lvl 60 would just be more mana and better meditate

[commongood]

Voted to keep as is. It will likely be a train wreck trying to police this and people out to get around it will be a pita. Remember what this used to be like... click fest. I’d be very careful about rocking the boat and risk relapsing.

This way at least everyone who shows up has an equal chance.

Btw if you show and roll - correct me if Im wrong - but you can freely state pre-roll that you refuse to help with the kill if winner is below level 55 or whatever. If that sort of rhetoric was spread it might dissuade people from showing up with low level toons without at least having their own kill squad.

[Xzorn]

It would not be hard to police. Just as pre-46 characters can't go into Planar zones. It's one code addition with no overhead required by anyone.

Lock the zone or just have Scout ignore turn ins from players under level 50.

[commongood]

It would not be hard to police. Just as pre-46 characters can't go into Planar zones. It's one code addition with no overhead required by anyone.

Lock the zone or just have Scout ignore turn ins from players under level 50.

This is a player-made agreement right? Is staff even involved? Will staff currently intervene if someone just skips the roll and does turn-in to the chagrin of everyone that showed up to roll?

With #notclassic being a thing I find it impossible to think that staff would actually code something differently to what it is now to cater to the demands of some regarding the scout. I know they have a history for nerfing things with AOE but that was because an entire zone was more or less perma-camped by 1 group selling exp. This, in contrast, seems like such small deal...

[snyder43]

This is a player-made agreement right? Is staff even involved? Will staff currently intervene if someone just skips the roll and does turn-in to the chagrin of everyone that showed up to roll?

At one point there was a poll asking to turn the scout from the clickfest to a roll. There were about 200 voters and 2/3 picked the roll, thus making the roll a player-made agreement. The staff does enforce player-made agreements, and you will be punished if you break the agreement.

However, I don't think that people realized that there would be characters as low as level 17 (from what I've seen) coming to roll.

[commongood]

At one point there was a poll asking to turn the scout from the clickfest to a roll. There were about 200 voters and 2/3 picked the roll, thus making the roll a player-made agreement. The staff does enforce player-made agreements, and you will be punished if you break the agreement.

However, I don't think that people realized that there would be characters as low as level 17 (from what I've seen) coming to roll.

I'm not trying to be a contrarian here but I need have this cleared up for me.

I remember this pole but I cannot find it written anywhere that there is now a player-made agreement in place. A random person creating a poll on forums and 200 people voting seems like a terrible grounds for any agreement to be put in place. Half of those who voted might not even play on the server anymore and even if they did that represents way less than half of the population. So yeah, struggling to believe there is a staff-enforced agreement in place on those grounds but I'd be happy to be proven wrong if you could link me to where it's documented?

[snyder43]

I remember this pole but I cannot find it written anywhere that there is now a player-made agreement in place. A random person creating a poll on forums and 200 people voting seems like a terrible grounds for any agreement to be put in place. Half of those who voted might not even play on the server anymore and even if they did that represents way less than half of the population. So yeah, struggling to believe there is a staff-enforced agreement in place on those grounds but I'd be happy to be proven wrong if you could link me to where it's documented?

I could not find any place where a GM/dev/etc. says that this is in fact a rule, but the original poll is here (https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=282447). However, last year when A/A were banned from raiding, the casual guilds made agreements to rotate raid mobs. When some people from AG decided to kill VS when it wasn't their turn, the guild was suspended. The GMs didn't specifically say that these player-made agreements for raid mobs was an enforceable rule specifically, but they they did say in the past that they will enforce player-made agreements. According to the agreement laid out in the poll, you will be petitioned if you ignore the roll and turn in. While the scenario is not the same as the AG ban, I think it will be viewed in the same fashion.

[Alanus]

Back when I was doing scout, the issue was people logging when they lost the roll. There was still plenty of people to help, but it's still a dick move.

[Sadiki]

I'm not trying to be a contrarian here but I need have this cleared up for me.

I remember this pole but I cannot find it written anywhere that there is now a player-made agreement in place. A random person creating a poll on forums and 200 people voting seems like a terrible grounds for any agreement to be put in place. Half of those who voted might not even play on the server anymore and even if they did that represents way less than half of the population. So yeah, struggling to believe there is a staff-enforced agreement in place on those grounds but I'd be happy to be proven wrong if you could link me to where it's documented?
Nothing was made official via forum polls. A group of players went to every scout and specifically asked every single person there to participate in a roll until, several weeks later, everyone finally got onboard with it (except for one guild, which finally burned out). Eventually, everyone was rolling and turning against the 1-2 people that would show up and attempt to clickfest, and it finally stuck. Everyone who rolled participated after, and eventually it grew to a massive amount of people cooperating.

It took a ridiculous amount of effort to make this happen, especially in an era where scout was dominated by a dozen cheaters endlessly.

[Wonkie]

Nothing was made official via forum polls. A group of players went to every scout and specifically asked every single person there to participate in a roll until, several weeks later, everyone finally got onboard with it (except for one guild, which finally burned out). Eventually, everyone was rolling and turning against the 1-2 people that would show up and attempt to clickfest, and it finally stuck. Everyone who rolled participated after, and eventually it grew to a massive amount of people cooperating.

It took a ridiculous amount of effort to make this happen, especially in an era where scout was dominated by a dozen cheaters endlessly.

Da, is much like Revolution of October, comrade

[Sonderbeast]

I could not find any place where a GM/dev/etc. says that this is in fact a rule, but the original poll is here (https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=282447). However, last year when A/A were banned from raiding, the casual guilds made agreements to rotate raid mobs. When some people from AG decided to kill VS when it wasn't their turn, the guild was suspended. The GMs didn't specifically say that these player-made agreements for raid mobs was an enforceable rule specifically, but they they did say in the past that they will enforce player-made agreements. According to the agreement laid out in the poll, you will be petitioned if you ignore the roll and turn in. While the scenario is not the same as the AG ban, I think it will be viewed in the same fashion.

A player made agreement is where all parties come to the table and agree to terms that they will continue to live by and hold each other to. a 65% to 35% clearly is not "all players coming to the table to agree to terms beforehand", so really there isn't anything binding people to it. However if someone who came to a roll, lost the roll, and turned in anyways would be subject to punishment IMO since he agreed to the roll by actually rolling. Nonetheless, the culture of the roll is awesome and I hope it continues, It's a great way to handle an otherwise annoying events like this.