There is no hundred percent fair system for all players when that system is run by a human generated point/ladder system.
Fair doesn't exist. Fair is how one perceives things to be. Rationality would suggest that a person who dedicates all their effort and misses no opportunity should get the gear first and other players would feel it to be right. If that were the case, there wouldn't be so many iterations of different point systems. I have been the guy who never misses an opportunity to score points while everyone else was here and there in attendance and effort. I received alot of gear before other people, sometimes even getting my drops, moving back down to the bottom of the rights list, then I would move up the ladder one, two, three times overtaking them through utter dedication.
Archmage Callinon wrote:
My issue with that is that in-game loot systems are equivalent to rolling dice for everything that drops regardless of attendance or investment in a particular guild.
While I definitely agree that player-managed loot systems can be kind of arcane and they definitely require a lot more effort on behalf of the guild leadership. That being said, they have the capability of accounting for things the game can't possibly know, like attendance.
I mean, how crappy does it feel when your guild has been working together for years, and you replace someone, and then that guy gets the drop you've been waiting 6 months to see and immediately leaves.
THAT'S what player-managed loot systems prevent.
No, a good in-game loot system would take that into account. You can't prevent anything in life. You can only some what lessen or delay the possibility of something happening. Dictators try and force and find out ultimately. That no matter how much they do, they cannot force happiness or compliance. A majority of people will leave when they reach whatever goals they set out to accomplish. One day, three months, ten years.
Player points are the worst thing that can happen to a guild/LS, they always bring drama, and abuse, the game fixes this issue on itself, with need/greed/pass, if you need it roll for it, and let the RNG gods deal with it, no drama, no cheating, no abuse, you can also add a "Cannot roll for 2 weeks if you are new rule" or a "Can only roll for active job/class" etc etc.
This does not fix things either. If the individual player is given access to need/greed/pass. They have their own perception of what they feel is right even if other members disagree in their own perceptions. This also doesn't take into account attentive play or cooperation. It's like the lotto. The few who are lucky win and the rest spend their hard earned money or time for little return. Need all the time and if your lucky, watch yourself get booted from the guild or listen to discontent while other members leave.
This is why points system, when run by a guild leadership that isn't corrupt, promotes a non-drama environment. The points are cold, harsh, and factual and emotions or biaism doesn't come into play. I agree completely.
Relying on free lots, "let's pass loot freely", and other methods aren't methodical and have no rhyme or reasoning. It *always* culminates into a massive issue that drives people apart and usually away from the linkshell/guild. They don't work effectively over a long period of time, they never have, and never will.
Both systems can be corrupted by leadership, but only a point system ran effectively curtails any complaints of favoritism.
Personally I've been a fan of EPGP because it rewards effort as well as attendance: if you don't show up for a while you fall down the "list" due to natural point decay. The decay is usually percentage based so if everyone shows up all the time the ratio/loot eligibility doesn't change, only those not attending events suffer (and rightfully so).
Any leadership regardless if it's a democracy or run by a dictator has a hint of corruption, some form of drama, or biaism. Look no further than the US government, and they been working at this for hundreds of years! Emotions are always present in humans whether they are apparent or under the surface.
People drive people apart. The only methodical solution that neither brings nor pushes people apart. Is one where opinion or perception is not applicable. An in-game distribution model that is global, takes attendance and completion of events into account, and doesn't rely on rolls to accomplish that.
If a member never misses, is on time, and completes every event. Should his or her points decay?
No matter what it is answered here, I guarantee you that someone in that guild disagrees. In an ideal world everyone would be 100% dedicated and present. But this isn't how it works. Any player who can only commit 99% or less loses. Regardless if real life matters are the only thing that prevent them from doing this.
TLDR: In any player driven system for rewarding loot. The players with less time get punished. In any in-game system for rewarding loot using RNG. All but the lucky players get punished.