Crest rolling rules are like political manifestos

In case you’ve been under a warcrafty rock for too long, crests are a type of RvR currency that drops from enemy players. There are different types of crest, Conqueror, Invader, etc and each type of crest can be spent on it’s associated armour set. These armour sets have renown rank requirements to equip and that in turn relates to the level of player that has a chance of dropping the relevant crest.
 
There was a bit of debate recently within our new alliance about who should be allowed to roll on what type of crest. The guilds in our alliance have very different rules internally regarding crest rolling rules, but thankfully a compromise was quickly decided upon, so it’s not a big issue anymore. However this is a debate I’ve seen many times before, with some guilds seeing things our way and others not, but in some of the discussion after this latest event I saw something that amused me greatly: accusations of greed from both sides of the debate.
 
I found this amusing because both sets off rules can be viewed as greedy, depending on your perspective. I know which system I believe is fairest, but I think I can argue a good case both for and against, should I feel like it. To say followers of system A are greedy people and system B is the only fair way of doing things is somewhat naïve, as there is more to it than that. The definition of what is the fairest way of doing things is totally subjective, it is not set in stone. That’s why in the real world we have different political parties to vote for; we want our governments to define the rules of our society fairly, but we don’t all agree on what is fair.
 
A lot of guilds restrict what their members are allowed to roll on based upon the players renown rank. So for example if you were renown rank 55 you could roll need on Conqueror and Invader crests, but would have to roll greed on Warlord and Royal crests.
 
In KF we have an open rolling policy. Anyone is allowed to roll need on any crest, it is never restricted and everyone has an even chance of winning. If people want to opt out on crests then that is entirely up to them.
 
Supporters of restricted rolling say their system is fairest because it makes sure the people that have the most need for those crests are guaranteed to get them. They’ve earned the renown rank, they should get their just rewards. It is frustrating when some level 32 alt, that’s only played once a bloody month, wins a royal crest that he/she will probably never use. Having restrictions also helps the guild as a whole progress quicker, with the higher renowned players getting their armour sets as quickly as possible.
Wanting crests before you have earned them and before you can use them is greedy.
 
Supporters (like me) of open rolling say their system is fairest because it ensures that everyone regardless of time played has equal chance of getting geared up. Renown rank is not earned, you log in and you get it. It’s an indication of how much you play WAR, nothing else. That’s why not having a job and/or other real life commitments often coincide with high renown rank, not that I’m saying it’s an exclusive relationship, as that too is more complicated than a simple assumption. Anyways, if you’re playing often enough to get high renown rank, that also means you take part in more loot rolls than other people and as such already have a far higher chance of earning your required crests. Allowing people to get crests in advance also helps the guild progress as the people that only get to play once or twice a week on guild event nights will have a chance of getting higher tier armour, that otherwise they simply will not take part in enough crest rolls for.
Deciding you want all the crests all the time because you play more than other people is greedy.
 
I find restricted rolling to be reminiscent of Conservative values in Margaret Thatcher’s Britain, the system is set up to benefit those with the most opportunity of gain in the first place. Where as open rolling is rather left wing, with equal opportunities regardless of your gaming background (and some may say work ethic), which is more of an 80s Labour party thing. But by saying this I don’t mean it as a slur on either point of view, because that’s all this is, a point of view. The era of Thatcherite Britain is revered by some and hated by others. Right, wrong and everything in-between (Paddy Ashdown ftw) is entirely subjective. You may say that comparing real life politics and online world politics is silly, but I don’t think so at all. The way people behave in-game and the rules they expect the world to work by are a reflection of their real life opinions. This reflection is not a perfect mirror image, it’s distorted by the anonymous nature of the Internet (hence all the tough guys and foul mouthed bigots), but it is a reflection none the less. Over here in the UK we’re about to elect our next government, but in WAR we already voted, it was the moment we joined and decided to stay in a guild.