Guild Loot Drama: How should I settle this?
BLMX
hard feelings over the division of loot. My guild is a very small RL
friends & friends-of-friends guild so keeping everyone happy is almost
as important as doing the “right thing.” For the record, the only
rule I consider set in stone is that you NEED roll for upgrades to
your current group role (off-spec rolls are a far distant second.)
So here’s the setup… PlayerA=Priest/Healer, PlayerB=Warlock/DPS, these
were the only 2 clothies in group.
During this run, 3 ilvl 219 cloth items dropped:
1. Hit rating item, PlayerA passes, PlayerB receives upgrade.
2. Hit rating item, PlayerA passes, PlayerB receives upgrade.
3. Spirit (no hit rating), PlayerA Needs, PlayerB Needs, PlayerB wins
roll, PlayerB receives upgrade.
Beyond these stats both Players would benefit from the increased Stam/
Int/Spellpower + Haste and/or Crit.
To me it seemed obvious that PlayerA should get the 3rd item based
MOSTLY on the fact that it had Spirit and no Hit (the lock can lifetap
to replace their mana and the priest already is responsible for
refilling the lock’s life). It seemed like a no-brainer but I
wouldn’t want to make a bad choice based on just my own opinion.
PlayerB has a point that it’s an upgrade for them too, and in fact a
“larger upgrade” since they’d be replacing a quest blue and PlayerA is
replacing an ilvl 200 item. Also, while Spirit is not traditionally a
“Warlock stat” more regen is always welcome to any caster. Overall,
PlayerA is “more geared” than PlayerB.
Both are RL friends so it’s important to make the fairest decision.
John Gordon
> 1. Hit rating item, PlayerA passes, PlayerB receives upgrade.
> 2. Hit rating item, PlayerA passes, PlayerB receives upgrade.
> 3. Spirit (no hit rating), PlayerA Needs, PlayerB Needs, PlayerB wins
> roll, PlayerB receives upgrade.
> To me it seemed obvious that PlayerA should get the 3rd item based
> MOSTLY on the fact that it had Spirit and no Hit
If the warlock won his THIRD ITEM IN A ROW without offering to pass
to his priest friend, I wonder how friendly the warlock really is.
--
John Gordon A is for Amy, who fell down the stairs
gor...@panix.com B is for Basil, assaulted by bears
-- Edward Gorey, "The Gashlycrumb Tinies"
Orion Ryder
I bet that lock replaces that 3rd item within the next week with an
item more suitable than the "spirit" item.
By a technicality the rule states the lock can roll on it.
Perhaps you need to insert a qualifier in the rules about items being
more class specific. Some people don't need these qualifiers. If I had
a DPSer and the spirit piece dropped and I already won two DPS items I
would sit back and wait to see if the priest rolled NEED. If he did
then I would have passed but that is just me and my style of play.
Hell I have even passed on items in Naxx that were a tad upgradish for
me because I noticed that they were a wild upgrade for someone else
rolling on them.
Still you are in a bind because if you bring this up within the guild
the rl friends who do not understand the advanced mechanics of gear
and stats might misinterpret this to be a power play on your part. If
they are good players chances are they eventually will understand all
the mechanics and these things will work themselves out.
Orion
Toolpackinmama
decide who gets it. Guy's lucky at dice. Just say "Lucky You!" and
move on.
Toolpackinmama
> Both are RL friends so it�s important to make the fairest decision.
Then don't leave it up to random rolls of dice. Set a master looter,
and let the master looter decide.
Erimikos
>
> Then don't leave it up to random rolls of dice. Set a master looter,
> and let the master looter decide.
Just a thought, but...
Rule 1) Roll Need on mainspec items, greed on Offspec.
Rule 2) In the event that you have already received an item and
another drops, need roll ONLY if no other party member needs,
otherwise greed.
Orion Ryder
It is not a question of what came up on the dice. I think the OP is
asking more along the lines of who should be doing the dice rolls and
who should not or who should be rollign at what time.
C J Campbell
> After running one of the new 5man dungeons, a few guildmates had some
> hard feelings over the division of loot. My guild is a very small RL
> friends & friends-of-friends guild so keeping everyone happy is almost
> as important as doing the “right thing.” For the record, the only
> rule I consider set in stone is that you NEED roll for upgrades to
> your current group role (off-spec rolls are a far distant second.)
Our guild motto is "No Drama." If it is an upgrade, you can need it if
you wish. Greed everything else. There is no accounting for a lucky
streak.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
Orion Ryder
<christophercampbellremovet...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I think BLMX is trying to cover "Item Worth" as well "Luck"
And maybe something else for all I know.
Chris
> On Dec 14, 2:32 pm, BLMX <junkbin5...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > To me it seemed obvious that PlayerA should get the 3rd item based
> > MOSTLY on the fact that it had Spirit and no Hit (the lock can lifetap
> > to replace their mana and the priest already is responsible for
> > refilling the lock’s life). It seemed like a no-brainer but I
> > wouldn’t want to make a bad choice based on just my own opinion.
> > PlayerB has a point that it’s an upgrade for them too, and in fact a
> > “larger upgrade” since they’d be replacing a quest blue and PlayerA is
> > replacing an ilvl 200 item. Also, while Spirit is not traditionally a
> > “Warlock stat” more regen is always welcome to any caster. Overall,
> > PlayerA is “more geared” than PlayerB.
>
> > Both are RL friends so it’s important to make the fairest decision.
>
> I bet that lock replaces that 3rd item within the next week with an
> item more suitable than the "spirit" item.
Further, I bet the priest fills that slot with a better item within
the next week as well, making the whole argument really pointless.
I don't see a problem with the lock rolling on it if it was an
upgrade. So he got a lucky haul that run. Do it again tomorrow.
C J Campbell
It would appear so. However, I have lived a long time. And one of the
things I have learned is that the harder people work to make things
"fair" the less "fair" they end up being.
PV
>replacing an ilvl 200 item. Also, while Spirit is not traditionally a
>�Warlock stat� more regen is always welcome to any caster. Overall,
>PlayerA is �more geared� than PlayerB.
This is where the secondary stat situation will be clearer in the next
expansion. Right now, you sort of have to read between the lines on caster
items:
1) If the item has MP5, it shouldn't go to any DPS class that depends on
constant casting. It's almost certainly a healer item. I've worn items
with MP5 when it was a giant upgrade and nobody else wanted it, but
mostly, these items make you look stupid and you shouldn't be using them
as caster DPS.
2) Any item with hit rating is NOT a healer item, no matter how much they
yell about it. It's the flipside of #1.
3) Spirit can't be used as a judge of a healer item like the old days where
any item with spirit was categorically a holy priest item. Spirit is now
a useful stat for most casters, though not necessarily in the way you
might think.
Because of glyph of lifetap, Spirit is actually a very nice warlock
secondary stat. Purified stones (SP + spirit) are now my go-to item for
filling a blue slot. That monster chunk of spellpower from lifetap is
really, really nice if you have a good chunk of spirit.
That said, since the questionable item had no hit, and the warlock
already won an item, I would agree that it should have gone to the priest.
Personally, I think the warlock is being greedy on rolling on the second
item at all. If I win an upgrade on a run, I don't need anymore. *
--
* PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something
like corkscrews.
i|||| | | || ||| || |||| 2.0
"John Gordon" <gor...@panix.com> wrote in message news:hg64mt$3qk$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> In <c689916c-d85e-42f4...@g26g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> BLMX
> <junkb...@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> 1. Hit rating item, PlayerA passes, PlayerB receives upgrade.
>> 2. Hit rating item, PlayerA passes, PlayerB receives upgrade.
>> 3. Spirit (no hit rating), PlayerA Needs, PlayerB Needs, PlayerB wins
>> roll, PlayerB receives upgrade.
>
>> To me it seemed obvious that PlayerA should get the 3rd item based
>> MOSTLY on the fact that it had Spirit and no Hit
>
> If the warlock won his THIRD ITEM IN A ROW without offering to pass
> to his priest friend, I wonder how friendly the warlock really is.
Guild run? Will you likely do it again?
In a new dungeon with new gear.
State possible loot allocations beforehand
What the tank wants the tank gets.
What the healer wants the healer gets.
Then everyone else has an easier time getting their upgrades next time.
Next
'fredlocks has dibs on the shoulders'
'Dewdas has dibs on the gloves'
Need/greed foreverything else
-or-
master looter
The problem is you allowed need/greed rolls
since they were allowed then the winner keeps their wins,
even though it would have been -nice- to pass since A passed
twice.
Check B understands need/greed/pass concept.
If there is still a problem with the priest feeling miffed then organise a makeup run,
with the stated intention to clearup organisational problems with rolls.
No fault rerun to iron out misunderstanding.
If B happily takes part in another run to get the items for the priest
then no problem.
If not, well they are not into mutual benefit, reciprocation and harmonious relations.
BLMX
Shiflet
"BLMX" <junkb...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:c689916c-d85e-42f4...@g26g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>To me it seemed obvious that PlayerA should get the 3rd item based
MOSTLY on the fact that it had Spirit and no Hit (the lock can lifetap
to replace their mana and the priest already is responsible for
refilling the lock�s life).
You realize spirit is actually a stat locks use, right? We get 40% of our
spirit as spellpower from Fel Armor, then if we use glyph of lifetap(which
is considered one of THE standard lock glyphs for affliction and demo and is
even generally chosen by desto locks once their gear hits a certain level)
we get another 20% of our spirit as spellpower everytime we lifetap(and
since the buff lasts 40 seconds, most locks will have it up the entire
fight). If the other gear put the lock at hitcap, spirit is more useful to
him.
> Also, while Spirit is not traditionally a Warlock stat� more regen is
> always welcome to any caster.
Actually, these days, spirit IS a warlock stat. We get more from it than
just mana regen, we also get spellpower(which is our primary stat). It's not
considered as high priority as some others, but it is actually considered a
useful stat, because most locks will be getting 60% of their spirit as
spellpower taking in account fel armor and glyph of lifetap. In fact, the
standard gem for filling blue slots(to activate meta gems or if the socket
bonus is +7 spellpower or higher) on lock gear is purified dreadstone-12
spellpower, 10 spirit.
>PlayerA is �more geared� than PlayerB.
It was an upgrade for player B, he rolled on it and won it fair and square.
If that isn't acceptable, you should be running master looter.
ti...@thsu.org
it is via ventrillo and good old fashion diplomacy.
Just speak up, and ask to have the healing item. Say something like
how the warlock already won two other pieces of gear. Say it nicely,
diplomatically, and other people will back you up. Let the peer
pressure work in your favor, to get the warlock to pass the last
piece.
Something like,
"Hey George, pass me a bone man, you've gotten like two upgrades this
run already. Spread the wealth around, will you?"
Really, that's the best way to handle the situation when among
friends.
--
// T.Hsu
Insane Ranter
repair bills.
Kinda sucks that this kind of question even needs to be asked.
I remember the days of one set/one blue everything else not wanted and
de'd and then the shards given out to those that didn't get an item.
Shiflet
"Insane Ranter" <log...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:33cbe693-fc9a-4af6...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>I kinda see a Lock needing to badge/pot after ever life tap...and nice
> repair bills.
LOL? My lock almost never gets heals after life tapping. Nor does he ever
need them. A lock in current good gear will have his Fel armor healing for
like, 550+ a tick. And if for some reason their health does drop a tad too
low, they have death coil which is a nice emergency heal that will give back
around 3-4k life, and drain life. In other words...any lock that needs to
bandage/pot after lifetapping, heals or no heals, is doing something wrong.
BLMX
> friends.
> --
> // T.Hsu
I agree with this. This is my feeling also - regardless of stats for
this, bonus for that, it's a small RL guild and relationships aren't
that hard to preserve if you make an effort.
Thanks for posting back. It's great to get a bunch of different view
points.
Urbin
> After running one of the new 5man dungeons, a few guildmates had some
> hard feelings over the division of loot. My guild is a very small RL
> friends & friends-of-friends guild so keeping everyone happy is almost
> rule I consider set in stone is that you NEED roll for upgrades to
> your current group role (off-spec rolls are a far distant second.)
>
> ese
> were the only 2 clothies in group.
>
> During this run, 3 ilvl 219 cloth items dropped:
>
> 1. Hit rating item, PlayerA passes, PlayerB receives upgrade.
> 2. Hit rating item, PlayerA passes, PlayerB receives upgrade.
> 3. Spirit (no hit rating), PlayerA Needs, PlayerB Needs, PlayerB wins
> roll, PlayerB receives upgrade.
Not considering whether player B has more or less right to item 3 based on
stats, for me it would have been clear that player B would voluntarily pass
because he had already gotten 2 upgrades while player A so far had nothing.
This is what would have happened in our guild, at least.
I would at the very least have expected player B to ask A if it was ok for
him to roll Need.
> Both are RL friends so it=92s important to make the fairest decision.
Since you mention the need to make a decision I assume that player A was not
happy with the outcome of the roll? If the are RL friends, can't they settle
this between themselves?
Cheers
Urbin
--
Dun Morogh-EU (PvE)
Urbin (80), Dwarven Hunter | Surana (70), Draenei Mage
Mymule (80), Gnomish Warlock | Kordosch (65), Human Death Knight
Sunh (80), Nightelven Priest | Juran (33), Nightelven Druid
Insane Ranter
You miss the point
Point-----Zoooom
O <----- Your head
Villy Vonka
a primary stat. Nice to have, but you generally get enough from gear
anyway without going out of your way to get items with spirit on
them. On my destro lock I'd take hit, spellpower, haste and crit over
spirit whereas for a holy priest spirit is a primary stat.
I play a lock and a holy priest and the way I see things is if an item
is loaded with spirit and has no hit, or has mp5, it's "healy". If it
has no spirit, or only a small amount in comparison to the Stam/Int,
it's dps.
Hit of course and it's clear cut but I wish someone had told that to
the holy pally who needed on that bloody cloak from ToC heroic last
week...
There will always be some grey areas. I'm never quite sure how to
establish whether a leather item with Agi/Stam is appropriate for a
feral tank or a rogue, again it might depend on the the proportion of
each stat.
In a friendly guild you should be able to resolve these issues
amicably. As I've said numerous times to guildmates, it's only gear
you'll be replacing it all soon enough anyway. And in any case, we
don't raid for gear we raid to have fun with our mates.
BLMX
> him to roll Need.
That's what I would have done. I'd feel greedy and be wary of looking
like a loot wh*re. So, I'd pass unless no one else could use it at
all, for any spec. And even then I'd still be asking, thanking
profusely and remembering it for the next run.
People are different. The lock begrudingly traded the item to the
priest later. She's a newer player and hasn't really had the
experience of Puggin' up dungeons during the trip to 80 - mostly she
was just walked thru any dungeon she had quests for and was used to
walking out with a heaping wheelbarrow of loot.
Urbin
> On Dec 14, 7:14=A0pm, "Shiflet" <rshif...@charter.net> wrote:
> > "Insane Ranter" <log...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:33cbe693-fc9a-4af6...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > >I kinda see a Lock needing to badge/pot after ever life tap...and nice
> > > repair bills.
> >
> > LOL? My lock almost never gets heals after life tapping. Nor does he ever
> r
> > like, 550+ a tick. And if for some reason their health does drop a tad to=
> o
> > low, they have death coil which is a nice emergency heal that will give b=
> ack
> > around 3-4k life, and drain life. In other words...any lock that needs to
> g.
>
> You miss the point
>
> Point-----Zoooom
>
>
>
> O <----- Your head
Either you are a troll (I tend to lean in this direction based on your other
post) or I am also missing the point. I didn't understand what you tried to
say with your first point but understood very well what Shiflet said.
Would you mind spelling out what you're trying to say?
Mark (newsgroups)
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 02:50:26 -0800 (PST), Insane Ranter wrote:
> > On Dec 14, 7:14=A0pm, "Shiflet" <rshif...@charter.net> wrote:
> > > "Insane Ranter" <log...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:33cbe693-fc9a-4af6...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > >I kinda see a Lock needing to badge/pot after ever life tap...and nice
> > > > repair bills.
>
> > > LOL? My lock almost never gets heals after life tapping. Nor does he ever
> > > need them. A lock in current good gear will have his Fel armor healing fo=
> > r
> > > like, 550+ a tick. And if for some reason their health does drop a tad to=
> > o
> > > low, they have death coil which is a nice emergency heal that will give b=
> > ack
> > > around 3-4k life, and drain life. In other words...any lock that needs to
> > > bandage/pot after lifetapping, heals or no heals, is doing something wron=
> > g.
>
> > You miss the point
>
> > Point-----Zoooom
>
> > O <----- Your head
>
> Either you are a troll (I tend to lean in this direction based on your other
> post) or I am also missing the point. I didn't understand what you tried to
> say with your first point but understood very well what Shiflet said.
>
> Would you mind spelling out what you're trying to say?
I can clarify. He's saying that next time they're in a raid / dungeon
where the warlock needs a heal, she might not find it forthcoming.
Probably doesn't apply in this case since they're supposedly guildies
and friends, but the point is, she already got two items on the run
and took a further item that could have been used by the healer.
My view on this: Be nice, try to be fair, I would have given the item
no question to the healer. On top of that, especially be nice to the
person who can keep your character alive .
(In other words, it's besides the point that under normal
circumstances a warlock will regenerate life in other ways)
Shiflet
Your point was that the lock won't be getting heals when he needs them, to
show him what happens when he needs on an item that the priest also needed.
My point was, any decent lock won't be NEEDING them if your tank is good,
rendering your point moot.
Brent Stroh
>Not considering whether player B has more or less right to item 3 based on
>stats, for me it would have been clear that player B would voluntarily pass
>because he had already gotten 2 upgrades while player A so far had nothing.
>
>This is what would have happened in our guild, at least.
Same here. We have an official "one epic" rule, with tier tokens being an
exception. If (and only if) no one else needs an item for upgrade, you can
roll on a second item during the same run/raid.
In practice, it generally doesn't matter much. We've currently got a good
mix of people with a lot of ToC/badge gear and people who are fairly recent
80s, which greatly reduces loot competition.
We've also never had any issue with loot drama. If anything, we have
trouble convincing some folks to actually Need on an item before the timer
runs out. :) By and large, our guild of RL friends tend to treat each
other as RL friends and look out for each other.
--
Mertuka - Rogue (80) : Mallan - Priest (48) : Medanu - Druid (55)
Ralinth - Warlock (80) : Magorg - Hunter (48) : Ralethian - Paladin (60)
Rakhalga - DK (80) : Meedak - Mage (60) : Rahuraluna - Shaman (60)
Relikag - Warrior (10)
Mark (newsgroups)
Wrong.
Shiflet
"Mark (newsgroups)" <marknew...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:feb0a932-c3f3-4c51...@y24g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> Wrong.
Not wrong for the current instances, if the tank is good and the lock knows
what he's doing.
I admit, I haven't done HoR though, so that one may require something
different.
neithskye
First, loot rules should be made clear at the start of every run. Is
it one loot per boss? Per night?
Second, having said that, even if loot rules are made clear, do you
really want to run with someone who doesn't share? It's typical, as
others have said, to be considerate - "Hey, I got two upgrades, you
take this". There is a Warrior tank in my guild who has the crafted
ilvl 245 tank bracers, and actually rolled against my Paladin, who had
ilvl 213 bracers at the time, for a pair of ilvl 226 bracers that
dropped from 25-man FL - and won. They were a downgrade in every stat
- less stam, less dodge, less def. Why would she roll? Since then, I
refuse to play with her. For anything. Just refuse. How do you trust
people like that?
Third, I suppose at some point you have to decide if you want all your
loot to be decided by random luck. My Paladin cannot win a roll. It's
a running joke in my guild. I just can't win rolls. How often you
raid? How many hours you spend fishing to make Fish Feasts? That you
supply the raid with flasks for free? That you're an officer? That you
always come prepared with food and flasks, while some people can't
even be bothered to repair? Doesn't matter. All that matters is what
happens after you /roll. I tell ya, nothing burns people out on
raiding more than losing upgrades all the time.
Perhaps look at a loot system. Or make rules clear. However, I think
the larger issue is really whether you want to run with someone who
takes everything for himself with no consideration for others.
--
Jill
Urbin
> On Dec 15, 2:04=A0pm, Urbin <ur...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 02:50:26 -0800 (PST), Insane Ranter wrote:
> > > =A0On Dec 14, 7:14=3DA0pm, "Shiflet" <rshif...@charter.net> wrote:
> > > > "Insane Ranter" <log...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> ...
> >
> > > > >I kinda see a Lock needing to badge/pot after ever life tap...and
> > > > > nice repair bills.
> >
> > > > LOL? My lock almost never gets heals after life tapping. Nor does he
> > > > ever need them. A lock in current good gear will have his Fel armor
> > > > does drop a tad too low, they have death coil which is a nice
> > > > emergency heal that will give back around 3-4k life, and drain life.
> > > > In other words...any lock that needs to bandage/pot after
> >
> > > =A0You miss the point
> >
> > > =A0Point-----Zoooom
> >
> > > =A0O <----- Your head
> >
> > Either you are a troll (I tend to lean in this direction based on your
> > other post) or I am also missing the point. I didn't understand what you
> > tried to say with your first point but understood very well what Shiflet
> > said.
> >
> > Would you mind spelling out what you're trying to say?
>
> I can clarify. He's saying that next time they're in a raid / dungeon
> where the warlock needs a heal, she might not find it forthcoming.
Ah, ok. That makes sense with the context of the warlock/priest having
issues over loot.
I took the original statement on its own and didn't quite see the problem of
not getting healing after lifetapping, because for a warlock that is indeed
a non issue. Also, life tapping doesn't cause repair bills, that confused
me.
Of course, with the point being, that this warlock might be on the short end
of the healing priority after *any* kind of damage, this seems to fit.
> (In other words, it's besides the point that under normal
> circumstances a warlock will regenerate life in other ways)
Yes, now that you point it out, I see that.
Orion Ryder
> On Dec 14, 2:47 pm, Orion Ryder <orionry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 14, 2:32 pm, BLMX <junkbin5...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > To me it seemed obvious that PlayerA should get the 3rd item based
> > > MOSTLY on the fact that it had Spirit and no Hit (the lock can lifetap
> > > to replace their mana and the priest already is responsible for
> > > refilling the lock’s life). It seemed like a no-brainer but I
> > > wouldn’t want to make a bad choice based on just my own opinion.
> > > PlayerB has a point that it’s an upgrade for them too, and in fact a
> > > “larger upgrade” since they’d be replacing a quest blue and PlayerA is
> > > replacing an ilvl 200 item. Also, while Spirit is not traditionally a
> > > “Warlock stat” more regen is always welcome to any caster. Overall,
> > > PlayerA is “more geared” than PlayerB.
>
> > > Both are RL friends so it’s important to make the fairest decision.
>
> > I bet that lock replaces that 3rd item within the next week with an
> > item more suitable than the "spirit" item.
>
> Further, I bet the priest fills that slot with a better item within
> the next week as well, making the whole argument really pointless.
At this rate we might as well say that nobody should have rolled on it
since they both would have gotten better items within a week.
They should ahve sharded the item to get the mats ready for a prime
enchant on the better items they are going to get in a week.
Orion
> I don't see a problem with the lock rolling on it if it was an
> upgrade. So he got a lucky haul that run. Do it again tomorrow.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Orion Ryder
<christophercampbellremovet...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
I thought BLMX was working on it "easier" and not "harder".
Kimbelyn
> Not wrong for the current instances, if the tank is good and the lock knows
> what he's doing.
still wrong. the three new instances have horrible aoe damage. no tank
can prevent that. so do some of the original wotlk instances, and raids
like ony, toc, os, maly, naxx all have aoe damage that cant be avoided.
a good/great tank can do a lot...but sometimes things will happen. the
warlock will take damage at some point. its a given, and there's nothing
the tank, healer, or warlock can do to change that. the game would be
pretty boring (especially for healers) if only the tank ever took damage.
the only thing that can be prevented is how much damage in most cases by
the dps not being stupid and not standing in bright blue/red/purple/etc
flashing circles, getting in the way of a wall of fire 20 zillion feet
high, and watching their threat as to not peel off mobs from the tank.
BLMX
> refuse to play with her. For anything. Just refuse. How do you trust
> people like that?
Precisely the point. With such a small group, we cannot afford to
have anyone feeling like this.
Yes, we're mostly a friends and family guild, but that doesn't mean
everyone always gets along or agrees. Sometimes it's more like
"holiday at the inlaws!"
C J Campbell
<chuckle> Maybe so. But the question is probably moot, isn't it? If the
item was BoP, then really the only thing BLMX can do is set down the
expectations for future behavior.
C J Campbell
>
>
> Both are RL friends so it’s important to make the fairest decision.
What decision? Was the item BoP? What are your choices?
BLMX
> Further, I bet the priest fills that slot with a better item within
> the next week as well, making the whole argument really pointless.
> since they both would have gotten better items within a week.
Sadly, schedules are such that we don't even average one dungeon run a
week. Heh, we've been working on finding a time that works for
everyone, but it's tough. It kinda pumps up the value of these
drops.
Did I mention we're a small guild? :)
neithskye
> Precisely the point. With such a small group, we cannot afford to
> have anyone feeling like this.
Well, it may be too late. There is not a thing that Warrior can say to
me that will change my mind about her. Similarly, the Warlock has
already demonstrated through his/her actions that it's "me me me".
I frankly wouldn't blame the Priest if s/he never wanted to run with
the Warlock again. Perhaps the Warlock eventually gave the item to the
Priest, but as I said - and I have seen this a lot and it never
changes - the Warlock has already demonstrated what kind of person s/
he is via his/her actions.
--
Jill
BLMX
The decision to speak up or not. To attempt to fix one person's
feelings at the risk of hurting another's. Though the question was
asked in a more general way to get more of a focus on the events/items/
classes rather than the emotions involved.
>Was the item BoP?
The item was tradeable for 24hrs (of logged in time by the lock). So,
change was possible.
>What are your choices?
1. Do nothing. Priest feels slighted. Perhaps even to the degree of
refusing to run with the Lock. While this might not matter in some
guilds, it could create a long term issue in mine.
2. Do something. Risk offending the lock by telling them it would be
"fairer" to let the Priest have the item. They didn't see the
importance of the Priest passing on the 2 pieces of hit rating gear,
so it's entirely possible that they might respond negatively. Perhaps
even to the degree of refusing to run with the Priest.
heh, it's just a game... but throw in a couple of emotions and the
possibilities are endless!
Shiflet
"Kimbelyn" <kimb...@thezengarden.net> wrote in message
news:fsnkv6-...@kansai.thezengarden.net...
> Shiflet wrote:
>> Not wrong for the current instances, if the tank is good and the lock
>> knows what he's doing.
>
> still wrong. the three new instances have horrible aoe damage. no tank can
> prevent that. so do some of the original wotlk instances, and raids like
> ony, toc, os, maly, naxx all have aoe damage that cant be avoided.
AoE hasn't been an issue for me in FoS and PoS, but I haven't been in HoR,
so I can't vouch for that one.
> the game would be pretty boring (especially for healers) if only the
> tank ever took damage.
You read the forums? That's actually a pretty common complaint/issue with
people playing healers, they don't have to do anything but heal the tank.
Part of that "dumbing down" of the game I hear about so often.
> the only thing that can be prevented is how much damage in most cases by
> the dps not being stupid and not standing in bright blue/red/purple/etc
> flashing circles,
I did say "if the lock was decent", which means, not doing stupid stuff like
standing in big flashing AoE zones.
Shiflet
"neithskye" <jill_bookerGR...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0cb1f55c-af83-4a2c...@s20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 15, 11:36 am, BLMX <junkbin5...@comcast.net> wrote:
> the Warlock has already demonstrated what kind of person he is via his/her
> actions.
Their action being...going by the loot system that was, apparently,
established in advance? That's what the rolling is for-sometimes you'll win
everything you roll on. Sometimes you won't win a single thing. If you don't
like that loot system, use master looter, don't say it's need before greed,
then get mad when someone rolls need on three upgrades and wins all three.
Rolling on items is a random system, if you don't like relying on a random
system, there IS a system in place where luck of the roll has nothing to do
with who wins what.
If the people are running to get upgrades, as seems to be the case, rolling
on an upgrade is not being "selfish" even if you've already won upgrades for
other stuff in the same run. And since the OP already said the priest was
better geared than the lock, and he was replacing crappier gear, and the
priest had the exact same chance to win the item as the lock did, I don't
see how the lock did anything wrong by rolling on an item that IS an upgrade
for him. He wasn't needing on mail or plate, he wasn't needing on gear that
was a downgrade for him, so just because he got lucky and won stuff earlier
in the run he should forget rolling on an upgrade that drops later? If you
want that to be policy, set master looter and do it that way.
>--
>Jill
John Gordon
> > the Warlock has already demonstrated what kind of person he is via his/her
> > actions.
> Their action being...going by the loot system that was, apparently,
> established in advance?
Their action being taking anything and everything they could get their
hands on, with no regard for spreading the wealth.
Which isn't against the rules, to be sure. But it would certainly make
me not want to run with this person ever again.
--
John Gordon A is for Amy, who fell down the stairs
gor...@panix.com B is for Basil, assaulted by bears
-- Edward Gorey, "The Gashlycrumb Tinies"
Shiflet
"John Gordon" <gor...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:hg8qfo$b2i$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> Their action being taking anything and everything they could get their
> hands on, with no regard for spreading the wealth.
Uhh, except, there's no evidence they did this. They rolled on items that
were upgrades. The OP didn't say they were rolling on anything that wasn't
an upgrade, so unless they omitted that part, the lock wasn't rolling on
"anything and everything they could get their hands on", they were rolling
just on upgrades, which, I assume, everyone else did as well. They just had
more luck than the priest did, which is pretty much the BASIS of the roll
system. If you want to have some kind of "share the wealth rule", USE MASTER
LOOTER. That's what it's for.
John Gordon
> "John Gordon" <gor...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:hg8qfo$b2i$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> > Their action being taking anything and everything they could get their
> > hands on, with no regard for spreading the wealth.
> Uhh, except, there's no evidence they did this. They rolled on items that
> were upgrades.
Well, yes. I didn't mean to imply that the warlock rolled on plate armor
or two-handed swords.
> If you want to have some kind of "share the wealth rule", USE MASTER
> LOOTER. That's what it's for.
That's the thing -- if they share the wealth only because a rule *makes*
them do it, then they probably aren't the kind of person I want to run
with.
The warlock didn't do anything objectively wrong; they broke no rules.
I freely admit that.
But I'm selective in who I group with, and merely "doing no wrong" does
not make the grade.
BLMX
I thank you for your opinion on this Shiflet... as I've said, it's
helpful for me to see different people's points of view. You are not
wrong in terms of following the "letter of the law" so to speak. It's
just that in a group of friends you tend to expect more. The priest
did not roll against the lock on the first two cloth drops. While per
the letter of the law they could have claimed that some amount of hit
rating would help them dispel mobs and successfully land mind control
CC. The perception of the lock being greedy is that they just hit
Need without seeming to notice that the priest passed on the last 2
items and without chatting at all. As well as coming across a little
salty when asked to give up the item.
Catriona R
On 15 Dec 2009 09:41:09 GMT, Urbin <ur...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Not considering whether player B has more or less right to item 3 based on
>stats, for me it would have been clear that player B would voluntarily pass
>because he had already gotten 2 upgrades while player A so far had nothing.
>
>This is what would have happened in our guild, at least.
>
>I would at the very least have expected player B to ask A if it was ok for
>him to roll Need.
My opinion also - stats don't really matter, it's simple politeness
and friendliness to allow somebody else to get an upgrade if you've
already received two. Now had they dropped the other way round, with
the spirit item first and the hit ones after, it might be more of a
grey area (had I been the warlock I'd have offered the priest the
spirit item if it was still tradeable by then), but seeing as the
warlock had already received 2 drops... well there's just no question
in my mind that passing for the priest is the "right" thing to do.
I expect pugs to be greedy and roll on everything even when they've
already been lucky, I don't expect that from guildies, especially in a
small guild - in my last guild we often had people arguing over trying
to give each other drops "oh I've already had one, you take it" "no,
you take it, it's a much bigger upgrade for you" etc. That's the kind
of loot attitude you really want to see from people you're grouping
with.
--
EU-Draenor:
Sagart (80 Undead Priest)
Tairbh (80 Tauren Druid)
Buinne (78 Troll Shaman)
Balgair (73 Human Rogue)
Eilnich (70 Blood Elf Warlock)
Ruire (70 Blood Elf Paladin)
Mark (newsgroups)
> "Kimbelyn" <kimbe...@thezengarden.net> wrote in message
>
> news:fsnkv6-...@kansai.thezengarden.net...
>
> > Shiflet wrote:
> >> Not wrong for the current instances, if the tank is good and the lock
> >> knows what he's doing.
>
> > still wrong. the three new instances have horrible aoe damage. no tank can
> > prevent that. so do some of the original wotlk instances, and raids like
> > ony, toc, os, maly, naxx all have aoe damage that cant be avoided.
>
> AoE hasn't been an issue for me in FoS and PoS, but I haven't been in HoR,
> so I can't vouch for that one.
It's there.
> > the game would be pretty boring (especially for healers) if only the
> > tank ever took damage.
>
> You read the forums? That's actually a pretty common complaint/issue with
> people playing healers, they don't have to do anything but heal the tank.
> Part of that "dumbing down" of the game I hear about so often.
What? I guess you're being serious, but I really don't know where you
get this from. There is plenty of splash damage, both unavoidable and
avoidable in many instances and even more in raids. You might not be
aware of it (because the healer is doing their job), but it's there.
Catriona R
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 04:31:39 -0800 (PST), Villy Vonka
<ne...@villyvonka.co.uk> wrote:
>As others have pointed out, warlocks can use some spirit but it's not
>a primary stat. Nice to have, but you generally get enough from gear
>anyway without going out of your way to get items with spirit on
>them. On my destro lock I'd take hit, spellpower, haste and crit over
>spirit whereas for a holy priest spirit is a primary stat.
>
>I play a lock and a holy priest and the way I see things is if an item
>is loaded with spirit and has no hit, or has mp5, it's "healy". If it
>has no spirit, or only a small amount in comparison to the Stam/Int,
>it's dps.
Agreed, I realise other classes use spirit but still have the mindset
that spirit is primarily a priest stat. And yeah I realise that
raiding prists go more for int than Spirit now, but for my 5-man
playstyle spirit is still king :-P
>Hit of course and it's clear cut but I wish someone had told that to
>the holy pally who needed on that bloody cloak from ToC heroic last
>week...
Argh, at least any other healing class could use the hit for offspec,
for a pally hit and spellpower together is always going to end with
something being wasted (I'm assuming it's not really possible to be a
dps holy pally these days, I know people used to try it some years
back but think talents have changed now)
>There will always be some grey areas. I'm never quite sure how to
>establish whether a leather item with Agi/Stam is appropriate for a
>feral tank or a rogue, again it might depend on the the proportion of
>each stat.
More stamina = bear druid, more agi = cat druid/rogue, but in general
they're applicable to both, you really just have to compare the stats
with what the person is already wearing to know if it's any good.
Dodge is obviously for a druid, all other stats are useful to both
(admittedly haste is not something I go for on my bear, since I feel
every other bonus has more use to me, but I do have items with it on,
simply because they had so much stamina or agility on that there was
no question over whether or not to use them)
Shiflet
> What? I guess you're being serious, but I really don't know where you
get this from. There is plenty of splash damage, both unavoidable and
avoidable in many instances and even more in raids. You might not be
aware of it (because the healer is doing their job), but it's there.
VERY serious. It's actually a common complaint that, at least for the old
instances(haven't read a ton on it since the new ones have been out) that
dungeons(and WoW in general, for that matter) are just too easy now, cause
all you gotta do is heal the tank and if your tank is good and your group
isn't just totally stupid(ie, standing in the big, glowing circles of
flame), you won't fail, no matter what.
Shiflet
"Catriona R" <catrion...@totalise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7oqifmF...@mid.individual.net...
> I expect pugs to be greedy and roll on everything even when they've
> already been lucky, I don't expect that from guildies, especially in a
> small guild - in my last guild we often had people arguing over trying
> to give each other drops "oh I've already had one, you take it" "no,
> you take it, it's a much bigger upgrade for you" etc. That's the kind
> of loot attitude you really want to see from people you're grouping
> with.
In my guilds(all 3 of which only have about 8-10 people ever actually on),
you're expected to roll on anything that's an upgrade, even if you've
already gotten everything else you've rolled on...that's why we're there, to
get upgrades, and if one person has luck on their side, well, so it goes.
Next run they may not get anything, and one of the others might get
everything, it's luck of the dice. We're all friends(several of them in rl
as well, but not all), and we know going in that rolling is a random event,
and so nobody gets mad if one of us gets a lucky streak. Now we might agree
in advance if someone specifically says they're looking for a certain item,
to all pass on that item if it drops, but in just general guild runs, if you
need it, roll on it...even if you've already won something else.
Catriona R
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:59:45 -0600, "Shiflet" <rshi...@charter.net>
wrote:
I've always seen it that it's better to have several decently geared
players available than one very lucky ubergeared player and the
unlucky ones being lesser-geared... so if your super lucky player is
offline one day you're running with a lower geared group overall.
Now I'm not in a guild I'm back to everyone for themselves (although
I'll still be considerate even in pugs, and not want to just
greedilytake everything I could use, if I've had some drops and others
have had none), but when I am in a small closeknit guild I tend to
think the good of the guild is better than the good of the individual
players. And yes I did pass several upgrades in the past to other
players that needed them, in particular when running Naxx we had no
priest drops for a long time, then a big glut of them at once, with
two priests in the guild, we usually would only roll against each
other once in a run (for the first drop usually), even if 6-7 items
dropped, since for most items one of us would pass if it benefitted
the other more, of if one had had more luck then the other that run. I
was totally happy with this arrangement, and he seemed to be as well;
we were both very wellgeared in the end anyway.
Shiflet
> I've always seen it that it's better to have several decently geared
> players available than one very lucky ubergeared player and the
> unlucky ones being lesser-geared... so if your super lucky player is
> offline one day you're running with a lower geared group overall.
Then the lock should STILL have won it, as the OP already said the priest is
better geared than the lock is, and the lock was replacing a blue item,
whereas the priest would be replacing an ivl 200 purple.
Catriona R
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:43:17 -0600, "Shiflet" <rshi...@charter.net>
wrote:
That's kinda open to debate, I'd personally think better 2 items to
one person and one to another, than 3 to one and none to the other.
Mark (newsgroups)
> "Mark (newsgroups)" <marknewsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I'm not denying that in general the dungeons are easier in WotLK (if
by easier, you mean no need to use CC), but that's not what I said. I
think you're just being obtuse so no need to debate this further.
Urbin
> "John Gordon" <gor...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:hg8qfo$b2i$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>
> > Their action being taking anything and everything they could get their
> > hands on, with no regard for spreading the wealth.
>
> Uhh, except, there's no evidence they did this. They rolled on items that
> were upgrades. The OP didn't say they were rolling on anything that wasn't
> an upgrade, so unless they omitted that part, the lock wasn't rolling on
> "anything and everything they could get their hands on", they were rolling
> just on upgrades, which, I assume, everyone else did as well.
Except that quite a few people here seem to be of the opinion that the
warlock could/should have thought along the lines of
"Hey, I already got two big upgrades. Here is a third big upgrade. On the
other hand, I've been pretty luck already and while it is only a small
upgrade for the priest, it still is an upgrade and the poor thing hasn't
gotten anything yet. I'll be nice and pass for him/her"
In my guild this is the attitude that we have fostered (not be verdict but
by example) and everybody just seems to adhere to it. In a lot of guilds
here that also seems to be the case.
In your guild, that seems not to be the expectation *AND THAT IS FINE*.
In the guild of BLMX some people seem to have had that expectations (among
others the priest in question) whereas the warlock either didn't realise
this expectation existed (in which case it might be necessary to let people
know about this in advance in future runs) or did know about it but didn't
care (in which case something similar is likely to occur again and will
probably lead to either the priest no longer grouping with the warlock or
the guild deciding the warlock no longer fits the guild or whatever other
dire consequence you can dream up).
> They just had more luck than the priest did, which is pretty much the
> BASIS of the roll system.
True. But the use of the roll system can be modified by agreement and/or
expectation. If these expectations differ, there may be loot drama.
> If you want to have some kind of "share the wealth rule", USE MASTER
> LOOTER. That's what it's for.
Of course. But it also is much more work for the ML and if people all agree
on a "share the wealth rule" (or attitude for that matter) the same thing
can be reached with much less hassle but a certain risk of someone not
playing along.
If your guild/group decides that everybody can roll Need as long as it's an
upgrade disregarding how lucky they already were, that's fine. If your group
decides that they want to share, that's fine, too. It's just that everybody
should be aware of it and willing to comply.
Shiflet
"Urbin" <ur...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrnhih8p6...@stinky-local.trash.net...
> "Hey, I already got two big upgrades. Here is a third big upgrade. On the
> other hand, I've been pretty luck already and while it is only a small
> upgrade for the priest, it still is an upgrade and the poor thing hasn't
> gotten anything yet. I'll be nice and pass for him/her"
And I just don't get that. I mean, if you agree to that in advance, sure,
but if I'm in a group, I fully expect everyone who gets an upgrade to drop
to roll on it...even if they've already won 3,4 or however many other
things. Sure, it might suck for me and the other 3 dudes who lost the roll,
but so it goes, luck of the dice and all, next time it might be me or Lunch
winning all the rolls, and Slonk not getting a thing.
> In the guild of BLMX some people seem to have had that expectations (among
> others the priest in question)
Perhaps the priest shouldn't have been expecting that. I suppose it depends
on how runs normally go. Is it known in advance that players aren't supposed
to get lucky on rolls, or does this priest just feel entitled to something
even though he lost it fair and square?
> whereas the warlock either didn't realise this expectation existed (in
> which case it might be necessary to let people know about this in advance
> in future runs)
Yes, if your guild doesn't allow you to get a lucky streak on rolls, I
rather think it's fairly important to let people know that policy in
advance.
> True. But the use of the roll system can be modified by agreement and/or
> expectation. If these expectations differ, there may be loot drama.
Yes.
> Of course. But it also is much more work for the ML and if people all
> agree
> on a "share the wealth rule" (or attitude for that matter) the same thing
> can be reached with much less hassle but a certain risk of someone not
> playing along.
But the question is, was this agreement already known/stated, in which case
the warlock violated the agreement, or was this just some expectation that
the priest(and some others maybe) had that was never a policy and not
stated. If it was an agreement made in advance, then yes, the lock was in
the wrong for rolling on it. But if this was just some expectation the
priest had and it wasn't stated in advance, and wasn't something that people
were already told about, I still say the lock did nothing wrong
> Cheers
> Urbin
Hoofu&Oggie
> You read the forums? That's actually a pretty common complaint/issue with
> people playing healers, they don't have to do anything but heal the tank.
> Part of that "dumbing down" of the game I hear about so often.
Just try FoS or HoR with only healing the tank, very quickly there
will just be the two of you. PoS isn't so bad.
Hoofu, 80 tauren shaman, Argent Dawn (EU)
Ognian, 80 troll warrior, Argent Dawn (EU)
Shiflet
"Hoofu&Oggie" <sna...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ebc51d43-a9d0-48b5...@t42g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> Just try FoS or HoR with only healing the tank, very quickly there
> will just be the two of you. PoS isn't so bad.
Done FoS, wasn't that bad actually. Not done HoR though.
Urbin
>
> "Urbin" <ur...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:slrnhih8p6...@stinky-local.trash.net...
>
> > "Hey, I already got two big upgrades. Here is a third big upgrade. On the
> > other hand, I've been pretty luck already and while it is only a small
> > upgrade for the priest, it still is an upgrade and the poor thing hasn't
> > gotten anything yet. I'll be nice and pass for him/her"
>
> And I just don't get that. I mean, if you agree to that in advance, sure,
> but if I'm in a group, I fully expect everyone who gets an upgrade to drop
> to roll on it...even if they've already won 3,4 or however many other
> things. Sure, it might suck for me and the other 3 dudes who lost the roll,
> but so it goes, luck of the dice and all, next time it might be me or Lunch
> winning all the rolls, and Slonk not getting a thing.
As I said, it's different way of looking at things. In our guild, if I have
the choice between one person being "happy as a pig in shit" and one person
being "mildly disappointed" on the one hand (warlock gets it all, priest
gets nothing) and one person being "pretty happy" and the other one also
"pretty happy", then the second solution is better for me, not from a
personal perspective, but from the guild perspective. Of course, YMMV.
> > In the guild of BLMX some people seem to have had that expectations (among
> > others the priest in question)
>
> Perhaps the priest shouldn't have been expecting that. I suppose it depends
> on how runs normally go.
Yes, I agree. We don't know what the written/unwritten rule in BLXM's guild
are. I was just stating what the expectation in my guild is for such
situations.
> > whereas the warlock either didn't realise this expectation existed (in
> > which case it might be necessary to let people know about this in advance
> > in future runs)
>
> Yes, if your guild doesn't allow you to get a lucky streak on rolls
You make that sound so negative :-) Although of course you're not wrong if
you want to look at it that way, I just think there are other, less negative
way of looking at this such as "if your guild wants to make as many people
happy as they can".
> I rather think it's fairly important to let people know that policy in
> advance.
I totally agree. If the warlock knew, and acted against it, he is a moron
and needs a talking to. If he didn't know, it would be a good point in time
to take him aside and explain to him the expectations of the guild without
blaming him for what he did. Whether you want to press the issue of the item
in question already or just want to tell him he is expected to keep to the
code as of now is up to the constellation of the guild.
> > True. But the use of the roll system can be modified by agreement and/or
> > expectation. If these expectations differ, there may be loot drama.
>
> Yes.
>
> > Of course. But it also is much more work for the ML and if people all
> > agree on a "share the wealth rule" (or attitude for that matter) the
> > same thing can be reached with much less hassle but a certain risk of
> > someone not playing along.
>
> But the question is, was this agreement already known/stated, in which case
> the warlock violated the agreement, or was this just some expectation that
> the priest(and some others maybe) had that was never a policy and not
> stated.
Yes, that is indeed something that has an impact on how we should judge the
events. Except that BLXM didn't ask us to judge the case but rather wanted
to know how that specific loot situation would have been handled in our
case.
> If it was an agreement made in advance, then yes, the lock was in
> the wrong for rolling on it.
Agreed.
> But if this was just some expectation the
> priest had and it wasn't stated in advance, and wasn't something that people
> were already told about, I still say the lock did nothing wrong
Agreed. He wouldn't have done anything wrong, but he would have still been
inconsiderate in my view.
It's a bit like there is no law that forces you to get up and offer your
seat to an elderly lady in the bus, but anyone who has a little
consideration would probably do so voluntarily...
C J Campbell
So, at the end of the day, what did you do?
BLMX
Asked the lock's RL-bf to explain the issue. The lock traded the item
to the priest, but like I said, kinda begrudingly.
I suppose it'll just have blow over... time heals things.
Shiflet
"BLMX" <junkb...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:422080ed-46e6-4f4d...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
> Asked the lock's RL-bf to explain the issue. The lock traded the item
> to the priest, but like I said, kinda begrudingly.
> I suppose it'll just have blow over... time heals things.
The lock is nicer than I am.
BLMX
Maybe. But perhaps you don't need to be as nice because you're a more
competent party member.
This lock is consistently < 1000DPS. How bout you?
This lock needs to be told to soulstone the healer and create health
stones. You?
This lock is playing her first WoW toon, and when a few experienced
players tried to make talent suggestions, she argued. If it were me,
I'd be grateful to hear from more experienced people.
I've suggested that she join a few PUGs so she can "get a feel for
running in different parties". Truthfully, I want her to see what
it's like to not be carried. And then I'd expect she'd be very quite
happy for the efforts made by the rest of the team. Perhaps that
would make her notice that the Priest passed twice for her and maybe
she'd feel differently.
All things said, she's a friend of a friend irl and so we've been
willing to carry her with the idea that she'll eventually be
competent.
Shiflet
> Maybe. But perhaps you don't need to be as nice because you're a more
> competent party member.
Well, thank you.
> This lock is consistently < 1000DPS. How bout you?
*Grin* Depending on fight, I average 3-4k, going over 5k during bloodlust.
But wow, less than 1k dps? Even in quest greens they should be able to top
that much...
> This lock needs to be told to soulstone the healer and create health
> stones. You?
I do that just out of habit.
> This lock is playing her first WoW toon, and when a few experienced
> players tried to make talent suggestions, she argued. If it were me,
> I'd be grateful to hear from more experienced people.
I sorta see where they're coming from("it's my toon, I should be allowed to
play it how I want..."), and if they're just out questing and stuff, as long
as they think they're doing okay and are having fun, that's all that
matters. But at the same time, to be "serious" and try to gear through
heroics and start doing raids, you really can't just "play it how you want",
you DO need to worry about how to best spec your toon and stuff. Some
talents(and specs) are just better than others, and in order to be as
effective as possible, you kinda have to get them.
> I've suggested that she join a few PUGs so she can "get a feel for
> running in different parties". Truthfully, I want her to see what
> it's like to not be carried. And then I'd expect she'd be very quite
> happy for the efforts made by the rest of the team. Perhaps that
> would make her notice that the Priest passed twice for her and maybe
> she'd feel differently.
Maybe, though with that being said...I'd say she needs all the help she can
get, too.
gernot almen
>> to the priest, but like I said, kinda begrudingly.
>> I suppose it'll just have blow over... time heals things.
>
> The lock is nicer than I am.
It's called courtasy. Oh, and self-interest ^^
I'm playing a healer, and if this happened more then once to me, it would be
me or the 'lock in the party.
Psycho
Wow, if I wouldn't know better, I would think I am you or you are
me... ;-) - If the warlocks bf (stands for boyfriend and not just
"best friend" i presume?) is playing a Paladin and/or your main is a
Druid it would just get freaky...
Shiflet
"gernot almen" <n...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:hgcl9n$c6l$1...@mail1.sbs.de...
> It's called courtasy. Oh, and self-interest ^^
And I think it would have been courteous to accept that he lost the roll
fair and square and not going and complaining about it to someone else. The
item was an upgrade, AND according to the posts, the lock was already lesser
geared so needed the upgrade more than the priest did anyways.
I AM sorry the lock apparently sucks and is being carried through
everything, but I still don't think they did anything wrong.
> I'm playing a healer, and if this happened more then once to me, it would
> be me or the 'lock in the party.
Yeah, you'd leave the guilds I play in then. Cause if anyone in the guilds
I'm in got mad cause someone had a lucky roll streak one day, they'd be
expected to suck it up and accept that it happens(hell, it may happen to you
the next day, it's luck of the dice), or find another guild. Nobody in my
guilds would ever be asked to give up an item that was a legitimate upgrade
for them if they won it fairly. With us, our rules are, if an item drops and
it's an upgrade for someone who's there, they need roll it. If it's an
upgrade for offspec, they can need on it, only if there isn't someone there
whose mainspec can use it. And if nobody there can use it, everyone rolls
greed/DE, and winner keeps whatever they get, even if they win multiple
rolls and someone else wins nothing(which has happened to me three freakin
times the past 2 days, rolls aren't going well for me atm -.-).
BLMX
> you DO need to worry about how to best spec your toon and stuff. Some
> talents(and specs) are just better than others, and in order to be as
> effective as possible, you kinda have to get them.
Yup. It's a thin line for sure... we play games to have fun and when
it's a team game, the definition of "fun" has to cover the whole
team. That's darn near impossible since we're all quite different.
So, you gotta talk it out and hope for the best.
BLMX
> me... ;-) - If the warlocks bf (stands for boyfriend and not just
> "best friend" i presume?) is playing a Paladin and/or your main is a
Finkle is Einhorn! There is a pally in the mix as the bf... best
friend in this case. :)
Orion Ryder
Nobody said the lock did anything "wrong".
Orion
Ashen Shugar
something like...
But they're also haven't pointed out that you need to make it clear to
the lock that you don't think they've done something wrong, while
still telling them you didn't think they'd done the "right" thing.
Ashen Shugar
--
The lions sing and the hills take flight.
The moon by day, and the sun by night.
Blind woman, deaf man, jackdaw fool.
Let the Lord of Chaos rule!
BLMX
> the lock that you don't think they've done something wrong, while
> still telling them you didn't think they'd done the "right" thing.
I have definitely communicated clearly at this point and with a gentle
slant toward preserving relations. In other words I haven't said "we
carry you" nor made any stipulations for improvement or threats of
exclusion. Largely because she gave the item up for the Priest.
Orion Ryder
> I think it was Orion Ryder <orionry...@hotmail.com> that wrote
>
> - Show quoted text -
The right thing to do was to roll.
And the righter thing to do was to let the priest have it.
Sounds like the rightest.
Words like that can only be given birth to up here in America.
Then again you probably witnessed that a few years ago. :)
Orion
Shiflet
"Orion Ryder" <orion...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ed25dbfa-3191-42c1...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 17, 3:24 am, "Shiflet" <rshif...@charter.net> wrote:
> Nobody said the lock did anything "wrong".
No, they said the same thing, while trying to look like they weren't.
i|||| | | || ||| || |||| 2.0
It does seem that have been carried a lot, and so have little idea of how much
of a grind it could be. Perhaps if it was a grind they would not have bothered.
There are many possibilities but likely have got used to multiple loots
with nobody being interested in low level items.
Now they are at the level where others have an interest in those items.
However, if they weren't told this they may feel a little embarrassed.
The rules they knew changed, a mistake was made and highlighted that
wasn't previously a consideration.
-IF- it was my groups I would have said something like
'our error, we didn't tell you, keep it, but from now on
these are the new err ummm..guidelines'
They have been under your tutelage and now the time has come to participate
fully. Not informing them they aren't in Kansas anymore is partly the groups error.
They have graduated and the graduation ceremony was a slap in the face with a wet fish
:-)
They gave up the item, which shows some group concern, everyone have a group hug
and go and kill the sucker again, mark the occasion properly.
morag
I really envy her. I'd like to start running instances with my
warlock, at level 80, but I'm don't want to join a random PuG and
suck. It wouldn't be fair to them.
She's lucky that there's a group who wants to help her.
gernot almen
>> be me or the 'lock in the party.
>
> Yeah, you'd leave the guilds I play in then. Cause if anyone in the guilds
Probably. I wouldn't stay in a guild who's "rule of conduct" I don't like.
You compete against each other within the group, I see it as a "social"
event. Or stay in the guild for social reasons, but don't do instances with
them. Or only with those members who think like me.
> for them if they won it fairly. With us, our rules are, if an item drops
> and it's an upgrade for someone who's there, they need roll it. If it's an
Do you force them, or is it still allowed to be friendly? ^^
Shiflet
> Probably. I wouldn't stay in a guild who's "rule of conduct" I don't like.
> You compete against each other within the group, I see it as a "social"
> event.
We see it as a social event too. But we see it as one where all of us go in
hoping to get loot and gear, and one where we accept that all of us might
NOT end up with stuff every run. No competition, just acceptance of the fact
that sometimes, one of us might get really lucky with the rolls and others
of us might not.
> Do you force them, or is it still allowed to be friendly? ^^
Yeah, it's all about being friendly, actually. And complaining about someone
else winning an item over you just cause they won something else as well
would not be considered not friendly, in our group. It'd be considered rude
and selfish, actually.
gernot almen
>
> Yeah, it's all about being friendly, actually. And complaining about
> someone else winning an item over you just cause they won something else
> as well
So we agree it's a problem of setting the rules of conduct before entering
the instance/group/guild?
Shiflet
> So we agree it's a problem of setting the rules of conduct before entering
> the instance/group/guild?
Yes.
BLMX
> > the instance/group/guild?
>
> Yes.
Heh- well, this topic has been beat to death and I'll be happy to let
it drop.... However, I can't agree that it's simply a matter of
telling a player (with their first 80) the rules one time. I
certainly have explained for many hours (irl), lots of WoW related
info. There's really alot to learn and usually it takes *practice* in
a addition to the explanation- in other words, you often fail a few
times before you see the [info] in a real situation. Then at that
moment in time, can you apply the info? My experience is, no, it
takes some practice; some people simply never get it.
In this specific situation, I personally don't need any set of rules
to know what the *right* thing to do is. Furthermore, I care enough
about the feelings of my friends, that I wouldn't *risk* letting my
ignorance cause an issue- Translated: When I don't know, I ask;
simple- talk about things. And as a fallback/worst case scenario, if
I'm later made aware of the fact that I blundered, I'm happy to have
the opportunity to make it right. While I realize that these are my
personal opinions, I tend to expect the same from others.
Also, let me repeat again that the Priest *passed* twice during FoS
(and tens of instances prior). Many posts have replied saying the
Lock got lucky and the Priest unlucky. That really doesn't capture
the spirit of the situation.
On a related note, 4 of us guild mates pug'd a 5th member (Lock was
not online, yay) last night for regular FoS/PoS/HoR... we blew thru
it. It was downright easy with more DPS.
Again, thanks to everyone for commenting.
Urbin
> > > So we agree it's a problem of setting the rules of conduct before entering
> > > the instance/group/guild?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> Heh- well, this topic has been beat to death and I'll be happy to let
> it drop....
Hehe, same here but I'll play devil's advocate...
> In this specific situation, I personally don't need any set of rules
> to know what the *right* thing to do is.
The thing is, it depends on what the *right* thing is.
In my guild, your guild and many other guilds, the right thing for the
warlock would have been to be considerate and pass for the priest, no matter
what the stats on the item because he already got lucky twice and the priest
had passed twice.
In other guilds - Shiflet's among others - this would not be expected of the
warlock as they all agree that "sometimes you are lucky, sometimes you're
not".
In their guild, the *right* thing to do would have been for the priest to
accept his bad luck and hope for better luck next time.
Anyone used to one set of expectations will not be compatible with a group
with the other set of expectations *if these are not stated beforehand*.
Then there is the third type of player who is to ignorant/naive/selfish to
realise that there are expectations about looting behaviour and makes a
mistake without realising it.
> Furthermore, I care enough about the feelings of my friends, that I
> wouldn't *risk* letting my ignorance cause an issue- Translated: When I
> don't know, I ask;
Ah, but that requires for you to realise there is something you don't know.
If player X does not realise that loot drops are an important factor of
running instances and that there may be rules attached on how they are
treated, how can you know that you need to ask?
These statements are of course generalisations because as I understand your
player has been running with you for quite some time and while maybe not
told explicitely should have at least been able to infer the expected
behaviour by paying attention that what was usually done by the rest of the
group :)
> And as a fallback/worst case scenario, if I'm later made aware of the
> fact that I blundered, I'm happy to have the opportunity to make it
> right.
And it the "making aware" is done politely, this is probably more likely
than if it is in an accusatory tone... And unless from your perspective you
do not agree that you have blundered. Again, generalisation, not applicable
to your situation in the OP.
> While I realize that these are my personal opinions, I tend to
> expect the same from others.
So do I, but we have found in the discussion that other groups handle the
situation differently. Each to their own.
In the end it all comes down to: "Make expectations explicit, so
misunderstandings based on faulty assumptions don't occur".
BLMX
> warlock as they all agree that "sometimes you are lucky, sometimes you're
> not".
Understood. About 1.75 years ago I had enough of those types of
guilds and started my own. IMO, the "get lucky" line of thinking
encourages greed. In a big guild with lotsa instance runs, this is a
little easier to deal with because "there's always tomorrow". In a
small guild like mine, it might be next week, next month. In my
specific example, if the Priest Needed on the first 2 items, and won
either, then that's less than optimal for the team as a whole.
> In their guild, the *right* thing to do would have been for the priest to
> accept his bad luck and hope for better luck next time.
heh, or Need Roll every usable item and celebrate his "luck"
> with the other set of expectations *if these are not stated beforehand*.
Seems reasonable when you type the words... but stating it beforehand
guarantees only that you can say "I told you". I have explained many
WoW things to my newbie friends (and learned much from listening to
others more experienced than I). But there's alot of info to be
digested.
In ToC this same lock, 3 times in a row stood right where a boss
spawns, the first 2 times she got aggro and had to be saved by the
Priest. Once I was sure she was gonna do it a 3rd time in a row, I
whispered her to come stand where I was. Now, I could have done alot
of things there, but I did the "right" thing. Explained. Tolerated.
Whispered. By the way, she got several upgrades and the Priest
passed on all but one item again.
> treated, how can you know that you need to ask?
One reasonable answer to that question is: another first-toon player
in the guild is a DPS warrior that I often tell when an item is for
him. Even tho, I've explained beforehand :D, he still gets confused
on some stats. No biggy, like a friend, I watch out for him. If I
know the Tank doesn't want the plate, I tell the DPS'er to go for it;
likewise if he gets all starry-eyed and says, "oooo shiney!" I say,
"ease up buddy that's got dodge & parry, tank gets first dibs".
Mostly, when he doesn't know, he asks. That shows the kinda concern
for others that I respect. And, it should have been sufficient
precedent for the Lock.
> And it the "making aware" is done politely, this is probably more likely
Agreed. Since I know her irl, I asked her BF to make her
aware. :D
Anyway, I'm not trying to simply argue with everything said here, tho
it may look a little like that :) there's just a bunch of other info
to be known that I really didn't put in my OP. My motivation
originally was to get some other points of view (I didn't expect so
many!). From the beginning I was pretty sure that I had it "right" in
my heart but that's a dangerous way of thinking so it's always good to
try to shed one's own bias.
Jamie Kahn Genet
> In <a%RVm.31982$gd1....@newsfe05.iad> "Shiflet" <rshi...@charter.net>
> writes:
>
> > > the Warlock has already demonstrated what kind of person he is via his/her
> > > actions.
>
> > Their action being...going by the loot system that was, apparently,
> > established in advance?
>
> Their action being taking anything and everything they could get their
> hands on, with no regard for spreading the wealth.
>
> Which isn't against the rules, to be sure. But it would certainly make
> me not want to run with this person ever again.
Mmmm... I dunno. I only have three little 'golden rules' I expect to be
followed with rolling need:
a) the item _must_ be an upgrade.
b) the item _must not_ obviously be better suited to another class in
the group.
c) if a mistake (and hey - they do happen) is made with the above, then
I expect the player to allow the item to be re-rolled on and transferred
- as we can now do with even BoP loot - to the new winner. Previously if
a mistake was made on a BoP then that person was admonished and watched
very closely in the future to make sure it wasn't a pattern.
Provided that happens I consider it luck of the draw and aside from some
envy, I take no issue with someone winning more rolls than I do.
Not to say I don't also enjoy and go along with other rules such as only
one need per run, which attempt to be 'fairer' and remove some of the
randomness of rolling. But I'm fine with straight need before greed or
group loot and the luck of the dice if that was all that was agreed to
beforehand or if no rules were discussed (I consider my three golden
rules minimum acceptable behaviour regardless).
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Shiflet
> Heh- well, this topic has been beat to death and I'll be happy to let
> it drop.... However, I can't agree that it's simply a matter of
> telling a player (with their first 80) the rules one time. I
> certainly have explained for many hours (irl), lots of WoW related
> info.
I'm not talking WoW related info. Not talking about hit cap, and spell power
coefficients, the best time to blow cooldowns, and stuff like that, I'm
talking about simple guild rules like "you are not allowed to win every
upgrade that you roll on", then, assuming the player stays in such a
guild(which I would not), it won't come as a surprise if they get asked to
give something they won fairly up later.
> There's really alot to learn and usually it takes *practice* in
> a addition to the explanation- in other words, you often fail a few
> times before you see the [info] in a real situation.
You sound like these guild rules or whatever you call them is something like
learning the mechanics of a boss fight-I don't really see the comparison.
> In this specific situation, I personally don't need any set of rules
> to know what the *right* thing to do is.
Nor do I. And what the lock did *WAS* the right thing to do in my eyes(and
the eyes of the guilds I run with, and the friends I play with), it's what I
would have done, it's what everyone I play with would have done, so,
considering BOTH these viewpoints are valid and both are totally
contradictory, maybe it would be better off to have a set of rules for your
guild, cause I assure you, what the lock did was perfectly fine in the eyes
of MANY people.
> Furthermore, I care enough about the feelings of my friends, that I
> wouldn't *risk* letting my ignorance cause an issue- Translated: When I
> don't know, I ask; simple- talk about things.
But if they don't know about them, how would they KNOW to ask? If I joined a
run with somebody, and I wasn't made aware of what their idea of the "right"
thing to do is prior to the run, it would never OCCUR to me to ask if
there's some policy where I'm not allowed to win every legitimate upgrade I
roll on, cause the whole idea of that is something so silly I wouldn't
imagine anyone doing it. It'd be the same as if I joined a run with my lock
and asked if I could need on plate drops.
> And as a fallback/worst case scenario, if
> I'm later made aware of the fact that I blundered, I'm happy to have
> the opportunity to make it right.
And the warlock DID give the item up, so there you go. As for you saying
they were a bit "salty" about it, well, a supposedly "friendly" guild
basically screwed them out of a drop they won fairly, I can certainly
imagine them being a bit unhappy about it. I daresay I'd be a bit salty
about it, too.
> While I realize that these are my personal opinions, I tend to expect the
> same from others.
I'm not sure what you're saying here...you expect others to share your
personal opinions? I really hope not, cause, well, a great many people most
definitely do not.
> Also, let me repeat again that the Priest *passed* twice during FoS
> (and tens of instances prior).
I'm sorry, did I miss something? Did the lock force the priest to pass? If
the priest hadn't passed and won all 3 drops, do you think the lock would
have gone crying to the GM to get one of the items taken from the priest?
Was the priest passing because he's a "swell guy" and wanted the lock to get
upgrades more than he did(and if so, was the lock aware of that fact?), or
was he passing because, well, they werne't upgrades for him? If I see
someone pass on something in a run, I assume it's because it's not an
upgrade for them or just isn't something they want, not because they're
being nice to me. For new players, even moreso, cause they probably don't
think to inspect the other players gear to even SEE if an item is an
upgrade, they just assume if the person rolls on it they can use it, and if
not they can't.
> Many posts have replied saying the Lock got lucky and the Priest unlucky.
> That really doesn't capture the spirit of the situation.
Well, perhaps the spirit of the situation should be clarified a bit more,
cause based on all the things you've said here, that's really how it comes
across to me.
Shiflet
> heh, or Need Roll every usable item and celebrate his "luck"
I like the sarcastic tone there implying that that would be wrong,
except...we EXPECT all our members to need on every usable item as long as
it is an upgrade for the spec you're currently in(which, as you already
stated, the item in question was). Obviously you're not required to need on
every upgrade in my guilds, but if it's an upgrade for the spec you're
running in, you need on it, that's just the way it is. Even if the item is
an OFFSPEC item you're expected to need on it if there's not someone in the
group whose main spec benefits from it.
> Seems reasonable when you type the words... but stating it beforehand
> guarantees only that you can say "I told you". I have explained many
> WoW things to my newbie friends (and learned much from listening to
> others more experienced than I). But there's alot of info to be
> digested.
I'm not sure guild loot rules really falls into that category, though. And
being able to say "I told you this is how it is" CAN dampen the annoyance
the player felt afterwards. Sure, they might still be frustrated about
having to give the item up, but at least then it's like "sucks I have to
give it up, but yeah, they did tell me it might be like this, oh well"
rather than "wtf? I won the roll fairly and now because this priest is
crying to the gm I have to give it up?".
> In ToC this same lock, 3 times in a row stood right where a boss
> spawns, the first 2 times she got aggro and had to be saved by the
> Priest. Once I was sure she was gonna do it a 3rd time in a row, I
> whispered her to come stand where I was.
Okay, she's not a good player, that's unfortunate, but so it goes. It still
doesn't have any bearing on the loot issue, though, at least in my view.
> Now, I could have done alot of things there, but I did the "right" thing.
> Explained. Tolerated. Whispered.
Again, I don't see the comparison. Maybe if you had explained, tolerated,
and whispered the lock your looting rules during or before the looting phase
they would have been less salty about losing the item?
> By the way, she got several upgrades and the Priest passed on all but one
> item again.
Well the priest is clearly a prince among men, but maybe next time...if
upgrades drop, he should roll on them?
> One reasonable answer to that question is: another first-toon player
> in the guild is a DPS warrior that I often tell when an item is for
> him. Even tho, I've explained beforehand :D, he still gets confused
> on some stats.
Aye, tis understandable.
> No biggy, like a friend, I watch out for him. If I
> know the Tank doesn't want the plate, I tell the DPS'er to go for it;
> likewise if he gets all starry-eyed and says, "oooo shiney!" I say,
> "ease up buddy that's got dodge & parry, tank gets first dibs".
But, how does that apply to this situation? Your arguement seems to have
shifted now to the lock rolling on an item that clearly wasn't for him, such
as a feral druid rolling on leather armor with int, spellpower, and mp5, or
an ele shaman rolling on mail with high agility and attack power.
But...maybe you should tell us the exact item in question? Because the
arguement before seemed to be that "if an item doesn't have hit but does
have spirit", it's not a lock item...except, a lot of lock gear, several
pieces of t9 gear included, doesn't have hit, and does have spirit.
Likewise, a LOT of locks use Spellslinger's Slippers until they start
getting higher ilvl gear, which have spirit, and do not have hit. As I
mentioned before, Spirit is NOT a junk stat for warlocks, any properly
specced and glyphed warlock will be getting between 40 and 60 percent of
their spirit as spellpower(thus directly increasing their DPS), and the gem
of choice for blue sockets is the 12 sp/10 spirit gem. My lock just for
example gets something in the realm of 270 spellpower because of the spirit
I have, not exactly something worthless(it also gives another 27 spellpower
to the entire party/raid via demonic pact). So...maybe seeing the other
stats on the item would be more telling?
> Mostly, when he doesn't know, he asks. That shows the kinda concern
> for others that I respect. And, it should have been sufficient
> precedent for the Lock.
Except, without knowing more details, the item that dropped sounds like just
as much a lock item as any other caster's, so there was no reason to ask. If
a cloth item with sp and haste drops and my friend is on his lock, I'm
certainly not gonna say it's not for him cause it also has spirit on it but
doesn't have hit...
BLMX
> coefficients, the best time to blow cooldowns, and stuff like that, I'm
> talking about simple guild rules like "you are not allowed to win every
Fair enough. You're also not talking about friendliness, courtesy,
etiquette... I am.
In your example:
"you are not allowed to win every upgrade that you roll on"
-It's ok for me to whisper my friend in the group, tell them to NEED
then trade to me.
-It's ok if I win every item, as long as they are not UPGRADES.
It's "ok" because I've satified your "simple guild rules".
Point being, when you make rules that enforce words, instead of
encouraging thoughtfulness, people tend to work around those words.
I'm playing with RL friends.
> learning the mechanics of a boss fight-I don't really see the comparison.
I understand that you don't see it.
> guild, cause I assure you, what the lock did was perfectly fine in the eyes
> of MANY people.
What I have see here is the majority disagree with you. Still it's
been interesting to see your point of view.
> But if they don't know about them, how would they KNOW to ask? If I joined a
I already explained this. Let me assure you that when the real-life
conversation occurred, the Lock was all "of course" and "naturally"
and "sure I'd want the same done for me". They knew, please stop
repeating the same absurd argument.
> they were a bit "salty" about it, well, a supposedly "friendly" guild
> basically screwed them out of a drop they won fairly, I can certainly
I gave you a ride to work Monday.
I gave you a ride to work Tuesday.
I gave you a ride to work Wednesday.
I gave you a ride to work Thursday.
Friday my car breaks down.
I screwed you out of a ride to work Friday.
> I'm not sure what you're saying here...you expect others to share your
> personal opinions? I really hope not, cause, well, a great many people most
> definitely do not.
Have you even read these posts dude?
> I'm sorry, did I miss something?
Yes. Like a 747 Jet carrying a load of common sense. Over your head
and far, far away from you.
> the priest hadn't passed and won all 3 drops, do you think the lock would
> have gone crying to the GM to get one of the items taken from the priest?
They wouldn't have had to. I would politely suggest that the Priest
allow the Lock to get some upgrades too. Duh.
> Was the priest passing because he's a "swell guy" and wanted the lock to get
> upgrades more than he did(and if so, was the lock aware of that fact?), or
Yes and Yes.
> was he passing because, well, they werne't upgrades for him? If I see
They were upgrades. However the Priest's role at that time was
Healing the group and the Locks was doing damage. There is no doubt
in my mind (tho you have tried) that the right thing is the Priest
gets the 1 piece with Spirit and the Lock gets the 2 with Hit. That's
more than fair for a new player.
> upgrade for them or just isn't something they want, not because they're
> being nice to me. For new players, even moreso, cause they probably don't
I understand that this is a foreign concept to you. In my guild, I
expect that everyone would want to be nice to each other because they
don't have a bunch of "well remember that time you took that thing I
wanted" issues built up due to "letter of the law" rules. This is the
atmosphere I'm trying to maintain; call me a dreamer...
> think to inspect the other players gear to even SEE if an item is an
Finally I agree with you. No newbies often don't think to do that.
Which is why they should ask.
> Well, perhaps the spirit of the situation should be clarified a bit more,
> cause based on all the things you've said here, that's really how it comes
> across to me.
I can only assume that something is wrong with your newsgroup reader
and you've not gotten the benefit of many pages of explanations.
BLMX
pointing and laughing, saying, “We got you man! Hah Ho! We got you
good!”
*more raucous laughter*
“You sons ‘o b!tches! You did, you got me! I f*cking thought you
were serious, man!"
*chuckles*
"Alright, alright, which one of you pranksters is ‘Shiftlet’”?
i|||| | | || ||| || |||| 2.0
"BLMX" <junkb...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4f638e59-cb53-4b83...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> Anyway, I'm not trying to simply argue with everything said here, tho
> it may look a little like that :) there's just a bunch of other info
> to be known that I really didn't put in my OP. My motivation
> originally was to get some other points of view (I didn't expect so
> many!). From the beginning I was pretty sure that I had it "right" in
> my heart but that's a dangerous way of thinking so it's always good to
> try to shed one's own bias.
Just because you started the thread you don't have to reply or dis/agree
leave that to the serial post junkies :-)
Any thread has the capability to turn immortal and morph on you ,principally
because a one paragraph description almost guarantees omissions and
dangling hooks to hang inferences on.
Shiflet
> Fair enough. You're also not talking about friendliness, courtesy,
> etiquette... I am.
The courteous and friendly thing to do would be for the priest to accept
that they lost fairly and leave it at that.
> In your example:
> "you are not allowed to win every upgrade that you roll on"
> -It's ok for me to whisper my friend in the group, tell them to NEED
> then trade to me.
There's nothing that prevents this regardless.
> -It's ok if I win every item, as long as they are not UPGRADES.
Uhh no actually, you don't "need" on items that aren't upgrades.
> It's "ok" because I've satified your "simple guild rules".
No, you really haven't.
> Point being, when you make rules that enforce words, instead of
> encouraging thoughtfulness, people tend to work around those words.
> I'm playing with RL friends.
The thoughtful thing to do would have been for the priest to accept that
they lost the roll, and move on.
> What I have see here is the majority disagree with you. Still it's
> been interesting to see your point of view.
I really, really hate to break this to you, but this group is by far NOT a
representative of the majority of WoW players. Do a few pug runs, and find
out how many agree with me vs how many agree with you.
> I already explained this. Let me assure you that when the real-life
> conversation occurred, the Lock was all "of course" and "naturally"
> and "sure I'd want the same done for me". They knew, please stop
> repeating the same absurd argument.
You haven't said anything of that sort that I've seen. You said the lock was
a bit "salty" about it, not "of course" and "naturally".
>> they were a bit "salty" about it, well, a supposedly "friendly" guild
>> basically screwed them out of a drop they won fairly, I can certainly
> I gave you a ride to work Monday.
> I gave you a ride to work Tuesday.
> I gave you a ride to work Wednesday.
> I gave you a ride to work Thursday.
> Friday my car breaks down.
> I screwed you out of a ride to work Friday.
A better comparison would be:
I gave you a ride to work Monday.
I gave you a ride to work Tuesday.
I gave you a ride to work Wednesday.
I gave you a ride to work Thursday.
I show up on Friday an hour earlier than usual, then get mad at you for not
being there waiting after the fact, despite not telling you I'd be coming an
hour early.
> Have you even read these posts dude?
Yeah, a handful of people on a small newsgroup agree with you. This does not
represent the majority of WoW players, never has, and never will. As I
said-run with people outside your small circle, and see which side has more
supporters.
> They wouldn't have had to. I would politely suggest that the Priest
> allow the Lock to get some upgrades too. Duh.
Then run master looter and be done with it, that's what it's for.
>> Was the priest passing because he's a "swell guy" and wanted the lock to
>> get
>> upgrades more than he did(and if so, was the lock aware of that fact?),
>> or
> Yes and Yes.
How was the lock made aware of the fact, OOC, upon rolling did the priest
say he was passing for the lock? Or did you tell the lock that after the
fact?
> They were upgrades. However the Priest's role at that time was
> Healing the group and the Locks was doing damage. There is no doubt
> in my mind (tho you have tried) that the right thing is the Priest
> gets the 1 piece with Spirit and the Lock gets the 2 with Hit. That's
> more than fair for a new player.
Need before greed isn't about fairness, it's about roll of the dice. If you
want a run to be "fair" where everyone gets an equal share, run master
looter, or establish a guild rule that makes that clear.
> I understand that this is a foreign concept to you. In my guild, I
> expect that everyone would want to be nice to each other because they
> don't have a bunch of "well remember that time you took that thing I
> wanted" issues built up due to "letter of the law" rules. This is the
> atmosphere I'm trying to maintain; call me a dreamer...
Know what? My guilds have never had any issues over loot(and in Nocturne, 3
of us who run together with some regularity are all warlocks, so we tend to
"need" the same stuff). We're all friends, and we all get along just fine.
We know going into an instance, Slonk may win everything one run and Lunch
and me may win nothing, next time I may win it all, and Slonk and Lunch get
outrolled on everything. As I said-the last 3 runs we did together, I didn't
win a single drop, but I'm not mad at them cause they did.
> Finally I agree with you. No newbies often don't think to do that.
> Which is why they should ask.
But that's not something many of them would think TO ask about. Like the
inspect feature I was talking about, many games have nothing of the sort,
the only way to find out what someone is wearing is to open a trade with
them and ask them to put all their toon's gear in trade window to look at
it. So if a person who's new to gaming, or perhaps just new to WoW it's
quite possible that an "inspect" feature is something that would never cross
their mind, so not something they would even think to ask about in the first
place.
i|||| | | || ||| || |||| 2.0
"Shiflet" <rshi...@charter.net> wrote in message news:7IUWm.1808$lV1....@newsfe02.iad...
>
> Yeah, a handful of people on a small newsgroup agree with you. This does not represent
> the majority of WoW players, never has, and never will. As I said-run with people
> outside your small circle, and see which side has more supporters.
The small circle is all that matters as far as the circle is concerned.
They asked for suggestions and opinions, they don't have to accept or agree with them.
People have a tribal outlook on the world.
All their friends ,family and associates do -this-, therefore it is average,
and everybody else will/should/must do the same thing.
Even though they know a few hundred or a few thousand people with similar
backgrounds cannot be an accurate representation of millions.
Whell, thats what my friends think :-)
ThomasH
>> But if this was just some expectation the
>> priest had and it wasn't stated in advance, and wasn't something that people
>> were already told about, I still say the lock did nothing wrong
>
> Agreed. He wouldn't have done anything wrong, but he would have still been
> inconsiderate in my view.
>
> It's a bit like there is no law that forces you to get up and offer your
> seat to an elderly lady in the bus, but anyone who has a little
> consideration would probably do so voluntarily...
This is the best analogy I've seen in this thread. It's the social view,
and I'm all for it.
In my guild, it's the rule that you roll for anything that's an upgrade
to you. Nevertheless, I passed Hunter T9 gloves to a guildy because I'd
had 2 major upgrades already. People were shocked! The hunter in
question still loves me, though, and that's worth alot...
--
Greets, Thomas.
Bulgaroth (Hunter), Latigo (DK), Darkhulk (Druid), and Smallwall
(Paladin) on Argent Dawn EU.
neithskye
wrote:
> In my guild, it's the rule that you roll for anything that's an upgrade
> to you. Nevertheless, I passed Hunter T9 gloves to a guildy because I'd
> had 2 major upgrades already. People were shocked! The hunter in
> question still loves me, though, and that's worth alot...
And regardless of whatever rules are in place, rightly or wrongly
people will still make judgements. Yes, maybe <player> followed all
the rules, but I will remember that he didn't share, and not play with
him again.
One time back in the day before emblems, KT dropped the Pal/Pri/War
head token. I considered rolling, but realized that I had a purple
item for all three possible Paladin specs, while the Holy Priest who
was the lone roller still had a blue equipped. So I passed, and gave
him the token. And I was the ML. :P To this day, that Priest still
mentions it, and I am now, in fact, a member of his guild, invited
after my previous one broke up.
Corny as it sounds, you can always replace gear, but you can't change
how people view you. Yes, yes, maybe you followed all the "rules", but
again, rightly or wrongly, people will still form their own opinions.
--
Jill
ThomasH
>
>> What I have see here is the majority disagree with you. Still it's
>> been interesting to see your point of view.
>
> I really, really hate to break this to you, but this group is by far NOT a
> representative of the majority of WoW players. Do a few pug runs, and find
> out how many agree with me vs how many agree with you.
Ehm, why should we follow the majority? The bunch here on the newsgroup
are, over the average, a friendly and social bunch. That's probably why
we stick together here...
I would hate to have to agree with the opinions and etiquettes of most
of the people (kiddies?) I meet in PUG's.... *shudders*
Shiflet
"ThomasH" <T123H456remo...@techemail.com> wrote in message
news:hgo6u8$r8h$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Ehm, why should we follow the majority? The bunch here on the newsgroup
> are, over the average, a friendly and social bunch. That's probably why we
> stick together here...
Didn't say he should have to follow the majority, said it simply WAS the
majority, and his stated view that "most people agree with me"(because of a
handful of posters on this group) is very, very wrong.
Shiflet
> In my guild, it's the rule that you roll for anything that's an upgrade to
> you. Nevertheless, I passed Hunter T9 gloves to a guildy because I'd had 2
> major upgrades already. People were shocked! The hunter in question still
> loves me, though, and that's worth alot...
That's cool of you, and there's nothing wrong with that...but then, that was
your choice to pass, you weren't later harassed by other guild members and
TOLD to pass, either(and I assume, the hunter wouldn't have complained to
the GM had you not passed).
Steve Kaye
I don't see how it's much more wrong than your statement that most
people agree with you.
You might have a larger sample than him (or you might not - he may have
also asked in game) but when you take into account that there a more
than 10 million people who play the game I'm quite sure that your sample
size is tiny too.
steve.kaye
Shiflet
"Steve Kaye" <nos...@giddy-kippers.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hgos4d$hsp$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> You might have a larger sample than him (or you might not - he may have
> also asked in game) but when you take into account that there a more than
> 10 million people who play the game I'm quite sure that your sample size
> is tiny too.
I've run dozens and dozens of PUGs. Try suggesting someone pass on an item
they're rolling for because they already won something, and come back to me
with the reaction. Please, I'm begging you.
> steve.kaye
i|||| | | || ||| || |||| 2.0
"Shiflet" <rshi...@charter.net> wrote in message news:YHVXm.4769$yM1....@newsfe11.iad...
Guild Loot Drama: How should I settle this?