Noobs in da Titan

[transtemporal]

I got my bard ac up to high 60's and low to mid 70's in raids.... so hes not allowed to have the chatering ring?

Seriously? Whats the breakdown?

[Kistilan]

This was the last Titan i joined without knowing people thats for sure.

The leader didnt explain anything appon entering the titan so we had a hezrou and an undead skellie caster fighting the titan in the beginning not to mention that the cleric got locked out lol.

So far this was still funny.

Then the leader died in a swarm of force missles by the titan and couldnt recover from it after he died again cause he didnt have pots, so no pillar beating from him.

So I decided to take Merlocked on this job! SURPRISE: After over 50 completion without doing anything Merlocke did a great job and we could avoid an Epic failure and beat the titan on elite without a cleric in a 80% noobraid.

NOW THE BEST:

Bard pulls Chattering Ring.

One Member ask hey is that chattering ring up for roll.

Answer Kimba: I will pull the ring thank you.

And another 1,5 hours wasted times with morans in this raid.

And yes its a rent and yes im ****ed.

As cited by myself in the Respec Thread Wars, this complaint is now moot by True Reincarnation.

Reason: He could respec into a dwarven fighter-paly ac build any day of the week and utilize the chattering ring.

Can we never see another one of these threads again? T Y V M.

[Rasczak]

As cited by myself in the Respec Thread Wars, this complaint is now moot by True Reincarnation.

Reason: He could respec into a dwarven fighter-paly ac build any day of the week and utilize the chattering ring.

Can we never see another one of these threads again? T Y V M.

People can neg rep me as much as they want but it just proves the pettiness of these threads. I agree with you 100%. All I see are people getting annoyed because someone else found what they wanted. Get over it. It's not yours to start with if your name isn't on it.

[toughguyjoe]

People can neg rep me as much as they want but it just proves the pettiness of these threads. I agree with you 100%. All I see are people getting annoyed because someone else found what they wanted. Get over it. It's not yours to start with if your name isn't on it.

I'd like for you to go to the pasture, slaughter a cow, extract some tender flesh, season it and grind it into burger, cook that hamburger, and then use your own resources to make sure it has a bun, ketchup and pickles.

Then i'm going to eat it.

And you get nothing for your work.

Its not a perfect analogy, but it illustrates the annoyance at doing the lions share of work and watching someone else "eat the hamburger"

[Krag]

People can neg rep me as much as they want but it just proves the pettiness of these threads. I agree with you 100%. All I see are people getting annoyed because someone else found what they wanted. Get over it. It's not yours to start with if your name isn't on it.

Nope.
People are annoyed, because the only reason to invite that bard was to increase someone's chances to get Chattering.

[Rasczak]

I'd like for you to go to the pasture, slaughter a cow, extract some tender flesh, season it and grind it into burger, cook that hamburger, and then use your own resources to make sure it has a bun, ketchup and pickles.

Then i'm going to eat it.

And you get nothing for your work.

Its not a perfect analogy, but it illustrates the annoyance at doing the lions share of work and watching someone else "eat the hamburger"

Normally I agree with what you say but this I completely disagree with. You make it sound like you solo the raid and everyone else reaps what you sowed? Not true at all. If someone piked then that still doesn't justify this statement. If you are after raid loot and you don't like that someone chose to take something they found, then I would suggest you make it very clear at the beginning of the raid that any chattering ring dropped will automatically be yours, or actually solo it. Truth of the matter is people want the security of 11 other people to ensure completion and then when they get completion get all upity because they didn't find what they wanted but someone else did.

Need before greed rubbish is made up by people who think they get to dictate what someone else can or can not do. This game caters to everyone having their own fair shot at something. If you shot and missed, that does not give you the right to tell someone else who hit that they have to forfeit it because you're more entitled to it. It's a bogus statement. In a raid it's 12 people, whether they did everything or did nothing makes no difference. Your comment implies differently. 12 people get together and make that hamburger together and each one of them gets a chance to have a bite. If they missed their chance this cookup, they'll get another chance at the next one in 3 days time.

EDIT: This does not mean I never pass on loot. My belief is if it's going to gather dust in my bank, hardly be used at all, vendored or more for comical relief that I found one and someone else has interest then they can roll for it. What I don't agree with is trying to enforce this onto other players. Just because my opinion on bound loot is different does not entitle me to force my belief on them. I can understand people's disappointment at not finding what they wanted but I will never agree with the attempt to make them feel like scum because they were luckier than you on the day. It's theirs, plain and simple, their choice.

[Krag]

Need before greed rubbish is made up by people who think they get to dictate what someone else can or can not do. This game caters to everyone having their own fair shot at something. If you shot and missed, that does not give you the right to tell someone else who hit that they have to forfeit it because you're more entitled to it. It's a bogus statement. In a raid it's 12 people, whether they did everything or did nothing makes no difference. Your comment implies differently. 12 people get together and make that hamburger together and each one of them gets a chance to have a bite. If they missed their chance this cookup, they'll get another chance at the next one in 3 days time.

Common sense is not "rubbish".

I'll illustrate my point with a simple example.
WF pally and sorc are two-manning Zawabi's Revenge (DQ2). Pally is looking for Chaosblade and sorc want Greenblade. Need over greed "rubbish" will DOUBLE their chances to get desired item.

With 12 party members and their possible TR the math isn't that simple, but does not negate the benefits of "Need before greed" strategy.

[Aussieee]

Unfortunately, yes: if you pull it its yours to do with what you will, even if it is one of the most sought after items for ac toons and would have no use to your toon. I am not arguing that this is not true. if only it stopped people from being clueless :\

I think there is true reincarnate Can alwlys make a use out of something!

[Rasczak]

Common sense is not "rubbish".

I'll illustrate my point with a simple example.
WF pally and sorc are two-manning Zawabi's Revenge (DQ2). Pally is looking for Chaosblade and sorc want Greenblade. Need over greed "rubbish" will DOUBLE their chances to get desired item.

With 12 party members and their possible TR the math isn't that simple, but does not negate the benefits of "Need before greed" strategy.

Where does need before greed = common sense?
Common sense for me says there is no guarantee of dropping the item, I'm not the only one who wants it and if I get a chance to roll it's a blessing if I win.

And no their chances are not doubled at all and not dictated by need over greed. They have both AGREED to hand over the item the other wants. They have agreed to it beforehand. Now if you had to PUG that raid as happened in the OP, I dare you to get a full party with an lfm of "hand over your chattering". Then you would have a valid statement. In fact if you use your scenario I can make the odds even better by just forming a party of people who have said they have no interest in the item you are looking for. Your example means they should honor their agreement by handing over an item.

End of the day, those two in your example still have a choice. Just because they agreed to it doesn't mean that when they open the chest the specific items they want will be assigned to them. The way people talk means they sincerely believe they are the only ones that deserve it, they believe that they are more entitled and they believe that anyone who finds it should just hand it over. Very sorry to burst your bubble, but when someone's name is on it you don't get to demand anything.

Here let's match your example. I buy a car but I work across the road. My neighbour can't afford to and sits outside my house everyday waitign for a bus. Need before Greed dictates that I give him my car because his need is greater than mine? Load of rubbish imo but obviously your opinion may be different

[Krag]

Where does need before greed = common sense?

Because need before greed == win/win. My loot is my loot == lose/lose.

And no their chances are not doubled at all and not dictated by need over greed. They have both AGREED to hand over the item the other wants. They have agreed to it beforehand. Now if you had to PUG that raid as happened in the OP, I dare you to get a full party with an lfm of "hand over your chattering". Then you would have a valid statement. In fact if you use your scenario I can make the odds even better by just forming a party of people who have said they have no interest in the item you are looking for. Your example means they should honor their agreement by handing over an item.

Very very true statement.
That's why I would never take second caster when farming Weapon's Shipment for Bauble. Although demanding "Hand over your Bauble" in the LFM would be fair, it's not wise. For some reason people prefer to be generous instead of obedient.

Here let's match your example. I buy a car but I work across the road. My neighbour can't afford to and sits outside my house everyday waitign for a bus. Need before Greed dictates that I give him my car because his need is greater than mine? Load of rubbish imo but obviously your opinion may be different

1. A car is not BtC.
2. A car's face value is not insignificant.

Go figure why your example is not valid.

[Lorien_the_First_One]

Because need before greed == win/win. My loot is my loot == lose/lose.
.

What a load of ****. That is only true of "my loot is mine to do with as I please" if take something that don't need, which in 99.99% of cases they won't. What you describe as "need before greed" is actualy YOUR greed before their need on THEIR stuff. You can add as many arguements as you like, you are being greedy.

[Rasczak]

Because need before greed == win/win. My loot is my loot == lose/lose.

Not at all. Expecting a loot handout means greed on the disappointed side. Demanding someone elses loot is greedy.

1. A car is not BtC.
2. A car's face value is not insignificant.

Go figure why your example is not valid.

So insubstantial means the rules change? Because it's a game our standards and general ethos change? Absolute rubbish. Ownership is all that's important. Not I want it or need it more.
In a rl situation, the demands on this forum for loot in a game would be met very badly. But because it's faceless and a piece of graphical software we now decide we get to change the rules. I'm very sorry but that is a communist outlook. Nobody gets to determine who's need is greater and who deserves it more. Need over Greed is a rubbish statement purely based on the fact that it sets demands on a person's ownership. It tries to overrule their own choice at what they want to do. Like I say, the only greed I see is someone who didn't drop the item spouting tantrums about how unfair life is and how stupid people are when it comes to loot.
Boohoo too bad. It wasn't yours to start with.

[Bacab]

OK true story

Did ADQ/ADQ2 on my FvS who happens to have Blue Dragonscale armor. Well it was a fun party (was like me on FVS and a WIZ a SOR and 3 random melees) we all had a good time (the original 6 that flagged RQ for raid). We finish and open up a LFM to anyone that wants to join the Raid. A few people join and etc. Mostly it was ROGs and RNGs that joined.

Well we beat the DQ and a Greenblade drops to me and I do not NEED it since I have the previously mentioned Blue Dragonscale Armor. Well I then say "casters roll for this" implying the WIZ and SOR that I had flagged with. Well of course the WIZ and SOR roll...and for some reason a RNG that joined rolls too. He wins the roll, and demands that I pass the Greenblade to him. I refuse and pass it to the SOR (I think) who had the higher roll. The RNG proceeds to flame me and etc...saying I was being a jerk and greedy for not giving him the item. He then goes into "I am specced for that Item and you have to give it to me". I just laugh and say grats to the SOR and drop party. Interestingly, later (like a week after that) that SOR was on his Barb (I did not know it was him at the time) at a Hound raid and he directly passed a Ring of Thelis to me and sent me a tell thanking me for the Greenblade again.



Also had this happen and I do wonder if THIS is ok. Another DQ raid. The staff that is WIZ BRD SOR only drops. It is put up for roll and a Palidin is winning it...so I roll. I beat his roll (Once again I was on my FVS) and the Staff was passed to me. I then pass it to a WIZ (maybe was a SOR). The Pali then flames me for "Rolling on an Item that I could'nt use". Yes, I see the irony. He claims what I did was a "no no" and that I would be squelched and blacklisted and blah blah blah from all raids. Well who was correct on the staff issue? Is it ok to roll on something then pass it to someone else. Not counting on rolling on something that person A can use. Just when person A cannot use and person B can...and I pass to person B. Is that oki?

And I agree with Raz...when people have expectations to automatically get someone elses loot...that IS greed on their part.

[Lorien_the_First_One]

Also had this happen and I do wonder if THIS is ok. Another DQ raid. The staff that is WIZ BRD SOR only drops. It is put up for roll and a Palidin is winning it...so I roll. I beat his roll (Once again I was on my FVS) and the Staff was passed to me. I then pass it to a WIZ (maybe was a SOR). The Pali then flames me for "Rolling on an Item that I could'nt use". Yes, I see the irony. He claims what I did was a "no no" and that I would be squelched and blacklisted and blah blah blah from all raids. Well who was correct on the staff issue? Is it ok to roll on something then pass it to someone else. Not counting on rolling on something that person A can use. Just when person A cannot use and person B can...and I pass to person B. Is that oki?

I don't like what you did there because it encourages everyone to roll it and pass it to someone they like...that creates an unfair disadvantage for pugs in mostly guild runs. I would have just hoped that the owner of the item would notice that the Pali couldn't equip the item and say something (maybe they didn't know they couldn't? Maybe it was for their next life?)

On the other hand, I do feel you were justified in the first case by not giving the item to the person who won the roll... although I probably would have asked first WHY they wanted it and hoping they would realize that it was a bad thing for them to roll.

[Krag]

So insubstantial means the rules change? Because it's a game our standards and general ethos change? Absolute rubbish. Ownership is all that's important. Not I want it or need it more.
In a rl situation, the demands on this forum for loot in a game would be met very badly. But because it's faceless and a piece of graphical software we now decide we get to change the rules. I'm very sorry but that is a communist outlook. Nobody gets to determine who's need is greater and who deserves it more. Need over Greed is a rubbish statement purely based on the fact that it sets demands on a person's ownership. It tries to overrule their own choice at what they want to do. Like I say, the only greed I see is someone who didn't drop the item spouting tantrums about how unfair life is and how stupid people are when it comes to loot.
Boohoo too bad. It wasn't yours to start with.

Communism is in your imagination.
This is a legitimate deal. You get a shot on a loot that might drop for me, I get a shot on a loot that might drop for you. Even if you didn't pull anything valuable in this raid, I would not decline you from rolling on the Torc my barbarian just pulled. And I expect the same behavior from your side.

The fact that the in-game tools don't allow contracts or any other method to enforce agreement does not change the expectations.

[Kirachan]

Well, then communicate your expectations clearly before the raid and only take people that agree with them.

You can't blame people that their expectations diver from yours...

[Krag]

Also had this happen and I do wonder if THIS is ok. Another DQ raid. The staff that is WIZ BRD SOR only drops. It is put up for roll and a Palidin is winning it...so I roll. I beat his roll (Once again I was on my FVS) and the Staff was passed to me. I then pass it to a WIZ (maybe was a SOR). The Pali then flames me for "Rolling on an Item that I could'nt use". Yes, I see the irony. He claims what I did was a "no no" and that I would be squelched and blacklisted and blah blah blah from all raids. Well who was correct on the staff issue? Is it ok to roll on something then pass it to someone else. Not counting on rolling on something that person A can use. Just when person A cannot use and person B can...and I pass to person B. Is that oki?

What you did defeats the purpose of rolling dice to allow everyone an EVEN chance.
The person B might aswell roll d200 instead of d100 and claim it was "fair".

Well, then communicate your expectations clearly before the raid and only take people that agree with them.

You can't blame people that their expectations diver from yours...

Blaming people has no purpose. All they get is a place in the special friend list.

[Rasczak]

Communism is in your imagination.
This is a legitimate deal. You get a shot on a loot that might drop for me, I get a shot on a loot that might drop for you. Even if you didn't pull anything valuable in this raid, I would not decline you from rolling on the Torc my barbarian just pulled. And I expect the same behavior from your side.

The fact that the in-game tools don't allow contracts or any other method to enforce agreement does not change the expectations.

Jumping the gun there. See the person has to say they don't want it first before saying you can roll. What you are doing is saying they have no say they MUST put it up for roll based on some preconception you have have of what they should and shouldn't be using..
That's communism. Who are you to decide what's good or not good for them?
I live in a different world. I live in a world of "Hey grats bud, what you going to do with it?"

As for being declined because my opinions differ to someone elses...I would be proud to be on their squelch list. I don't need to run around with people who argue over loot because they sour grapes they didn't get it.

[Shade2891]

Obviously I am new and this is a touchy subject but wouldn't it make more sense to agree ahead of time about loot?

It would be easy I would think to make an agreement as to who is after what drops when you start out and then as long as everyone agreed/followed through then everyone would be happy if they didn't then you know who not to raid with again.

Like I said I'm new and have yet to go further than the harbor but as I have seen on many posts in this thread the loot is named. Personaly when I am in partys I will give Items I don't need to the other members if it is something that they ask for/need but thats my choice not everyone is nice there are ******** in the world that will decide that it rolled for them and they aren't gonna give it even if they are just gonna vendor it.

Sucks but thats the way the cookie crumbles theres no point in complaining about it if there was no prior agreement that the ring was yours

[Rameses]

The bad part about the current raid system is that you have no control over any loot that does not belong to you.
I've seen some questionable pulls in my time, and I've done one myself (though I am not to proud of it.) But in the end it's a crappy looting system design that allows for these kind of sheenanagens.

I am, Rameses!