Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ...
4
5
6
7
8
LastLast
  1. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by Lemonpartyfan View Post
    But its been defined. Blizzard cherry picking what their definition means isn't a fix to a problem.
    They are going with the definition as it was before WoW was made. Then they hard-coded that out of the game.
    • "Looting treasure off enemies that a party other than his own has defeated but not yet looted."
      --Hard-coded out of the game.
    • "Looting specific items off enemies that the player's own party defeated before the party has formally decided who should do so, or in direct contradiction to a decision that someone else should loot."
      --Should have put it on "Master Loot" or not had every one click "pass." The players made their choice to pass. It's the same thing as accidentally posting something expensive in the auction house for really cheap. The person agreed to the amount when they posted. These people agreed to forfeit their claim on the items when they clicked "pass".
      --Clicking "need" in the Need/Greed system is not ninjaing. Everyone agreed to this system.
    • "Consistently looting all defeated enemies at the earliest possible moment, thus precluding any other party member from receiving any treasure, even when nothing special is to be had. (This is also known as "loot whoring".)"
      --Don't use "Free for All". By joining a group using "Free for All" loot system, they agreed that all items are first-come-first-loot.
    • "Looting items that the player cannot use for the sole purpose of selling or trading it. Sometimes this may be discovered after the fact if that same item is later found to be for sale by the player who lied about needing it. This may also occur by misuse of the in-game loot distribution system, by misleading or confusing loot rules, or simply by a lack of established loot rules. Taking advantage of these last two situations is often thought of as a mild offense and may be overlooked as carelessness or poor planning."
      --This is a looting dispute/scam. The player lied so the other players would let him/her have the item. Or as stated, simply poorly defined loot rules and carelessness on the part of players in the group.

    Your source even says these are not universal definitions, so stop treating them as such:
    "A player exhibiting any of these behaviors might be labeled a "ninja looter", or simply a "ninja" ... Official player conduct policies also vary from game to game, as does player attitude."

    Quote Originally Posted by Lemonpartyfan View Post
    Especially since their own actions don't imitate their statements. They have been fixing the ninja issue every since LFD, and then worked harder on it since LFR came out.
    They are trying to reduce incidences of looting disputes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lemonpartyfan View Post
    None of the links I posted said "Anything you dislike can be called a ninja."
    That's how some people use it though. People will call "ninja" on someone needing a minor upgrade when it is a major upgrade for themselves.
    Last edited by Aquamonkey; 2014-01-03 at 08:19 PM.
    Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
    I'm determined to someday make Med'an awesome. (MickyNeilson)
    Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
    ´So.. sorry to bring this up but..you know that .."thing" (Med'an).. is that "thing" cannon still?
    ...as much have some have wished otherwise, yes. (Loreology)

  2. #102
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquamonkey View Post
    Your source even says these are not universal definitions, so stop treating them as such:
    "A player exhibiting any of these behaviors might be labeled a "ninja looter", or simply a "ninja" ... Official player conduct policies also vary from game to game, as does player attitude."


    They are trying to reduce incidences of looting disputes.


    That's how some people use it though. People will call "ninja" on someone needing a minor upgrade when it is a major upgrade for themselves.
    Your quote there doesn't mean anything. Conduct policies DO vary, but that has nothing to do with ninjas here. Blizzard could punish you for saying the N word, while Guild Wars 2 might not care. That doesn't mean its not a racist term, just because GW2 doesn't give a shit about the term being used.

    They ARE trying to reduce loot disputes, many of them involving ninjas, especially since there is/was little youc ould do about it in an LFD/LFR.

    Some people use "racist" all the time too, but that doesn't really downplay true racism.

  3. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by Lemonpartyfan View Post
    Your quote there doesn't mean anything. Conduct policies DO vary, but that has nothing to do with ninjas here. Blizzard could punish you for saying the N word, while Guild Wars 2 might not care. That doesn't mean its not a racist term, just because GW2 doesn't give a shit about the term being used.
    "A player exhibiting any of these behaviors might be labeled a "ninja looter", or simply a "ninja""

    This has nothing to do with conduct policies. It's a disclaimer saying that these definitions listed are not concrete or universal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lemonpartyfan View Post
    Some people use "racist" all the time too, but that doesn't really downplay true racism.
    People misusing the term doesn't make it any more correct.
    Last edited by Aquamonkey; 2014-01-04 at 04:01 AM.
    Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
    I'm determined to someday make Med'an awesome. (MickyNeilson)
    Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
    ´So.. sorry to bring this up but..you know that .."thing" (Med'an).. is that "thing" cannon still?
    ...as much have some have wished otherwise, yes. (Loreology)

  4. #104
    High Overlord minro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    RIGHT BEHIND YOU AHMAGA
    Posts
    168
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquamonkey View Post
    As opposed to the self-entitlement of people who believe the gear was stolen from them when it was never theirs to begin with?
    really..... You didn't put any thought into that before you clicked on submit, did you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquamonkey View Post
    The person I quoted brought up self-entitlement. Whether someone is "needing" for gold, OS, DE, transmog, RP, giving their buddy an extra roll, or upgrade, all sides of the situation are self-entitled because they view their "need" as greater than the other people.
    wow....

    "Clever use of game mechanics" has gotten players banned before so I wouldn't go around saying stuff like that.

    Gold - Everyone "needs" gold. With your reasoning everyone should be able to hit need on every piece no matter what. Want != need.

    OS - good point, but it should still go to MS first. They are toying around with that idea at the moment. If it changes, its probably going to be either an extra button, a gear check per char, or how LFR does it currently. There is a blue post somewhere on it, but I cba to find it. I think they should leave it as is, but if you click need on something it should bind to your character, gold should go down to 0 or make it not able to be vendored , and you shouldn't be able to DE it.

    DE - THERE IS A BUTTON FOR THAT

    Transmog - that's what greed is for. Want != need.

    RP - again, that's what the greed button is for. Want != need. The only time I can maybe see this fly is on an RP server.

    All sides of the situation are self-entitled? Just because you can't see the pass/greed buttons doesn't mean others don't.

    Needing for gold.... Holy-friggin-justification batman.
    i hate people
    Quote Originally Posted by Epiphanes View Post
    It's a game. It's not real life nor will it ever be. If you want true recognition for being good at something, go play a sport and send us a link to a live stream of you winning the Gold at the next World Olympics. Until then, shut the f*ck up.

  5. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by minro View Post
    really..... You didn't put any thought into that before you clicked on submit, did you.



    wow....

    "Clever use of game mechanics" has gotten players banned before so I wouldn't go around saying stuff like that.

    Gold - Everyone "needs" gold. With your reasoning everyone should be able to hit need on every piece no matter what. Want != need.

    OS - good point, but it should still go to MS first. They are toying around with that idea at the moment. If it changes, its probably going to be either an extra button, a gear check per char, or how LFR does it currently. There is a blue post somewhere on it, but I cba to find it. I think they should leave it as is, but if you click need on something it should bind to your character, gold should go down to 0 or make it not able to be vendored , and you shouldn't be able to DE it.

    DE - THERE IS A BUTTON FOR THAT

    Transmog - that's what greed is for. Want != need.

    RP - again, that's what the greed button is for. Want != need. The only time I can maybe see this fly is on an RP server.

    All sides of the situation are self-entitled? Just because you can't see the pass/greed buttons doesn't mean others don't.

    Needing for gold.... Holy-friggin-justification batman.
    How about you check the blue post in my sig... you obviously didn't read that before clicking on submit. The system treats all "need" rolls as the same. It's up to each individual player to decide how to use the system. Everyone who clicks need is self-entitled, regardless of their reason for choosing it.
    Last edited by Aquamonkey; 2014-01-04 at 07:53 AM.
    Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
    I'm determined to someday make Med'an awesome. (MickyNeilson)
    Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
    ´So.. sorry to bring this up but..you know that .."thing" (Med'an).. is that "thing" cannon still?
    ...as much have some have wished otherwise, yes. (Loreology)

  6. #106
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquamonkey View Post
    How about you check the blue post in my sig... you obviously didn't read that before clicking on submit. The system treats all "need" rolls as the same. It's up to each individual player to decide how to use the system. Everyone who clicks need is self-entitled, regardless of their reason for choosing it.
    Sorry, but vote kick system has way too many restrictions to make sure, that players are able to kick others, only if they really need it - not anybody, they want. Person, being kicked, gets "stacks" of anti-kick protection. You getting account-wide "stacks" of kick-CD, every time you kick, leave instance or even just initiate a vote kick. Combine it with other restrictions, like being unable to kick for first 15 mins in instance (lol, in most cases it don't last longer), you can't kick while in combat and for some time after that, you can't kick while loot is being distributed, you can't kick more then twice during single run. So all of that results in a system, where it almost impossible to kick somebody. So, if you're trying to say, that vote kick system should be used as opposition to loot system, than may be you should admit, that in order to make this opposition fair, Blizzard should put more restrictions into loot system? What restrictions? Those ones, which will make sure, that player can roll "Need" only on those items, that he really needs - not everything, he want. So, may be we should put some sort of stacking account-wide CD on ability to roll "Need" on items? No?
    Last edited by AVPaul; 2014-01-04 at 08:42 AM.
    PurePVE Addon: If Blizzard refuses to solve our problems, we will find solutions by ourselves.
    Sorry for my bad english. My signature.(Warning! 9.6Mb gif animation)
    I think it's really easy and even attractive to people to daydream about worst case scenarios©Bashiok
    "No flying - no sub" Club "No tiers in LFR - no sub" Club

  7. #107
    Perhaps stop kicking for every little thing. Or make a group with people you want to play with. Using LFD is compromising on control for convenience.
    Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
    I'm determined to someday make Med'an awesome. (MickyNeilson)
    Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
    ´So.. sorry to bring this up but..you know that .."thing" (Med'an).. is that "thing" cannon still?
    ...as much have some have wished otherwise, yes. (Loreology)

  8. #108
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquamonkey View Post
    Perhaps stop kicking for every little thing. Or make a group with people you want to play with. Using LFD is compromising on control for convenience.
    Perhaps stop needing everything only to get some gold coins. Or make a group with people, with who you're agreeing about loot distribution.

    P.S. Almost forgot about it. Most important vote-kick restriction. You can't kick players, without rest of your party agreeing with you. May be we should able players to need items, only if rest of the party agrees with it? No? (As premade party will always agree about everything, in order to avoid group-needing abuse, as long as group-kicking abuse, premade group's votes should be "normalized" to one vote)
    Last edited by AVPaul; 2014-01-04 at 09:18 AM.
    PurePVE Addon: If Blizzard refuses to solve our problems, we will find solutions by ourselves.
    Sorry for my bad english. My signature.(Warning! 9.6Mb gif animation)
    I think it's really easy and even attractive to people to daydream about worst case scenarios©Bashiok
    "No flying - no sub" Club "No tiers in LFR - no sub" Club

  9. #109
    Herald of the Titans xebtria's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bloody ol' Germany
    Posts
    2,878
    Can't we just agree that blizzard should fix the settings for which class is able to roll on what item instead of fighting the definition over one term? because that's the real problem there, I couldn't care less about what player a thinks is ninja looting and what player b thinks is ninja looting and what player c thinks is ninja looting.

    thing is, blizzard has defined the term "ninja" or "ninja looting" how they will interpret it in wow, and as long as you don't threaten them all with killing their families (don't interpret this as an order to do so, I dare you!), I'm sure as fucking hell, they won't change that. and since it's their playground, we play by their rules. and everybody has agreed to that, because otherwise you wouldn't be playing their game in the first place.

    so blizzard says "when someone can need on something in LFD, we say it ain't ninja looting and we don't fucking care if you think different". Again, their playground, their rules. But what they should do is just change what people can need on. Just remove melee weapons from hunter's need table. remove str items from agi user's need table and vice versa. restrict the 8 armors slots to the slot people usually wear, aka plate users only plate, mail users only mail, leather users only leather and cloth users only cloth.

    But then again, why the fuck are we discussing this here? go to the official forums or start a petition. maybe both, start a petition and post it to the official forums. heck people start petitions to change the national anthem to R.Kelly's ignition (plus it reaches a surprisingly high amount of supporters), so you could start a petition to fix the need before greed system's rules for who-can-roll-need-on-what.

  10. #110
    Quote Originally Posted by xebtria View Post
    Can't we just agree that blizzard should fix the settings for which class is able to roll on what item instead of fighting the definition over one term? because that's the real problem there, I couldn't care less about what player a thinks is ninja looting and what player b thinks is ninja looting and what player c thinks is ninja looting.

    thing is, blizzard has defined the term "ninja" or "ninja looting" how they will interpret it in wow, and as long as you don't threaten them all with killing their families (don't interpret this as an order to do so, I dare you!), I'm sure as fucking hell, they won't change that. and since it's their playground, we play by their rules. and everybody has agreed to that, because otherwise you wouldn't be playing their game in the first place.

    so blizzard says "when someone can need on something in LFD, we say it ain't ninja looting and we don't fucking care if you think different". Again, their playground, their rules. But what they should do is just change what people can need on. Just remove melee weapons from hunter's need table. remove str items from agi user's need table and vice versa. restrict the 8 armors slots to the slot people usually wear, aka plate users only plate, mail users only mail, leather users only leather and cloth users only cloth.

    But then again, why the fuck are we discussing this here? go to the official forums or start a petition. maybe both, start a petition and post it to the official forums. heck people start petitions to change the national anthem to R.Kelly's ignition (plus it reaches a surprisingly high amount of supporters), so you could start a petition to fix the need before greed system's rules for who-can-roll-need-on-what.
    For what? Personal loot is already confirmed for the next xpack. So the only disputable thing, that rests for us - whether "Need everything I want" system is right or wrong.
    PurePVE Addon: If Blizzard refuses to solve our problems, we will find solutions by ourselves.
    Sorry for my bad english. My signature.(Warning! 9.6Mb gif animation)
    I think it's really easy and even attractive to people to daydream about worst case scenarios©Bashiok
    "No flying - no sub" Club "No tiers in LFR - no sub" Club

  11. #111
    Quote Originally Posted by AVPaul View Post
    For what? Personal loot is already confirmed for the next xpack. So the only disputable thing, that rests for us - whether "Need everything I want" system is right or wrong.
    It's a matter of personal opinion, where that's the case there can never be absolutes such as right or wrong.

    I don't do it and I think people that do are anti-social selfish dicks. That's an opinion though.

  12. #112
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquamonkey View Post
    "A player exhibiting any of these behaviors might be labeled a "ninja looter", or simply a "ninja""

    This has nothing to do with conduct policies. It's a disclaimer saying that these definitions listed are not concrete or universal.


    People misusing the term doesn't make it any more correct.
    Of course you are using that phrase wrong too. "Might be" in this case is not questioning whether or not the possibility of the person in question being a ninja, but rather, whether the person MIGHT BE CALLED a ninja.

  13. #113
    Quote Originally Posted by Lemonpartyfan View Post
    Of course you are using that phrase wrong too. "Might be" in this case is not questioning whether or not the possibility of the person in question being a ninja, but rather, whether the person MIGHT BE CALLED a ninja.
    No. That's exactly what I meant. People call "ninjas" by different metrics. Those definitions are not universal. Your source doesn't even treat them as definitions, just examples of what might be considered "ninjaing". So IDK why you are treating it like the ultimate authority on defining what a "ninja" is.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by AVPaul View Post
    Perhaps stop needing everything only to get some gold coins. Or make a group with people, with who you're agreeing about loot distribution.

    P.S. Almost forgot about it. Most important vote-kick restriction. You can't kick players, without rest of your party agreeing with you. May be we should able players to need items, only if rest of the party agrees with it? No? (As premade party will always agree about everything, in order to avoid group-needing abuse, as long as group-kicking abuse, premade group's votes should be "normalized" to one vote)
    Completely ignore the reason for kick restrictions being to prevent bullying behavior. When people could gang up to kick people they didn't like, that person being singled out has no chance to do anything. Just bam! "You have been removed from the instance group."

    Someone clicking "need" is an individual action that only opts them in for a chance at an item. Nobody can block you out of winning an item in LFD. You still have a chance to win the item when someone clicks "need".
    Last edited by Aquamonkey; 2014-01-04 at 07:28 PM.
    Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
    I'm determined to someday make Med'an awesome. (MickyNeilson)
    Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
    ´So.. sorry to bring this up but..you know that .."thing" (Med'an).. is that "thing" cannon still?
    ...as much have some have wished otherwise, yes. (Loreology)

  14. #114
    High Overlord minro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    RIGHT BEHIND YOU AHMAGA
    Posts
    168
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquamonkey View Post
    How about you check the blue post in my sig... you obviously didn't read that before clicking on submit. The system treats all "need" rolls as the same. It's up to each individual player to decide how to use the system. Everyone who clicks need is self-entitled, regardless of their reason for choosing it.
    This is adorable. So..... you keep referring to your signature as if it is gold...... And you direct me to it...... And if you would please re-read my first post in here....

    oh wait...... Let me do it for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by minro View Post
    Is it me or is it obvious that the people who are defending the need button are those same people that need everything? I don't think it's me.

    1. Blizz realizes that it's a problem
    This banter about the system does it this way and the system does it that way doesn't mean diddly when they are going to change it for the reasons that everyone but you seem to grasp... A.) The system is crappy. 2.) They are changing it because it is crappy. d Not everyone clicks need on everything, just the dingles....

    This gem.... "Everyone who clicks need is self-entitled, regardless of their reason for choosing it." False. They might have a quest green from like 10-15 levels prior? Maybe in this fantasy world of absolutes of yours people actually get gear in instances instead of running half naked with BOAs (or maybe they just need gold). Oh, and this "It's up to each individual player to decide how to use the system." is why we can't have nice things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquamonkey View Post
    Someone clicking "need" is an individual action that only opts them in for a chance at an item. .
    False. Clicking greed is the chance. Clicking need (if you don't need it[our standards, not yours]) is abusing a crappy system. Again, just because you can hit need, does not me you should. The RNG of what dropped is your chance, if it didn't drop for you, you shouldn't get it. Period. The system isn't smart enough to decide that at the moment, which is why they are changing it. Stop this devil's advocate crap.


    Edit: The 'or maybe they just need the gold' from the 'this gem' paragraph was sarcasm.
    Last edited by minro; 2014-01-04 at 08:44 PM. Reason: sarcasm doesnt work to well when reading...
    i hate people
    Quote Originally Posted by Epiphanes View Post
    It's a game. It's not real life nor will it ever be. If you want true recognition for being good at something, go play a sport and send us a link to a live stream of you winning the Gold at the next World Olympics. Until then, shut the f*ck up.

  15. #115
    Quote Originally Posted by minro View Post
    This gem.... "Everyone who clicks need is self-entitled, regardless of their reason for choosing it." False. They might have a quest green from like 10-15 levels prior? Maybe in this fantasy world of absolutes of yours people actually get gear in instances instead of running half naked with BOAs (or maybe they just need gold). Oh, and this "It's up to each individual player to decide how to use the system." is why we can't have nice things.
    Do you know know what self-entitlement is? It's the personal belief that one deserves something more than someone else. Someone clicking "need" for an upgrade is just as self-entitled as someone clicking "need" for transmog or whatever other reason. They each put their own personal use for that item as being more important than what someone else will use it for.

    These are all differences of opinions that Blizzard refuses to arbitrate because everyone is self-entitled.

    Quote Originally Posted by minro View Post
    False. Clicking greed is the chance. Clicking need (if you don't need it[our standards, not yours]) is abusing a crappy system. Again, just because you can hit need, does not me you should. The RNG of what dropped is your chance, if it didn't drop for you, you shouldn't get it. Period. The system isn't smart enough to decide that at the moment, which is why they are changing it. Stop this devil's advocate crap.
    Please tell me more about how clicking "need" guarantees that you get the item. All it does is opt you in for a chance, the same chance as everyone else who clicks "need".
    Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
    I'm determined to someday make Med'an awesome. (MickyNeilson)
    Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
    ´So.. sorry to bring this up but..you know that .."thing" (Med'an).. is that "thing" cannon still?
    ...as much have some have wished otherwise, yes. (Loreology)

  16. #116
    Elemental Lord Kaleredar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    phasing...
    Posts
    8,553
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquamonkey View Post
    Do you know know what self-entitlement is? It's the personal belief that one deserves something more than someone else. Someone clicking "need" for an upgrade is just as self-entitled as someone clicking "need" for transmog or whatever other reason. They each put their own personal use for that item as being more important than what someone else will use it for.

    These are all differences of opinions that Blizzard refuses to arbitrate because everyone is self-entitled.


    Please tell me more about how clicking "need" guarantees that you get the item. All it does is opt you in for a chance, the same chance as everyone else who clicks "need".
    By that merit, I should be able to need roll on cloth, leather, and mail as a plate DPS, because I could always use the gold.
    "Do not look down, my friend. Even in the darkest of times, there is always hope... Hope for a better day, hope for a new dawn... Or just hope for a good breakfast. You start small, then see what you can get." ~ Covetous Shen
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Kaleredar is right...
    Words to live by.

  17. #117
    I've also repeatedly said it was a douchey move to do that. It's just not "ninjaing" nor harassment.
    Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
    I'm determined to someday make Med'an awesome. (MickyNeilson)
    Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
    ´So.. sorry to bring this up but..you know that .."thing" (Med'an).. is that "thing" cannon still?
    ...as much have some have wished otherwise, yes. (Loreology)

  18. #118
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquamonkey View Post
    Completely ignore the reason for kick restrictions being to prevent bullying behavior. When people could gang up to kick people they didn't like, that person being singled out has no chance to do anything. Just bam! "You have been removed from the instance group."
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquamonkey View Post
    Do you know know what self-entitlement is? It's the personal belief that one deserves something more than someone else. Someone clicking "need" for an upgrade is just as self-entitled as someone clicking "need" for transmog or whatever other reason. They each put their own personal use for that item as being more important than what someone else will use it for.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaleredar View Post
    By that merit, I should be able to need roll on cloth, leather, and mail as a plate DPS, because I could always use the gold.
    ^This. You are trying to prove us something about self-entitlement, but at the same time you completely ignoring the fact, that via Needing an item, instead of Greeding it, you're getting the higher priority to get item (in fact +100% chance to get item), then players, who can't roll Need on this item, i.e. completely removing any chances to get this item for them (cuz nobody can roll more then 100 on item). The biggest question is: if everybody have some self-entitlement and therefore same reasons and rights to get item, then why do you assume, that you should have higher priority to get item? Why do you believe, that you should have higher chances? Why do you think, that players, who rolling Greed on this item, don't want to get it too? Why do you think, that you're somehow better, then them? You're contradicting to yourself, cuz using Greed - getting equal chances to get item and using Need - trying to get priority and higher chances to get item. Do you understand, that via trying to prove your self-entitlement theory, in fact you're proving, that "Need everything you can" theory is wrong? Why? That is the essence of "Need before Greed" system: if you feel, that you have the same rights to get this item, as every other player in the party - you should roll Greed, cuz it's what grants everybody this equal chances. Need roll should be used only if other players, who can't roll Need, are agreeing to pass item to you - you can't just assume, that they should do it. There is a commonly used agreement, that only players, for whom this item is upgrade, can use Need button by default (i.e. by default players are agreeing to pass item to player, who will immediately equip it). If you're breaking this default agreement without approval from other players - then you're ninja-looter. The fact, that you don't agree with this commonly used agreement, still doesn't give you a right to roll Need on items without other players' approval. You may say: your default agreement is BS - my agreement (that you pass items to me by default) is right. No, you're wrong - some players don't agree to pass items to you by default. And that's why we're getting rid of "Need before Greed" system in next xpack. The only way to make you "agree" with commonly used system - is to automatically force you to use it. Yea, and why can't it be a bullying behavior? "I don't like you - I will need everything I can then, and via this decrease or completely remove a chance for you to get any items". And the fact, that he'll still have at least 20% chance to get item, he can roll Need on, doesn't really justify, what you're doing.

    TL;DR First of all, every player has equal rights to get item. Need button gives you priority and remove chances to get item from players, who can't roll need on it - therefore they should agree to pass item to you. If you're Needing items without their approval - you're ninja-looter. As simple as that.
    Last edited by AVPaul; 2014-01-04 at 11:27 PM.
    PurePVE Addon: If Blizzard refuses to solve our problems, we will find solutions by ourselves.
    Sorry for my bad english. My signature.(Warning! 9.6Mb gif animation)
    I think it's really easy and even attractive to people to daydream about worst case scenarios©Bashiok
    "No flying - no sub" Club "No tiers in LFR - no sub" Club

  19. #119
    Quote Originally Posted by AVPaul View Post
    ^This. You are trying to prove us something about self-entitlement, but at the same time you completely ignoring the fact, that via Needing an item, instead of Greeding it, you're getting the higher priority to get item (in fact +100% chance to get item), then players, who can't roll Need on this item, i.e. completely removing any chances to get this item for them (cuz nobody can roll more then 100 on item). The biggest question is: if everybody have some self-entitlement and therefore same reasons and rights to get item, then why do you assume, that you should have higher priority to get item? Why do you believe, that you should have higher chances? You're contradicting to yourself, cuz using Greed - getting equal chances to get item and using Need - trying to get priority and higher chances to get item.
    That's exactly what selt-entitlement is... They view their usage of the item as being more important than someone else. Everyone who clicks "need" is self-entitled...

    Now you are changing the goal-posts. First, it was about "needing" against someone looking for an upgrade. Now, you're talking about "needing" against someone who "greeded".

    Quote Originally Posted by AVPaul View Post
    Yea, and why can't it be a bullying behavior? "I don't like you - I will need everything I can then, and via this decrease or completely remove a chance for you to get any items". And the fact, that he'll still have at least 20% chance to get item, doesn't really justify, what you're doing.
    Clicking "need" doesn't lock out other people who clicked "need". Everyone has an equal chance of winning. Bullying someone by kicking them is completely different; the victim has no chance to do anything.
    Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
    I'm determined to someday make Med'an awesome. (MickyNeilson)
    Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
    ´So.. sorry to bring this up but..you know that .."thing" (Med'an).. is that "thing" cannon still?
    ...as much have some have wished otherwise, yes. (Loreology)

  20. #120
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquamonkey View Post
    Now you are changing the goal-posts. First, it was about "needing" against someone looking for an upgrade. Now, you're talking about "needing" against someone who "greeded".
    Most people agree to pass items to player by default, if he'll equip it immediately. Just because "Loot exists to be equipped in a first place - not to be sold"©. "Needing" against someone looking for an upgrade - is in some way "Needing" against those, who "Greeding", cuz they agree to pass item to him, but not to you. The fact, that you don't agree to pass item to those, who're looking for an update, doesn't give you a right to ninja. "I'll ninja, cuz I think, he'll ninja too" - is kindergarten logic. And system will be changed due to escalation of this logic to the point, where old system doesn't work at all. And, first of all, why do you trying to remove those, who "Greeding", from equation? That's your mistake. The fact, that they're "Greeding" doesn't give you a right to assume, that they don't want to get item.

    P.S. Wow. "Ninja-looter" term appears to be so simply at the end - "Player, who gets priority to get loot without permission from other players in the party". As simple as that.
    Last edited by AVPaul; 2014-01-04 at 11:54 PM.
    PurePVE Addon: If Blizzard refuses to solve our problems, we will find solutions by ourselves.
    Sorry for my bad english. My signature.(Warning! 9.6Mb gif animation)
    I think it's really easy and even attractive to people to daydream about worst case scenarios©Bashiok
    "No flying - no sub" Club "No tiers in LFR - no sub" Club

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •