Needing for Repair

[arkanon]

Oh BULLSHIT. People don't explicitly talk about loot rules, we assume that it's the same rules people have lived by for years... Need if you need the item because it's an upgrade. Greed if it's not and you might just sell or DE it. These are common loot rules in WoW and have been for years. Sometimes I'll restate them (did last night when a group of 4 of us pugged a tank, just so he knew he was OK to Need on BoE greens dropping in SM Lib.)

Life is this way. You don't state common social rules every time you get together. Grabbing drinks with a friend? You don't say, before you order, "Now, we're splitting the tab, right?" you assume you're doing that. People state *exceptions*. "Hey man, just got a promotion, let's grab drinks and celebrate, my treat."

Needing for repairs is 100% a dick move. If you don't have the silver to repair, don't fucking run instances. Run a few quests, get some silver/greys to sell/etc. Needing for repairs is like showing up for drinks and expecting others to pay because you pissed away your money and it's not payday.

Word salad and excuses - the norm has ALWAYS been to confirm loot rules when joining a pug. Blizzard have this confirmed, in blue, that it is YOUR responsibility when joining a group to confirm loot rules. There is no "default". And to be extremely clear, when running group loot, that IS the loot rules, Blizzard will not take action because someone needed on something you wanted while under group loot. Blizzard even go so far as to give a few examples of how to advertise your group with clearly outlined loot rules.

- - - Updated - - -

No. Stop being wrong, it serves no purpose. I specifically said they should need on everything to counter the stupid shit this guy is doing. Never said they should do that to other players. Your statement is absolutely wrong and I explained this in detail in the post you quoted even repeated myself in different words twice to make sure you understood.

Don't waste my time with your forum ego, learn that you are wrong and stop defending your lost cause.

EXACTLY! you are suggesting you would roll need because someone else is rolling need. You are suggesting they counter his bad behavior with bad behavior. You are not suggesting they "stand up for themselves" you are suggesting they do EXACTLY the same thing - to 3 other innocent people who have done nothing wrong. Yet again you make the same mistake as so many in this thread - thinking only about yourself, and ignoring the fact there are 3 other people in this group. They didnt even cross your mind, you just jumped straight to "pft, just roll need as well, that will teach him!". you also make the incorrect assumption it will impact their behavior in any way other than encouraging and justifying it.

You are not saying "this behavior is unacceptable and will not be tolerated" you are saying "meh, cant beat em, join em!"

- - - Updated - - -

It was this, any many other problems, that facilitated the creation of personal loot. It became a necessity. People needing for repairs, vendor trash, because they thought it was better, for an os or any other reason. People forgot about all of these because they want to complain about personal loot. Well, this is the alternative. Loot ninjas.

What actually happened is really obvious when you spend 5 minutes scrolling through this thread - the majority of people think that the best "solution" to this issue is to roll need as well. This behavior encourages more of the same. You are absolutely right that Personal Loot was introduced purely to reduce the river of tears Blizzard had to navigate every day from players who think rolling need on an item when loot is set to group loot is "stealing their item". Its a prime example of "this is why we cant have nice things"

[GreenJesus]

The latter. Had a similar experience a few years ago when a hunter needed on a shield I needed just so he could vendor it. Some players are just dicks.

But what if his offspec is Auction House flipper?

[arkanon]

But what if his offspec is Auction House flipper?

Dont forget about your Town Set, and your "shit i cant even equip" set.

[CrawlFromThePit]

EXACTLY! you are suggesting you would roll need because someone else is rolling need. You are suggesting they counter his bad behavior with bad behavior. You are not suggesting they "stand up for themselves" you are suggesting they do EXACTLY the same thing - to 3 other innocent people who have done nothing wrong. Yet again you make the same mistake as so many in this thread - thinking only about yourself, and ignoring the fact there are 3 other people in this group. They didnt even cross your mind, you just jumped straight to "pft, just roll need as well, that will teach him!". you also make the incorrect assumption it will impact their behavior in any way other than encouraging and justifying it.

You are not saying "this behavior is unacceptable and will not be tolerated" you are saying "meh, cant beat em, join em!"

Little misunderstanding here. When I said "they" I mean the plural pronoun, I'm saying the entire group should gang against the moron, everybody should need on trash, no one is a victim anymore.

It's a video game, how can you "not tolerate" certain behavior? You can't just say "no" or "plz don't", why would that guy care? He's gonna need on shit anyway. You have to PREVENT HIM from getting what he wants. 3 possible options, kick him, if you can't you can leave (but realistically you're also a loser in this situation) or need on everything so it becomes one again FAIR FOR EVERYONE instead of all greed, you all need. That's rectifying the situation, NOTHING in what I said is suggesting to "cant beat em, join em", in order to do that you would need to join another group and start needing on everything while everybody else is greeding, if someone is unjustly needing on stuff he should be greeding then the situation is instantly not the same, you have to fight someone doing something wrong.

There's nothing wrong in punching a thief, sadly this is a game, we can't punch people in the face, the entire community would be A LOT BETTER if all these scrawny ass kids were put in line, so we do what we can and our options are limited. Just saying "I won't tolerate this" and then proceeding with zero action and seeing the guy still needing on everything.

Everyone fighting back against someone doing it is OBJECTIVELY NOT THE SAME as doing it to people playing respectfully. You need to get this in your head.

EDIT: However, it is true that doing this will maybe not change their behavior. Maybe it will. It's not certain. But one thing is certain, if you let him do whatever he wants like you're suggesting, he will have no reason to stop doing it, he will do it again for sure. I'll take my chance at doing something about it instead of being an enabler.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Well which is it? Am i a "well known classic hater", or does nobody know who i am? You cant have it both ways.

In one scenario, a player needs on gear to pay for their repairs.
In the other scenario, a player needs on gear to replace their damaged gear, even though they will be swapping it back after the run, and guess what? selling the item they needed on.

They are not "different in every way". The only real difference is that in scenario 2, the player uses the item for a while before selling it.

You forgot the import part of the sentence ... "in this thread."

The scenarios are different. Its fine if you can't comprehend - its a fact.

[Moozart]

just kick him

its a bit harder than that in classic if you aren't the leader lol. A complaining DPS is far more likely to be removed than a dick tank.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

In one scenario the item is not needed. In the other scenario the item is not needed. Explain how they are different.

They are clearly different. Water contains hydrogen, sugar contains hydrogen... I guess they are the same thing.

You all need to try harder.

[AeneasBK]

That's rectifying the situation, NOTHING in what I said is suggesting to "cant beat em, join em"

Literally suggests "can't beat em so join them" then says the bolded.

Fun.

[CrawlFromThePit]

Literally suggests "can't beat em so join them" then says the bolded.

Fun.

Once you're done with that video, re-read my post. And after that, thank me.

[arkanon]

Little misunderstanding here. When I said "they" I mean the plural pronoun, I'm saying the entire group should gang against the moron, everybody should need on trash, no one is a victim anymore.

It's a video game, how can you "not tolerate" certain behavior? You can't just say "no" or "plz don't", why would that guy care? He's gonna need on shit anyway. You have to PREVENT HIM from getting what he wants. 3 possible options, kick him, if you can't you can leave (but realistically you're also a loser in this situation) or need on everything so it becomes one again FAIR FOR EVERYONE instead of all greed, you all need. That's rectifying the situation, NOTHING in what I said is suggesting to "cant beat em, join em", in order to do that you would need to join another group and start needing on everything while everybody else is greeding, if someone is unjustly needing on stuff he should be greeding then the situation is instantly not the same, you have to fight someone doing something wrong.

There's nothing wrong in punching a thief, sadly this is a game, we can't punch people in the face, the entire community would be A LOT BETTER if all these scrawny ass kids were put in line, so we do what we can and our options are limited. Just saying "I won't tolerate this" and then proceeding with zero action and seeing the guy still needing on everything.

Everyone fighting back against someone doing it is OBJECTIVELY NOT THE SAME as doing it to people playing respectfully. You need to get this in your head.

EDIT: However, it is true that doing this will maybe not change their behavior. Maybe it will. It's not certain. But one thing is certain, if you let him do whatever he wants like you're suggesting, he will have no reason to stop doing it, he will do it again for sure. I'll take my chance at doing something about it instead of being an enabler.

Please quote where i suggested "let him do whatever he wants". My suggestion has been clear from the beginning, and i have stated it multiple times - finish the run, and ignore the player. If everyone behaved this way, the problem would solve itself. Anything else is overly dramatic and childish, and will have little to no impact.

You throw out a lot of word salad, but you are absolutely suggesting "cant beat em, join em".

- - - Updated - - -

Once you're done with that video, re-read my post. And after that, thank me.

They are right though? Your suggestion is that because there is no better solution (cant beat em) you should replicate their behavior (join em)

[AeneasBK]

Once you're done with that video, re-read my post. And after that, thank me.

You could go look up what "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" means, you seem to be struggling more than me.

[arkanon]

They are clearly different. Water contains hydrogen, sugar contains hydrogen... I guess they are the same thing.

You all need to try harder.

You are trying to suggest that the "motivation" is different, and that is what makes the scenarios entirely different. But it doesnt - for the other 4 players, the end result is EXACTLY the same - someone needing on something that isnt actually an upgrade, that will be sold to a vendor. The problem is, you are so self centered you cant see it from any other point of view but your own.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

You are trying to suggest that the "motivation" is different, and that is what makes the scenarios entirely different. But it doesnt - for the other 4 players, the end result is EXACTLY the same - someone needing on something that isnt actually an upgrade, that will be sold to a vendor. The problem is, you are so self centered you cant see it from any other point of view but your own.

Okay, so you know one of the reasons they are different; thank you for finally getting a small part of it.

Now, how else are the scenarios different?

[CrawlFromThePit]

Please quote where i suggested "let him do whatever he wants". My suggestion has been clear from the beginning, and i have stated it multiple times - finish the run, and ignore the player. If everyone behaved this way, the problem would solve itself. Anything else is overly dramatic and childish, and will have little to no impact.

You throw out a lot of word salad, but you are absolutely suggesting "cant beat em, join em".

- - - Updated - - -



They are right though? Your suggestion is that because there is no better solution (cant beat em) you should replicate their behavior (join em)

I already told you what their behavior is. It's needing on items that other peopel greed. OBJECTIVELY speaking, if you need against someone who also needs, you are not doign what he's doing. To do what he's doing you would have to need on things that everyone else is greeding. The case here is just re-establishign the greed rolls by making everyone need instead of everyone greed. You're not trying to steal from people, you're preventing a thief from stealing.

How in the fuck do you think "the problem would solve itself" if all you do is let the guy steal from everyone? The problem does not stop at the run itself, the guy will do this again and again, he needs to be stopped. Letting him do everything he wants and steal from you and 3 other group member is NOT helping in any way shape or form, you're an enabler and a consentual victim at the same time. You're sending this guy to do the exact same in another group, you're just as bad as him if not worse.

[arkanon]

its a bit harder than that in classic if you aren't the leader lol. A complaining DPS is far more likely to be removed than a dick tank.

This is something people find REALLY hard to comprehend, and it certainly identifies those who played early one, and those who clearly didnt. Tanks and even healers were given a pretty wide berth in groups, and often got away with things a dps would not. It was unique in each scenario, and if you had another player capable of tanking, even as a dps, and the tank was really winding people up, they would be removed if possible. But people forget a few other things, like instance max players, players afking in a raid/dungeon so no one else could join, players going straight back to trade and talking shit about the group and claiming they are endlessly wiping (even if not true). An upset tank/healer could destroy a groups chance of finding a replacement pretty easily, or at least make it take much, much longer. The chat drama never really resolved anything, it just made things worse.

- - - Updated - - -

OBJECTIVELY speaking, if you need against someone who also needs, you are not doign what he's doing.

OMG finally a sig worthy quote! honestly, comedians couldnt write better material than this stuff. Thats comedy gold!

[CrawlFromThePit]

You could go look up what "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" means, you seem to be struggling more than me.

It means doing the same bad thing someone did to you.

The bad guy here joined a group and started needing on items everybody else is greeding.

You start needing on items he is needing.

How is that the same?

One is need against greed, one is need against need.

You have to join a new group and need on items everybody else is greeding in order to do what this guy did to you. I'm sure you can understand the drastic difference here, there's one that you do against bad people to counter their bullshit, the other you do against innocent people who did nothing to do you, just to shit on their gaming experience for your selfish little needs.

Completely different situations, it's not just "he click on need, I click on need too".

[arkanon]

The problem does not stop at the run itself, the guy will do this again and again, he needs to be stopped.

This is genius, hes taking loot in a group loot situation - not attacking an orphanage.

[tacoloco]

this guy just a self entitled dick?

Self entitled jackass.

[CrawlFromThePit]

This is something people find REALLY hard to comprehend, and it certainly identifies those who played early one, and those who clearly didnt. Tanks and even healers were given a pretty wide berth in groups, and often got away with things a dps would not. It was unique in each scenario, and if you had another player capable of tanking, even as a dps, and the tank was really winding people up, they would be removed if possible. But people forget a few other things, like instance max players, players afking in a raid/dungeon so no one else could join, players going straight back to trade and talking shit about the group and claiming they are endlessly wiping (even if not true). An upset tank/healer could destroy a groups chance of finding a replacement pretty easily, or at least make it take much, much longer. The chat drama never really resolved anything, it just made things worse.

- - - Updated - - -



OMG finally a sig worthy quote! honestly, comedians couldnt write better material than this stuff. Thats comedy gold!

Jokes are funny with the context, that's why if you take the whole context of what I said it's even more funny because you're the one who becomes the joke. Read (AND FOR ONCE, UNDERSTAND) the whole paragraph to realize how wrong you are, how right I am, how obvious all of this actually is.

[Count Zero]

The absolute best thing about Classic is the return of server reputations actually mattering.