Giving LFR Another Chance, to yet again shock me with the conduct of other players

| Monday, March 26, 2012
We all know the pattern too well, something drops and anyone who can roll need does. I got into a conversation with someone in the raid about this, through whispers (which is why I am not mentioning legions of trolls). They explained that they so often see items ninjaed for vendor or self-DE that they roll need on everything they can, to use as bargaining chips. It's pretty obvious what this leads to: everyone rolls need so they have the bargaining they need to get what they actually need, along with a significant number of people who are just being exceptionally greedy.

What triggered the conversation was the person winning the roll on the rogue helm token in Dragon Soul. Then it was capped off by them again winning the dagger at the end. The dagger which would have been a significant upgrade for me, though I did at least have the pair from ZG, so I wasn't exactly destroyed by it. The helm though, I was still running with a 333 blue. They had a far better helm and far better weapon than what they won.

Pretty bad, isn't it?

If I tell you facts, but leave out other facts which would dramatically alter your perception of the situation, is that lying? I think so. But let's call it dramatic effect since I'm giving the rest now.

The other rogue opened trade and gave me the token. No bargaining, just a line about how I needed it a lot more than them. This was something they said they did, rolling need not just for bargaining, but so people who actually needed the items got an extra shot at them. I was stunned at the selflessness of it. But, it also made me a bit sad, that players have to go out of their way, inspecting others to see who truly needs, and using the mechanics of the ninjas, to accomplish this.

They also traded the dagger to me.

Sometimes, human decency and altruism can overcome the flaws of a system and the flaws of people. Sometimes people are good, even when we expect the absolute opposite.

13 comments:

Ephemeron said...

Awwww.

Eki said...

Faith in humanity: Restored!

Dimli said...

My guild mates have been traded loot quite a few times like this in LFR with either a quick word or nothing at all just a trade pop up and items delivered. So this defiantly seems to at least not be completely uncommon.

Bristal said...

Similar thing happened to me. I "gratzed" a player for winning the Bow from Deathwing, he asked if I needed it, then gave it to me.

Nice, right?

Then I got thinking, why did he need on it if he didnt need it? So now I have to contact every winner of an upgrade to see if they might give it to me? How many things did I not get in the past because of this?

Then I started reading blog posts like this proclaiming that "everyone's needing on everything", which then perpetuates the practice and makes people feel justified. And here you are making the practice sound honorable.

It's not honorable, it's selfish, inefficient, and just lame.

Even the unlikely scenario of your angelic player who needs, then inspects every player to see who truly needs it is unfair.

I ran LFR every week for 3 months looking forward to that bow dropping. Had there been a brand new hunter alt with poor gear, your benefactor would have passed to them, instead of me who worked hard for that bow.

Stop rolling on gear you don't need, and let the system work as designed.

Klepsacovic said...

@Bristal: I agree that it's a gigantic mess. Also, the hunter getting the bow scenario is highly exaggerated and not even unique to this flawed system, even if people only rolled need on what they need, you'd still not be guaranteed to get the item over the first time here hunter.

It is still honorable. It's still people trying to make the best of a flawed system. What is the alternative behavior? Ideally everyone, literally everyone, would only roll need on items that they intend to use. That is not the case and is unlikely to be so any time soon. The sad fact is, there are still the ninjas.

Given that there are players rolling who do not need the gear, what is the response which maximizes social benefit?

We could "roll need if we need", in which case the individual ninjas have an equal shot as the individual needers, so that overall what is needed are large numbers of needers relative to ninjas. That requires a high ratio of low-geared players (I am no saying undergeared, just that they are not yet gear-saturated) and very few ninjas. That's a decreasing trend, since as time goes on, more players in the system will have higher gear levels, reducing the ratio of needers. Meanwhile, needers can transition to ninjas, as if someone rolls on a dagger to use it, they are a needer, but once they have it and still roll, they are now a ninja. In other words, as time passes loot is more and more likely to be ninjaed just by the statistical changes. Add on top of that the "abused become abusers" phenomenon and we'll see even more ninjas as player seek revenge on the raids that ninjaed from them before (this is an completely irrational behavior, but it still happens) while they also learn a norm of ninjaing.

Alternatively, we could have everyone roll need and try to sort it out afterward. This will lower the ratio of ninjas relative to the overall rollers, increasing the chances that the loot goes to a needer. This will tend to discriminate against high-geared needers in favor of low-geared needers, but I believe that is at least offset by the bias against ninjas.

Blame the ninjas and the loot system.
Don't blame the altruistic rollers; they're just trying to make the best of a terrible situation.

Anonymous said...

I don't agree with it, even if it ended well in your case. It goes from a party rolling system to some people setting themselves up as loot council / loot master, with the right to judge who "deserves" loot or not. I'm not saying that rogue in this case was like that, but there are a lot more under that same umbrella who are. What's rich is most of them themselves wouldn't "deserve" loot either if judged on their own weighing standard of merit.

Klepsacovic said...

It's already not a party rolling system. When a system is flawed and there are bad people about, it is harmful to pretend that the system works and there are no bad people about.

I'd much prefer a system in which people could not need on items which they already have or have absolute upgrades from. That would eliminate most, if not all, of this nonsense.

Tesh said...

Is this a good time to recommend the DDO loot system, where everyone gets something, and it's something they can use? No rolling, no drama, just a reward for beating the dungeon.

Töki said...

The LFR loot system is really flawed, but until it gets fixed I suggest you roll with the masses. You will make some happy and have a better chance at getting what you 'need'.

Last week, I ran LFR as a resto druid and 3 of the healers had less healing done than the spriest. Of the top healers, #2 was pulling epic hps in Zandalari gear and #3 already had the Maw, so I needed on it to improve #2's chances. But as is nearly always the case, the biggest slackers get the best loot.

If I'm tanking it, I'm always glad when the MT rolls on Souldrinker for me, I also roll on the 2H axes so I have something to trade it for. If I can't trade it, I just pass it on to the person with the highest roll after me, or those that I think 'deserve' it.

Don't always think the worst of those who need on tokens when they have 397 gear in that slot. On my hunter, I have a set for SV and a set for MM, since I stack different stats on both and don't want to reforge each time. I will gladly hand down a token/item I won for OS when someone tells me he could really use it, but only if that person isn't being carried by the raid. I'm okay with it if people want to bump up their ilvl with random pvp items, but only as long as they have the dps to show for it.

Anonymous said...

I have no clue why someone would do that for something less useful than a NPC (you).

They engage in activities with those NPC's a lot more often than they will interact with you. They will not encounter you again.

Blizzard approves of everyone needing on anything, even when having the item yourself. Blizzard dislikes it when people give gear to those who want/deserve it. They even implement this as a feature.

Klepsacovic said...

I assume you're talking about long-term usefulness, since in the scenario of the raid, I am much more useful than the vendor in Orgrimmar.

Blizzard actually changed the way Bind on Pickup acts, so that players can trade based on whatever motivations they have. That is a relatively new feature, signaling an intention for players to do more inter-player trading, not less.

Anonymous said...

I agree, when I hit need on an item and lose the roll does that mean I should beg the winner in hopes that they will "find the compassion" to give me an item that they didn't need in the first place? No. I mean, imagine if I needed an item but so did 2 other people, who deserves it more? That's unknown between the potential noob alt who could get a big increase in dps and the guy looking for a replacement for his 370 epic that could have been doing lfr since its release trying to get. It's not the "vigilante's" call to decide who gets what. I mean imagine all the potential loot I may have lost because some guy wanted to feel good about himself. The only way I could see this as being positive is if the guy inspected the top 3 rollers for the item to see who already had it and who didn't (for example the roll was a 2-handed axe and 2nd place already had it, then he would give it to third place, etc.) but even this is a lot of trouble and in cases of tokens and off specs it gets messy. Bottom line though if you have no use in an item don't need it.

Verilazic said...

Nice to hear there are a few people out there trying to make good out of a bad system.

Focus on the flaws in the system. That's more useful than focusing on the weaknesses in individuals' decisions.

Post a Comment

Comments in posts older than 21 days will be moderated to prevent spam. Comments in posts younger than 21 days will be checked for ID.

Powered by Blogger.