Ninja looted by Zoolex - Page 6

nalkin · #1 04-10-2011, 10:53 PM

To me, the druid has just as much right to call NBG as the tank. The druid sees a ring drop, would make his character better than it is (encumbrance is a biotch)... seems like a respectable claim to need. And if the tank has even the cheap 5ac/55hp rings, then the GER would probably be a downgrade or for arguments sake, less of an upgrade than for the druid.

Anyway, everyone quit with the dumb NBG unless with your guild or friends like Yendor said. Remember it like this: PUG = Thug, Mate = Donate

justin6764 · #2 04-10-2011, 11:00 PM

it's the same guy (probably zoolex him self or real life friend) trying to defend it

Daldolma · #3 04-10-2011, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justin6764 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

it's the same guy (probably zoolex him self or real life friend) trying to defend it

It's two different people from the group -- Bargearse on page one, and Shri on page two. Now he's not just a ninja looter, but also a 3-boxer?

Why do I have a sneaking suspicion that it was also Zoolex who stole the cookies from the cookie jar?

Daldolma · #4 04-10-2011, 11:04 PM

Haha, you've got to be kidding. I don't know if you guys know this druid or something, but I can't believe you're claiming 10ac, 7str is a legitimate NBG for a druid. It's the highest AC ring in the game, and strength is relevant for every melee -- it's legitimate for a tank to roll NBG on it.

Whatever, this is silly. The ring ended up with the right person, and the rest of the group has his back. Guess that's all that matters.

All I know is that if I were playing a druid in an NBG group and a GER dropped, I'd never claim need, and I'm genuinely shocked that there is a significant number of people that would. Poor form, P99.

nalkin · #5 04-10-2011, 11:17 PM

The logic behind having a NBG group on an item worth 4k is way worse than the logic behind a druid (with no rings) claiming need on a +STR ring.

justin6764 · #6 04-10-2011, 11:23 PM

Just saw zoolex taking the boat to Ecommons hmmmmm now is logged off after being in Ecommon for 10 min? sounds like he selling it on an alt to me

Daldolma · #7 04-10-2011, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nalkin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The logic behind having a NBG group on an item worth 4k is way worse than the logic behind a druid (with no rings) claiming need on a +STR ring.

It doesn't matter. The logic of doing NBG isn't the debate here. The group had previously established the fact that they would NBG the ring. It was a static condition of the group.

If you're going to defend a druid rolling need on a 10ac, +7 strength ring, I guess that's a matter of opinion. I don't see it. I think it's exceptionally greedy, I'd never do it, and I'd 100% agree with Zoolex if I was in the group when this happened. And as it turns out, the rest of the group does seem to agree with Zoolex. So I guess there's that.

YendorLootmonkey · #8 04-11-2011, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I guess that's a matter of opinion. I don't see it. I think it's exceptionally greedy, I'd never do it

I happen to agree that if I were a druid, I probably would not have rolled in that situation. But again, the concept of "need" is subjective. And maybe I was just in a PUG who NBG'd some +WIS stuff and a melee rolled on and won it because it also had +HP and was an upgrade for him. You never know what the individual situation is.

Are PUGs defaulting T-staffs to Monks now as a general rule? Just wondering.

YendorLootmonkey · #9 04-12-2011, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YendorLootmonkey [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Are PUGs defaulting T-staffs to Monks now as a general rule? Just wondering.

nalkin · #10 04-11-2011, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It doesn't matter. The logic of doing NBG isn't the debate here. The group had previously established the fact that they would NBG the ring. It was a static condition of the group.

If you're going to defend a druid rolling need on a 10ac, +7 strength ring, I guess that's a matter of opinion. I don't see it. I think it's exceptionally greedy, I'd never do it, and I'd 100% agree with Zoolex if I was in the group when this happened. And as it turns out, the rest of the group does seem to agree with Zoolex. So I guess there's that.

Well I agree that the logic of NBG isn't up for debate. Though one could argue the point that perhaps the group wasn't NBG given his statement of "if you want GER roll". But supposing that it was a NBG group the argument is whether the druid has claim to "need". Statistically the rings were probably worse for the tank or negligible than what he had and they at least equal to negligible for the druid. So why not claim need.

I Don't see how a group member investing time into a group gets the tag "greedy" when wanting a fair shot at a valuable item which he worked for as equally as the tank did. While the Tank is not greedy for wanting outright loot privileges.