Ninja looted by Zoolex

[Daldolma]

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

And so is the group, in terms of "Need Before Greed".



Exactly. But that suddenly wasn't good enough for the group. Suddenly, the "NBG" got further refined to melees only without the druid knowing.

If the druid had known the group's definition of "need" was melees only up front, a) he probably wouldn't have rolled, creating this situation in the first place, and b) he could have decided at that point that the group wasn't for him. In which case, as someone said above, good luck getting any healers to join in your PUG if they have zero chance at rolling on the rare droppable item that they can sell for something they could use.

The fundamental issue is that "need" is subjectively defined. The druid genuinely felt he "needed" the ring. Who are we to judge on that? Maybe he needs the STR for encumberance issues. Maybe he needs the 10 AC for some damage mitigation while he's playing ghetto CC by rootparking or to take a few hits before an evac, I don't know. And we don't know either.

Hence the problem with "NBG" rolls in pickup groups...

I get your point, and it'd hold water in a lot of NBG debates, and it's a good reason why NBG shouldn't generally be used. But this isn't one of those situations. This is a druid calling 'need' on a 10ac, +7str ring. It's horseshit, and everyone in the group knew it. Limiting that ring to melees for NBG isn't some arbitrary distinction. It'd be like limiting GEBs to casters. I'm sure a paladin could un-equip his boots and claim he needs the 5ac and 9 wisdom upgrade, but we all know that that's not a legitimate example of NBG. There really isn't any ambiguity in this case, or the GEBs example.

There is ambiguity as to who really 'needs' certain items. This isn't one of them.

[rsynweap84]

Ok screw need shit, fact of the matter is:

Stupid guy says anyone can roll.
Stupid guy loses roll.
Stupid queer then ninja's the drop.
And then some of you idiots defend the ninja.

Srsly some of you should be the poster children for abortion, curse your wretched wench mothers for having you!

[Daldolma]

Where does he say anyone can roll? He said 'roll if you want' in an NBG group, where everyone knew it was an NBG group. He lost the roll to a druid that didn't have a rightful roll, then "ninja looted" an item that nobody else should have rolled for. The only person butt-hurt is the druid that tried to claim need on a 10ac, 7 strength ring. Nobody else in the group was upset by the "ninja looting". In fact, two of the people from the group have posted defending Zoolex in this very thread.

You've literally got everyone in the group on one side of this argument, and then a druid claiming need on a 10ac, 7str ring on the other. If nothing else, wouldn't you guys agree that the people in the group would be in a better position to know?

Like I said, the group should have just disallowed the roll. It's not "ninja looting" if the majority of the group agrees you should get the item, based on the group's pre-established rules. It's democracy. Like America. And I for one am not going to stand here and listen to you bad mouth the good people of the United States of America.

[baalzy]

trade-able items should always be greed roll in non-guild group situations.

Period, everyone fighting contributed to making it drop therefore everyone deserves a chance at it.

[Daldolma]

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

trade-able items should always be greed roll in non-guild group situations.

Period, everyone fighting contributed to making it drop therefore everyone deserves a chance at it.

That's your opinion. The majority of the group apparently disagreed. If the majority of the group votes NBG, it's NBG. If that's a problem for someone, they can leave -- but they can't bullshit 'need'.

Can't believe how many people are defending a druid claiming 'need' on a 10ac, +7 strength ring, even after two of the other members from the group come and claim Zoolex was in the right. There was no ambiguity over whether or not this was an NBG group -- put that out of your minds. Everyone knew it was NBG, including the druid. Two non-Zoolex members of the group have already posted in this thread confirming as much, despite the fact that it's obvious from the group-chat.

The only issue is whether or not the druid had the right to roll 'need' on this ring. He obviously didn't. Dude is just greedy.

[nalkin]

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]

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

[Daldolma]

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.

[Daldolma]

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?

[justin6764]

Basically your trying to lie your way out of this I see.