Am I the only one not worried about Loot trading?

[Tankshow-whisperwind (Tankshow)]

Yes
10 Characters

[Mogar-stormrage (Mogar)]

@Fesz-cenarius

@Luceron-thunderlord

I just think that adding little mechanics to the system could go a long way in alleviating some concerns.

I’d be more willing to compromise on this, say if you could only “need” on items that a player could equip. Doesn’t solve everything, but why would or should you be able to need on an item you can’t use? Simple logic. It automatically eliminates the possibility of some mistakes and malicious behavior without drawbacks.

IMO, a far better “compromise” would be that any need roll automatically binds the item to the winner so that item can no longer be traded. This should, IMO, opinion include BOP iems, BOE items and BOU items, such as recipes/patterns.

This should eliminate the “four friends rolling to give one of them a better chance of winning”.

In addition to that, it was well after vanilla that classes were restricted to a single armor type or even gained bonuses for only using their “preferred” armor type.

Your suggested compromise would still allow warriors to roll on all types of armor, while mages, priests and warlocks could only roll on one type. Warriors could roll on almost any weapon, as well.

Then GMs will get tickets saying people accidentally needed on gear, and can you please trade this item to that person. And we’re back at square one.

[Ehma-korgath]

@Fesz-cenarius

IMO, a far better “compromise” would be that any need roll automatically binds the item to the winner so that item can no longer be traded. This should, IMO, opinion include BOP iems, BOE items and BOU items, such as recipes/patterns.

This should eliminate the “four friends rolling to give one of them a better chance of winning”.

In addition to that, it was well after vanilla that classes were restricted to a single armor type or even gained bonuses for only using their “preferred” armor type.

Your suggested compromise would still allow warriors to roll on all types of armor, while mages, priests and warlocks could only roll on one type. Warriors could roll on almost any weapon, as well.

There is only one issue I see with this… Groups could find a way around this by saying “We are using masterloot just so no one ninjas something they don’t need”. Proceed to give it to the winner and trade after the dungeon/raid is over.

I think it would be better to just not have it at all and tell everyone that tickets will not be looked at so be careful on how you use masterloot/need roll.

[Fesz-cenarius]

@Mogar-stormrage

@Fesz-cenarius

@Luceron-thunderlord

I just think that adding little mechanics to the system could go a long way in alleviating some concerns.

I’d be more willing to compromise on this, say if you could only “need” on items that a player could equip. Doesn’t solve everything, but why would or should you be able to need on an item you can’t use? Simple logic. It automatically eliminates the possibility of some mistakes and malicious behavior without drawbacks.

IMO, a far better “compromise” would be that any need roll automatically binds the item to the winner so that item can no longer be traded. This should, IMO, opinion include BOP iems, BOE items and BOU items, such as recipes/patterns.

This should eliminate the “four friends rolling to give one of them a better chance of winning”.

In addition to that, it was well after vanilla that classes were restricted to a single armor type or even gained bonuses for only using their “preferred” armor type.

Your suggested compromise would still allow warriors to roll on all types of armor, while mages, priests and warlocks could only roll on one type. Warriors could roll on almost any weapon, as well.

Then GMs will get tickets saying people accidentally needed on gear, and can you please trade this item to that person. And we’re back at square one.

Then maybe Blizzard needs to say “We’re not getting involved in ‘looting mistakes’. We’re not going to enable the very loophole we wanted to plug.” and then stick to that policy.

[Mogar-stormrage (Mogar)]

Absolutely. Let the players sort it out, and certainly don’t give them the means to manipulate the system (loot trading).

[Fesz-cenarius]

@Ehma-korgath

@Fesz-cenarius

IMO, a far better “compromise” would be that any need roll automatically binds the item to the winner so that item can no longer be traded. This should, IMO, opinion include BOP iems, BOE items and BOU items, such as recipes/patterns.

This should eliminate the “four friends rolling to give one of them a better chance of winning”.

In addition to that, it was well after vanilla that classes were restricted to a single armor type or even gained bonuses for only using their “preferred” armor type.

Your suggested compromise would still allow warriors to roll on all types of armor, while mages, priests and warlocks could only roll on one type. Warriors could roll on almost any weapon, as well.

There is only one issue I see with this… Groups could find a way around this by saying “We are using masterloot just so no one ninjas something they don’t need”. Proceed to give it to the winner and trade after the dungeon/raid is over.

I think it would be better to just not have it at all and tell everyone that tickets will not be looked at so be careful on how you use masterloot/need roll.

If a group is using maser loot, then there should not be “four friends” rolling to give one of them a better chance of winning. If that situation arises, there would be no way to disguise it as anything but an “unfair practice” which would earn those players a bad reputation. That bad reputation could easily go beyond those players to their entire guild(s).

[Fesz-cenarius]

@Mogar-stormrage

Absolutely. Let the players sort it out, and certainly don’t give them the means to manipulate the system (loot trading).

I agree that classic would be better without loot trading and I would prefer that loot trading were not added to classic.

IF Blizzard decides that loot trading is absolutely necessary, though, making need rolls bind the item to the winner so it cannot be traded would go a long way toward curbing abuse, IMO.

[Luceron-thunderlord]

As far as clothies go, I’m not sure what to say other than working as intended.

As far as warriors go, let’s not turn this into it’s not fair you’re allowed to use said category of item, and we should all be able to screw each other equally.

Short of not having player trading at all, I’m looking for ways to reduce the possibility of mistakes, because that seems to be the driver behind Blizzard’s decision.

[Mogar-stormrage (Mogar)]

My memory is failing me. Back in Vanilla when you rolled on an item did it give you the secondary ‘This will cause the item to bind to you’ warning and you had to click OK? If so…quite frankly, I don’t see how you justify ever filling out a ticket asking a GM to sort out something someone didn’t mean to loot (which is why Blizz is adding loot trading). It clearly wasn’t an accident.

[Luceron-thunderlord]

My memory is failing also, it’s been awhile but I thought the prompt was when you were equipping a BOE item, and not on the rolls themselves. You could need or greed an item without ever receiving a prompt.

Someone can correct me If I’m wrong about this.

[Fesz-cenarius]

@Mogar-stormrage

My memory is failing me. Back in Vanilla when you rolled on an item did it give you the secondary ‘This will cause the item to bind to you’ warning and you had to click OK? If so…quite frankly, I don’t see how you justify ever filling out a ticket asking a GM to sort out something someone didn’t mean to loot (which is why Blizz is adding loot trading). It clearly wasn’t an accident.

I do not believe that secondary confirmation warning always appeared even after it was added.

[Mogar-stormrage (Mogar)]

Alright, well let’s say it didn’t exist and Blizz adds it. Now, knowing full well that certain trolls will now use that as evidence of inconsistency in authenticity, as well as a justification of all kinds of changes (funny how they acknowledge the slippery slope when it suits their needs), I wouldn’t have a problem with it. Having a little prompt pop-up that says, ‘Looting this item will cause it to become soulbound to you’ is a Hell of a lot better than loot trading.

[Killyyx-barthilas (Killyyx)]

Loot trading lfr gear just sounds hilarious to a non raider

[Luceron-thunderlord]

This could help with innocent mistakes, maybe, but will do nothing about those just needing to take possession for whatever reason.

In it’s current form, I will agree that it will help correct mistakes, but let’s be real, we know people are going to eat it from toxic players when they make honest mistakes, even if they correct their mistake by trading it back.

[Ehma-korgath]

@Fesz-cenarius

If a group is using maser loot, then there should not be “four friends” rolling to give one of them a better chance of winning. If that situation arises, there would be no way to disguise it as anything but an “unfair practice” which would earn those players a bad reputation. That bad reputation could easily go beyond those players to their entire guild(s).

Friends aren’t always in the same guild and it’s not like there is some sort of system to see if someone is friends.

[Mogar-stormrage (Mogar)]

@Luceron-thunderlord

This could help with innocent mistakes, maybe, but will do nothing about those just needing to take possession for whatever reason.

Loot trading does nothing to address that either. People are going to ninja. But loot trading encourages coordinated ninja looting, as well as ninjaing just to extort money from other group members. As well as sore losers holding the group hostage (refusing to heal, tank, do dsp, pulling packs) demanding they get the item. Essentially it appeals to the worst in people.

So what does loot trading fix? As you say, an elimination of pointless tickets created because something is accidentally looted. A verification prompt before looting serves the same purpose without all the ngatives.

[Fesz-cenarius]

@Ehma-korgath

@Fesz-cenarius

If a group is using maser loot, then there should not be “four friends” rolling to give one of them a better chance of winning. If that situation arises, there would be no way to disguise it as anything but an “unfair practice” which would earn those players a bad reputation. That bad reputation could easily go beyond those players to their entire guild(s).

Friends aren’t always in the same guild and it’s not like there is some sort of system to see if someone is friends.

If the group is using master looter, the “need” rolls should be limited to those that would actually use the item or for whom the item is an upgrade.

If the master looter allows everyone to roll then it becomes a lot more obvious that something shady is going on. It would be even more obvious if that master looter gives the item to someone other than the person winning the roll.

[Luceron-thunderlord]

I’m on your side about everything you’ve said. Instead of one ninja, you could be dealing with several. It just opens up a lot of other potentially negative behavior, some which you touched on.

[Galdor-maelstrom (Galdor)]

How about, instead of an annoying prompt (unless a menu option to turn it off would exist) we just say tough luck? No loot trading, no prompt; Blizzard puts a disclaimer on the ticket screen that says: “The GM ticket system is not to be used to request mislooted items be traded between individuals. Abuse of the GM ticket system may result in account penalties.”

How many people really care this much about the small chance that something will be mislooted in a video game that is likely to exist in a perpetual state, after the final content release happens? You’ll have more chances to loot your Devout shoulders people, you really will!

[Ehma-korgath]

@Fesz-cenarius

If the group is using master looter, the “need” rolls should be limited to those that would actually use the item or for whom the item is an upgrade.

If the master looter allows everyone to roll then it becomes a lot more obvious that something shady is going on. It would be even more obvious if that master looter gives the item to someone other than the person winning the roll.

Yes but this would be a player driven rule and not a blizzard one, so it could still be exploited without repercussions from blizzard because it would be technically following blizzard rules. I personally think it would be best to scrap the loot trading, and tell everyone “if you mess up the roll it’s on you”.

But in the event that loot trading is already set in stone then yeah… I feel like they need to at least put something like what you suggested in place to minimize the ninjas