Patch 3.2: Misloot tickets to be a thing of the past
by Michael Sacco 
Jun 23rd 2009 at 4:30PM
Amidst the datamined changes to the game coming in Patch 3.2, a small detail caught my eye -- an item trait similar to the one that lets you trade back an item to a vendor if you bought it with an alternate currency (like Badges). This one, though, stated the following:
BIND_TRADE_TIME_REMAINING = "You may trade this item with players that were also eligible to loot this item for the next %s.";
Does this mean what I think it means? Yes. It does. If your raid leader or master looter accidentally gives an item to the wrong person, that person can trade it to someone else within a short window of time. This should effectively eliminate the category of "oh crap" misloot petitions, which remain a huge headache, both in terms of amount of petitions and workload involved, for Blizzard Support -- and this is coming from someone who worked on them a lot back in the day.
Now, of course, there could still be issues, so I imagine that Blizzard will keep the lines of communication open, much like they did with alternate currency refunds, though to a smaller degree. Giving players the ability to fix their (or someone else's) mistakes is always risky, but this has the best of intentions behind it -- less hassle for players, less hassle for GMs -- so I fully support it and hope that we continue to see changes like this.
Blizzard hasn't officially announced the change, though I get the feeling that they will shortly. Still, don't be too surprised if the feature gets delayed for tweaks. Better that it works later than breaks sooner.
Patch 3.2 will bring about a new 5, 10, and 25 man instance to WoW, and usher in a new 40-man battleground called the Isle of Conquest. WoW.com will have you covered every step of the way, from extensive PTR coverage through the official live release. Check out WoW.com's Guide to Patch 3.2 for all the latest!Filed under: Patches
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
MikeOQuinn Jun 24th 2009 4:31PM
Knowing several folks who have reached their item-transfer cap, this
will be very nice for the error-prone raid leads (and the folks who
run with them).
rudemented2 Jun 24th 2009 4:35PM
Hmm I foresee this happening a lot then:
Guildy A rolls - 5
Pug rolls - 55
Guildy B (who wasn't going to roll until he saw Guildy A lose) rolls - 95
Master Looter gives Guildy B the loot
Guild B secretly gives Guildy A the loot he should have lost.
Pug loses hardcore.
Michael Sacco Jun 24th 2009 4:35PM
I anticipate there'll be a raid alert when the trade happens.
DesertFox82 Jun 24th 2009 4:52PM
Guildy B could just as easily roll a 50, and still lose. And as Michael says, I would assume trades will continue to be announced. If this becomes the new trend, at least the Guildwatch column will get more fodder.
Worcester Jun 24th 2009 4:58PM
This came up a few months ago when a couple of friends leveraged a roll to get an item. It better be a raid-wide announcement.
Treason Jun 24th 2009 4:59PM
They most definitely need to email everyone who was in the lockout whenever this happens to prevent exactly that abuse.
dpoyesac Jun 24th 2009 5:07PM
But here's what happens now:
Guildie A rolls a 5
Pug rolls a 55
RL & Master Looter (in the same guild with guildie A) "Oh crap! I gave it to the wrong guy! Well, we'll just open a ticket and transfer it..."
And the Pug waits until the end of time waiting for the fictitious ticket to be resolved...
Yeah this new system is open to its own forms of abuse. The question is whether the NEW abuses will be worse than the OLD abuses -- and I suspect they won't.
Sylas Jun 24th 2009 5:17PM
How is this different from guildy B just opening a ticket to have a GM transfer it to A?
Ali Jun 24th 2009 5:27PM
Well if the item becomes soul bound on the first transfer then that problem goes away. Only allow one pass the parcel. Hopefully this is how it will be implemented.
Graham Ribchester Jul 7th 2009 3:02PM
rudemented2, this already happens under the current system, only it takes a ticket to do it.
rudemented2 Jul 7th 2009 3:08PM
@Graham Ribchester
Not nearly to the scale that this change will allow for. If you were to do this on a daily basis like this change allows you do to...you would get flagged by the GM's and eventually refused since it is clear you are up to no good and causing them loads of unnecessary work.
Mirosatan (Terokkar) Jun 24th 2009 9:14PM
The initial constraint in a pug is whether players need an item or not. So long as players who legitimately need the item are allowed to roll, losing players won't be disadvantaged.
Your odds of winning are 1/universe of players who need the item. If the player who needs the item and wins decides to give it to someone else who needs it, then anyone who lost should be indifferent to who ultimately gets the item. Their odds aren't diminished--it's just that someone else's increased.
This thread proves that people are incapable of seeing past their own jealousies, though:
http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=17367760771&sid=1
rudemented2 Jun 29th 2009 4:55PM
I followed your link and read your post. While I see your logic where unfortunately many others did not you yourself missed a critical part of my post. All of your examples cited "opening the letters simultaneously". You cited it that way, whether purposely or not, for a reason. Ethically speaking if all letters were opened at the same time one could conclude that anyone opening an envelope has some personal vested interest in what is inside. My only question to you with that roll you made is...when did you decide to give the gloves to your friend? Before you rolled and won or after? Ethically it makes a difference.
My post points out the possibility of an unethical roll where guildy B didn't decide to roll until after he saw guildy A lose. Since the game does not allow for simultaneous rolling it opens the door for unethical rolls.
Recite your last example with the envelopes but instead don't have them opened simultaneously. Have them opened one at a time with 1 person not wanting to open their envelope cause they are on a diet and don't want the cookies anyhow. Calculate the odds of winning for everyone. Now...have that person change their mind after seeing who lost and who won...and then decide to open their envelope as well. Not because they had a vested interest of what was inside...but instead because the didn't want the person who should have won...to be the winner. Recalculate the odds of everyone winning now. The odds are now different because of an unethical decision.
Knyle2 Jun 25th 2009 6:57AM
Why not just change the Master Loot system? Are you sure? are you really sure? "XXXX is trying to loot you the Torch of holy fire, Do you accept?"
Wouldn't that be easier?