Officers' Quarters: More loot-rolling shenanigans

Last week, I addressed a situation where a married couple who leads a guild were using the old double-rolling scam to get extra loot for each other. Normally I don't like to address the same topic two weeks in a row, but based on some of the comments from that post and the following e-mail that I received, some people still don't get why this is a problem.
So here we go again!
I read your article and while I understand it I disagree in principle. Myself (holy priest) and one of our other guild officers(Lock) routinely run in pugs for 25 Naxx, we have on several occasions rolled for gear that neither of us need. Why? Long story short, we do not need the gear but we also try to make sure than one of our less geared guildies in cloth is along for the ride, and now that we can trade the stuff to them we can use three rolls per item to help them gear up faster. We are not selling the stuff to them merely giving it to them so they can gear up faster. If I do not need gear from the raid and niether does the lock, there is a reason we are there, I don't have a problem with it and would not have any problem with anyone else doing the same thing, in fact I would commend them on the efforts on their behalf to help their guildmates.
The only time I have an issue with loot distribution is when it is a straight ninja job, player looses a roll and still gets an item or there is no roll at all and Lootmaster gives it to someone anyhow.
You're welcome to disagree with me, and I appreciate that you and another officer are willing to help out a guildmate by pugging Naxx with him or her.
I have two questions for you, however.
- Are you telling the other members of the PUG that you are doing this?
- If so, do these players agree to it?
It doesn't matter why you're stealing loot. Just because you're trying to help out a friend doesn't make it right. You're still stealing from other players. And if you're not telling them what you're doing (which I have to assume you're not), you're also lying about it. It's a lie of omission, but that's a far cry from honesty.
In fact, a ninja like the one you describe at least has the decency to steal loot openly and face the consequences. You're stealing loot behind other players' backs while pretending that everything's on the level. Which is worse?
You are intentionally manipulating the random element of the situation so that one person is three times as likely to receive loot as anyone else. It's completely unfair to the remaining players in the raid, who aren't aware of the circumstances. They're being honest, and they're being robbed. Sure, you three may not always win the rolls, but that doesn't change the fact that you're loading the dice.
If there's a loot cap in place, which is often the case for 25-player PUGs, you are also circumventing that rule.
Any way you slice it, unless you've expressly asked permission from the raid to roll this way, what you're doing is underhanded and dishonest.
I would strongly encourage you (and everyone else out there who might be pulling these scams) to stop before you ruin the reputation of your guild. Sooner or later someone is going to inspect you and question why you're rolling on a Naxx item when you're wearing Tier 9 in that slot.
You'll have to come clean, and your guild will be exposed as cheats. Word will spread. Players on your realm may not accept your members into PUGs anymore, and then no one in your guild will be able to gear up that way.
Is it worth all that grief just for some Naxx gear for one person? You'd be better off in the long run helping that player run Heroics for badges. He or she will get much better gear for their efforts and, considering you can run Heroics every day instead of once per week, that player could potentially gear up a lot faster, too.
The alternative is a world where PUGs are loaded up with 5 players who need gear and 20 players who are just there to roll for them. Nobody wants that, so knock it off!
/salute
Filed under: Officers' Quarters (Guild Leadership)
Patch 5.2 interview with Dave Kosak
Inside an old alt's vault
The latest patch 5.2 news
All of the latest Mists of Pandaria news





Reader Comments (Page 5 of 12)
Malchome Nov 2nd 2009 1:23PM
Actually Blizzard has stated that everyone who is present for a kill has a right to the loot. It is only via the "culture" societal precedents that we think otherwise. That is the whole problem with "random" - lottery loot.
If you don't like it grump at Blizzard.
The fact that they now allow you to trade items between people eligible to receive the loot makes the comments and authors views, while the majority, also wrong. Or only correct based upon the view of the world and game they have chosen to see.
They did not modify the chance of anyone else in the raid getting that gear. Everyone had a 1/10 or 1/25 chance. If people chose to not roll that is still does not make it not 1/10 or 1/25 in all actuality. It may appear to be 1/(x-1) chance but it does not mean that they did not have a right to the loot.
I hate the loot system as it is, I would rather see completely tokenized gear for every slot from every dungeon. Maybe have 1 other thing drop from each boss as a bonus but it should not be the main way to acquire gear. Blizz finally seems to be going that way with Tier gear now it just needs to be taken a step farther.
SmokeTheBear Nov 2nd 2009 1:38PM
Blizzard never said anyone has "a right" to the loot. They said anyone who is present is "eligible" for the loot, and the difference is enormous. They don't ever endorse any loot policy, and specifically suggest that players discuss loot distribution systems when they join a group.
In fact, the wording of the announcement of the feature (see here: http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=19045695787&sid=1) suggests that it's more likely the change had more to do with the mountainous load of requests for customer service reps (GMs) to redistribute the loot after it was given to the wrong person than with any endorsement (implied or explicit) of any particular idea of loot "rights."
Koren Nov 2nd 2009 2:00PM
Not to be rude but this is bollocks. Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD.
And also, people do not get judged by the system that is in place but by the people making up (unwritten) rules we like to call society or community. So if the community at large thinks that "need is for needing and greed is for greeding/offspec" than this is simply a ninja.
To try and make an example: I can steal someone's purse easily if they keep it near but not on their table. Should I?
And yes, everyone's chances get hurt. If normally (say) 4 people would roll including the guildy that actually needs it: 1/4 chance. If suddenly 2 other people roll with them and would give it to their guildy: (1+2) / (4+2) = 3/6 chance. The others however would go from 1/4 chance to a 1/6 chance...
It doesn't matter how you justify this, it does not seem to fit in any kind of loot rules that have ever existed, albeit unwritten...
My 2 cents
styopa Nov 2nd 2009 1:23PM
Wow, I guess I'm odd-one-out. I wouldn't care if I was in a run and some other people did this. They're contributing to make the run faster (and despite the poo-poo'ing, it IS hard to find bigger pugs; I've gone on at least a half-dozen Ony runs that have failed), and they're just taking a normal chance, but passing the reward on to someone else.
Nope, no problem here at all with that.
styopa Nov 2nd 2009 1:25PM
Edit to the above - as long as they were rolling GREED, yes.
The one who needed it could NEED, but they should roll GREED.
catharsis80 Nov 2nd 2009 1:37PM
OK, then picture this:
You are a Mage. There are a DK and a Warrior are in the group, along with a Priest. They are all in the same guild. A piece of cloth drops that you have been running this instance/raid for quite a while to get. You roll need. Then, you see the DK, the Warrior, AND the Priest roll need. You think, "WTF?!" The warrior wins the roll. He gives it to the Priest. You're chances against the priest were 1:1, but suddenly, they've turned into 1:4.
Do you mind it now?
immaterial Nov 2nd 2009 3:16PM
@catharsis80:
The fact that one has been running the dungeon many times is immaterial. That is the nature of /roll. You will also note that the letter-writer only has people rolling on items for which they're eligible, as in clothies on cloth gear.
t0xic Nov 2nd 2009 4:09PM
@immaterial
Catharsis80 illustrated a valid point, and you somehow managed to reply to the most insignificant and irrelevant portion of his post. Maybe you should be "ironic" instead.
TL;DR ninjas are ninjas (even when they justify it)
Bryroo Nov 2nd 2009 1:24PM
Honestly officer I wasn't stealing the television set. I have a bigger screen t.v. at home I don't even need it but I am giving it to a friend. He doesn't have one and I wanted to help out.
catharsis80 Nov 2nd 2009 2:23PM
The best ways to say things are with examples and pictures. :) Kudos.
metaphor Nov 2nd 2009 3:16PM
I agree with the moral of this metaphor, but it isn't applicable to the situation.
Your metaphor in WoW terms is this: One person (store owner) acquires loot (TV) in some way. Another person (thief) hacks into his account (store) and takes the loot.
This situation is more like the following: 10 people decide to put together a TV. The TV is awesome, and they decide to randomly give it to one person. Bob puts his name in the hat and he wins the TV. Since he has a better TV at home, he gives his winnings to a friend.
Mpmagi Nov 2nd 2009 1:33PM
The math disagrees with the author of this article.
http://blessingofkings.blogspot.com/2009/09/is-fairness-relative-or-absolute.html
Dave Nov 2nd 2009 1:55PM
This is a different probability game than the BOK example. In that one, presumably, Wendy, Daisy, and Patricia COULD all legitimately use the piece in question, meaning Wendy is still properly rolling and using a piece when Patricia has the second highest roll. This scenario reads a bit differently when Wendy shouldn't be rolling at all.
In the letter's situation, Patricia and Daisy should both have a 50/50 chance at the piece. With Wendy's involvement, Patricia's drops to 1/3 and Daisy's rises to 2/3.
That all said, I would have no issue whatsoever if the letter's author's actions were above board. Naxx PUGs have become a gigantic cesspool, especially since 3.2 dropped. It typically takes a few OP/pro players to do the few tough jobs (zombies on Gluth, MC on Instructor) who get little reward for their service (typically the emblem returns aren't worth the trouble and they could use at most one piece off KT for a special stat stacking spec). For their service to the PUG, it would only be fair that they be able to roll to help out a guildy. That said, it should be above the board.
Tyrannius Nov 2nd 2009 1:53PM
Mpmagi, the scenario presented in Blessing of Kings is not the same as the one being presented in Officers' Quarters. Different scenarios = different math. The key sentence in Blessing of Kings' article is the following "(By passing, I mean Wendy chooses to nullify her roll if and only if Daisy is the second-highest roller.)"
Where as here, the key sentence is "now that we can trade the stuff to them we can use three rolls per item to help them gear up faster." You can't apply the same math when the scenarios don't match.
Wellsee Nov 2nd 2009 1:59PM
Um, wrong. That article has 3 people rolling on gear, and yes, Patricia has a 33% chance of getting the loot even if Wendy gives her chance to Daisy. The scenario presented in this article differs in that the number of rollers changes, which changes the odds. If Daisy and Patricia were the only ones rolling, then Patricia would have a 50% chance. Once Wendy jumps in (to give it to Daisy), then Patricia's chance drops from 50 to 33, which obviously is a reduction in her chances.
Zerbe Nov 2nd 2009 1:26PM
Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle.
Rob Nov 2nd 2009 1:31PM
Another thing to note in this situation.
If I accept someone in a PUG, and I clearly see they are geared higher than the RAID they're PUGging, I'm going to make an assumption they're going to pass on most of the rolls, because they don't need the gear. I'm assuming they're running to get badges, or other rare drops.
To then have them rolling on items misrepresents why they're there. Sure, I'm making an assumption about them, but they're making the same assumption about whether or not I'd mind them Ninja'ing loot in this manner.
Communication of intent is vitally important to avoid misunderstandings, and outright dishonesty. No better example than people PUGging daily summons (like Headless Horseman), claiming they have a summons, then suddenly it's their turn, and they leave the party. That's a Ninja move too.
Xeroxis Nov 2nd 2009 1:27PM
well i dont do that but can tell u very good exuse for doing so if cought... I AM GEARING UP FOR ALGALON WITH 226 GEAR !!!
raspybunk Nov 2nd 2009 1:29PM
Wow, how could someone really convince themselves that those actions were ok. How is that fair to the people in the pug that don't have 2 extra people to roll with them and are rolling vs. 3 instead of vs. 1.
Stuckinhouston Nov 2nd 2009 1:34PM
I do believe the letter writer thought they were doing a good thing. Hopefully after reading the article they will have changed their minds.
Well this just goes to show some of the issues that have come up from the new option on passing loot. I believe it is a good thing if used correctly, but this just shows how people can exploit it.
I will make a note that going forward, I will inspect people. There is also an add on called "Gear Score" that I think will be a good tool to use on how well someone is geared. If their score is really high, you would know that they have no use for Naxx 10/25 gear. Better yet and I realize it will be a pain, but have the person link what they will be replacing that item with.