Officers' Quarters: Ultimatum
by Scott Andrews 
Jan 18th 2010 at 1:00PM
I see this happen all too often when Blizzard releases a new tier of raiding: People get terribly impatient with loot. They want the new loot, and they want it now. They somehow forget that, eventually, if they keep attending raids, they'll get everything they want and then some. This week showcases a prime example of this, but also a set of loot rules that perhaps aren't working very well.
Dear Scott,
I'm in a relatively small horde guild consisting of about 15 core members. One of my best real life friends is in the guild, and they've all been together since WoW classic. I came on the scene in march, and have been very active ever since. I help put together raids, all that jazz. We've been progressing quite well through ICC 10 (what blizzard will allow us to currently at least).
The other night, we downed Marrowgar, and Citadel Enforcer's Claymore drops. I was currently using Tyrannical Beheader from POS, and rolled a 61. A fellow pally rolled a 79. He was using Orca Hunter's Harpoon from HOR. I was the Master Looter. After much begging and pleading, I looted the sword to the pally.
The problem: Our looting rules have always been based in Loot Council. IE, our "Raid Leader" (coincidentally my RL friend), has always been the one to decide who really gets an item or not. This has always been the way it was, ever since I could last remember. The paladin is a great dude, and a good raider, but no where near as active or as much of a contributor to the guild as I have been as of late (since I came on the scene). Not only this, but the weapon was an equal upgrade for the both of us, I do about 500 dps more regardless, and to top it all off, he has been tank spec mainspec as of until that night. (A spec he chose reluctantly, so I was told, but his mainspec all the same). I'd done my time, lost my fair share of weapons, all with a smile on my face, but after losing a huge upgrade to a pally who I already did more dps than, and whose mainspec was most recently tank, I had had enough.
I finished the raid without saying a word, then brought it up afterwards in officer chat, basically saying that I was done raiding with them if I was going to be so blatantly overlooked. (Our "raid leader" and our GM, the ones usually backing the loot council, were silent at the time the sword dropped). The paladin then invited me to a group, and explained that the hassle wasn't worth the sword, and to just take it. Evidently he'd been screwed out of loot countless times in the past (or so he feels), and that him being tank mainspec was purely for raid utility, and that he'd always wanted to dps. I was humbled by the act, and accepted the sword.
Now however, I feel terrible. Like I guilted him out of a weapon, even though it in all aspects should have gone to me. Was I in the right or in the wrong here? Like I said, we currently do a hybrid of roll/council based loot, but that was really only for TOC once we had it on farm, and loot became rather irrelevant. Now that it means raid success once again, we ought to, and likely will go back to loot council because of this.
The question: Was I in the right or in the wrong for being upset? And should I feel guilty that the pally ultimately caved and handed the sword over to me? And how should we react to this in the future? Should we be more clear about the loot council policy, or just kind of "go with the flow" roll/council that we've been using lately.
Regards,
Anonymous
Anonymous, the important question isn't whether you were right or wrong for being upset. You were upset and you can't really control that. The more important issue is what you did as a result of that emotion.
Basically, you issued an ultimatum. You said you wouldn't raid with the guild anymore unless you were awarded the loot you feel like you deserved. In doing so, you put everyone in an awkward and unfair situation.
What can your officers do at that point? They can't ask the paladin to give up the weapon. Well, maybe they did anyway, but I'm sure they didn't feel very good about it if they did. As for the paladin, whether he was asked to or not, he gave you the sword, and he probably won't forget that for a while. That's going to rankle.
The bottom line is that the weapon was awarded to him fairly based on your current loot rules, from what I understand. You did, in fact, guilt him out of it.
By giving you the sword, he acted in the best interest of the guild. He tried to resolve the drama and keep you in the guild. With a guild as small as yours, every raider lost is a big deal. Yes, he could have passed the sword to you, but if he intended to use it for raiding -- and if your officers allowed him to change his main spec to dps -- then he had a right to it. Your officers clearly didn't feel like his attendance issues were a determining factor.
On the other hand, you acted only in the best interest of yourself. And you should feel bad about it. Did you think this was the last weapon that would ever drop from ICC? It sounds like you were very happy with the guild before this incident. Was it worth all this drama, these hard feelings for one piece of loot?
I'm grateful to you for writing in with this issue and highlighting the problem, because it's a good thing for people to see what can happen. So I'm sorry for teeing off on you here, but it's exactly this selfish behavior that drives officers nuts.
You need to make this right. You can't return the sword now. I'm not sure even a GM would be able to award the sword to the paladin at this point, though it's something you could look into if you want to. Beyond that, you owe the paladin and your officers an apology. In the future, if you have an issue with the way loot is awarded, a rational discussion is preferable to threats.
Now, the other issue here is your loot system. I don't understand your "loot council with rolling" hybrid rules here. Do people roll and then, if the officers don't like the outcome, they step in and change it? If so, that's pretty weak. I do think you'd be better off using one system or the other.
I'm not a huge fan of loot council. since it results in the "begging and pleading" you describe. If your loot council makes decisions on who begs the hardest, that's pretty demeaning to your raiders. It also leads to these feelings that both of you have right now that you've been repeatedly "screwed out of loot." But then, so does rolling. At least in those cases, however, players blame their luck more often than the officers.
Regardless of what your officers decide to do, they should certainly make sure everyone understands how your loot system works. If they go with loot council, they need to spell out their reasons for awarding loot to one player over another. Otherwise, no one is going to be happy.
For all those ICC raiders out there, I urge you to be patient with loot. Before you issue an ultimatum or gquit over loot, ask yourself if that one item is really worth it.
/salute
Send Scott your guild-related questions, conundrums, ideas, and suggestions at scott@wow.com. You may find your question the subject of next week's Officers' Quarters!Filed under: Officers' Quarters (Guild Leadership)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 7)
Hansbo Jan 18th 2010 1:10PM
Loot council works great on paper, but eventually there will be bias. If you're an officer and you hear a friend complain to you about how little loot he has received, or how good a player he has been lately, it's bound to affect said officer, unconsciously or not.
And also, I pretty much agree with everything Scott said.
Darias Jan 18th 2010 1:40PM
We use Loot Council, but we rotate members of the council each raid. Anyone who is on the council and eligible for loot has to abstain from voting and an officer takes their place.
It has worked extremely well for us since WotLK came out and has sped up our runs and evened out our gear as a raid as opposed to the DKP setup we used in TBC and Vanilla.
toddcore Jan 18th 2010 2:08PM
Based on your comment should we assume that you have an intimate understanding of every individual person on the planet? You (and some others in later comments) make some pretty sweeping judgments and generalizations.
In fact, it's quite possible, and perhaps even likely, that many guilds using a loot council decided to do so because they felt like it was the most efficient system available and least likely to cause drama *based on the personalities of the officers and members*.
For many groups the loot systems that remove human judgment and input are likely to cause more drama and hard feelings. Consider:
* /Roll. Is random chance a fair way to distribute loot? It doesn't consider performance, attitude, loot history, need of the player, or prior contributions.
* DKP. In addition to not being considerate of player performance, margin of upgrade, and loot history, pure DKP presents other challenges. How do you limit the point ceiling? If you don't then new members coming in will be at a disheartening disadvantage. How do you address price inflation/deflation? IE, items needed by two or more people will always cost the winner substantially more DKP than an item only needed by one person, even if the player receives an equal benefit from each item. How about point hoarding?
* EPGP. Essentially just a loot rotation, assuming everyone maintains equal attendance. Every EPGP system I've ever personally seen used resulted in people passing on substantial upgrades in order to ensure they won some other item later on. When your loot system discourages people from taking upgrades I don't think it's doing you any good.
There are others, but the problems are similar. You might say "We don't let people pass on upgrades in our EPGP system.", or "We don't let people stockpile more than X amount of DKP." or "Items always cost at least X points." But what is that really? It's a decision made by guild leadership to control distribution of loot, and if that's what you're going to do then why not eliminate the pretense of a system and just call it what it is?
If the officers in your guild are so selfish and shortsighted that you genuinely believe they'd prioritize personal friendships over the best interests of the group then they will do that with other policies and in other situations regardless, and the best things for you to do is leave and find a guild with more competent leadership.
Hansbo Jan 18th 2010 2:31PM
Haha, cool your jets :) I am well aware of the fact that loot council can work. I've been in a guild where it worked quite excellently. But to deny that there will be bias is just silly. Everyone is biased, and only a system free from such bias (such as /roll or a well constructed DKP system) can be consistently fair.
Those systems do, as you say, have their disadvantages as well, so if the officers are good and capable, the small bias that will surely appear due to unconscious favouritism can be a small price to pay for efficiency.
Knid Jan 18th 2010 2:48PM
Loot council works if two situations are true.
1) the council is mature in how they treat their members and in their understanding of the game, gear that comes in, etc.
2) The council knows where upgrades need to be allocated.
The first one encompasses the ebb and flow of the game and the RL influence. The second is how to apply the most benefit when considering level of upgrade as well as veteran status.
ryang Jan 18th 2010 6:07PM
To remove the issue of people getting feelings hurt/begging/etc, why not run loot council, but insist that it's an internal rolling system at play.
ie. Inform all members that if they want an item to whisper the RL. RL says they will /roll {x} where {x} is the number of people that whispered, and the winner will receive the item. Meanwhile, have your loot council discuss who the winner should be and just give it to them, informing the raid that they won the roll.
Smoke and mirrors at it's best. However, your loot council members will obviously know otherwise. :P
Sleutel Jan 18th 2010 7:11PM
A true loot council works fine (and is, in fact, the best system of all--every DKP system is just an attempt to come as close as possible to a good LC), as long as your (a) loot council and (b) raiders are made up of (c) mature people.
The problem here seems to be, as observed, that the guild in question is doing some ass-backwards loot-council-cum-roll thing. Either /roll and stick with it, or LC and decide each piece of loot piece by piece. Don't /roll and then hand the item to the person you like the best--that's just asking for drama, like the selfish whiner who submitted this question.
Walynds Jan 19th 2010 12:50AM
Ive ofter passed loot for others in raids.
Ive never had loot passed to me. I even passed on the 10man Deathwhisper chest to a PUG pally tank to give us a sporting chances at the other bosses. I can't help but feel had the situation been reversed, another guilds MT would not have been so nice.
I see both sides of this argument. Im a reluctant tank but that horse bolted some time in ULD when I was the only plate tank and cleaned up on loot. I'd actually feel like an asshole for even asking to change specs and even hints of wanting to do so caused so much "But your an awesome tank" in /g that ill never mention it again.
If I was to go DPS and then outroll one of our regulars on the item.....sheesh.....I couldnt help but feel shafted either way and would let the loot go to someone else., but then I'm there as DPS dammit and have tanked for this guild since Naxx......
Having said that, Ill never forget being out DKPed on Ragnaros's shield in MC only for that pally to retire his toon 2 days later. Scarred for life! I just wouldn't do that.
Ratskinmahoney Jan 19th 2010 10:45AM
We used the same loot council/roll hybrid thing until recently. Basically a roll indicates interest, but the number rolled is considered irrelevant unless the two people rolling are so close in gear that noone gets a distinct advantage from the drop.
We abandoned it recently, not because any of the raid members objected - I don't think we've ever had any loot drama particularly - but because the three officers who basically comprised the loot council felt bad making these kinds of decisions. It got to the point where they were passing on loot they should blatantly have taken purely because they felt too embarrassed to decide in their own favour.
I think any system that removes the human element is going to be fairer, even if it doesn't necessarily benefit the raid quite so much. Even a straight roll works fine. When you start having people make decisions they make themselves targets, whether for pleading/threatening or simply for their own self-consciousness.
Shatteredstar Jan 19th 2010 6:53PM
I'm a fan of SKG for the exact reason of things like this
If you keep showing up you WILL win something. No ands ifs or buts. If you get loot you may not get it for a bit, but you know WHY its because you got loot.
Random should only be offspec and 'vanity' items.
Loot council encourages too much paranoia.
rawr Jan 18th 2010 1:10PM
Its crap like this i hate. You follow the loot rules and if you lose too bad. Nothing more annoying than when crap like that happens. The pally was nice and wanted to end the drama, personally i would have kept it because it was a fair win.
Seen it too many times where people lose a roll and get caught up in being a sore loser.
kabshiel Jan 18th 2010 1:42PM
I really don't even see the issue except that Anonymous is kind of an entitled brat. Not only did the paladin win the roll (if you use loot council, why are you rolling at all?), but it was also more of an upgrade for him than it was for Anon (unless I'm totally mistaken, paladins get a lot more from strength than from agility).
Nordok Jan 18th 2010 2:02PM
So what this guy is saying is that it was an equal upgrade for both Paladins, and you lost a roll and bitched about it until the other one relented. That's retarded, unless your guild sucks that sword is going to drop 20 more times.
Loot works best as following: the 10 people decide who can use it, then those people roll.
ToxicPopsicle Jan 18th 2010 2:53PM
I've been in a /roll-loot council hybrid guild where I, resto shaman, ended up winning the roll, but the pally healer got Voice of Reason because he "needed it more". Mind you, we were both using the shield of assimilation from Anub. I whispered the loot master and asked him why they thought he needed it more, and he told me it was because they thought pally healers were more gear dependent than shamans. I tried to explain that it was the other way until he admitted that the pally was a friend IRL and that he would've been pissed if I won it over him, regardless of attendance, contributions to the guild, etc.
I ended up leaving the guild some time later. I now run with a guild that pretty much does a /roll, but if the person that wins the roll sees the upgrade is greater for someone else, they usually happily hand it over. It makes for a much better environment when the idea is more to gear the guild as a whole instead of just one individual.
MightyMuffin Jan 18th 2010 5:23PM
It was a bit of a bitch session. He did lose out on the roll from what it read like. It was a nerdrage moment. We've all had them, so we shouldn't look down on him and say, "Ye heathen nerdrager who dare defy the laws of Loot Council."
I've seen people nerdrage over everything, including when i won a role in a random pug. I was in a 25man raid and I won the T9.5 gloves. I got really excited, but then a hunter whispered me saying he wanted it, badly. At first, I ignored him, but then he said he'd pay for it. I decided to just play along and see what he'd actually offer to buy it, and he started making offers. I finally said that it was unfair to sell it to him and ignore all the other raiders who also rolled for it. Of course, by talking to him, he kept asking for them 3 hours after the raid. I now know not to speak to them again.
But in this case, I won the role, he could've used it more than I could've, it was a pug, and /roll rules pugs. In guilds, our guild doesn't have a loot system since we're just a 10man guild so only 1 or 2 of us roll for upgrades at a time. I lose sometimes, yes. But I've realized that that isn't the end of the world. The upgrades we get are for the guild, always. If people started to realize that everything that occurred was to better the guild, instead of bettering the individual, people would actually be happier. That should be a new rule for all guilds: 1.) Be a mature player and 2.) All upgrades are guild property, and therefore help to better the guild. If you ever feel you deserve an upgrade over someone else, you probably aren't thinking of the guild 1st. (I suppose a loop-hole to this would be "Hey, I am thinking of the guild. This guy is a prick and will gquit the guild once he gets his phat lootz. I'm planning on staying so give me the phat lootz." But if you have mature guild leaders, you know when this loop-hole is being enacted.)
*sigh* if only the world had more mature players than immature ones...Glad my guild is full of mature players. We might even go to Blizzcon together...although I'm stuck in college so it might not work like that. Guilds that can cooperatively talk together and say they'd love going to Blizzcon together is a guild that is mature. Join those guilds, so long as they include you as well. Big guilds usually bite you back at some point...I know only too well.
CM Jan 18th 2010 1:11PM
Anonymous sounds like a complete douchenozzle. Anybody who starts issuing ultimatums about loot is taking the game way too seriously and needs to step back. I do have to ask, though, why even bother rolling if a "loot council" is going to make the ultimate decision?
Phil Jan 18th 2010 1:21PM
Agree.
Also, he does more dps than the pally. So shouldn't he want the other pally to get better to help the guild as a whole? E-peen FTL.
SunwellVialist Jan 18th 2010 2:11PM
Douchenozzle, GAF?
Anyway, agreed. He was ultimately selfish here, putting himself not only before the other player, but also before the guild. His action here prevented another player to uppe their DPS, which would have helped progression.
vexis58 Jan 18th 2010 4:16PM
I also don't understand how rolling + council can work. I mean, maybe if you did it the other way around, like you decided these two people need it equally and then they roll off against each other, but what's the point of rolling first if the council is just going to change the results afterwards? I don't see how that could ever result in anything other than people feeling cheated.
Ratskinmahoney Jan 19th 2010 10:47AM
True, but he's clearly a good enough person to feel bad about it.