Sunday, January 11, 2009

Another night of progression, and more jolly intrigues.

Another night of raiding is over, and was relatively successful, but it did leave me with a couple of topics to blog about, aren't uneventful evenings so boring?

Well, whats so interesting you ask?

A second 10-man Obsidian Sanctum run was slapped together, and we pugged a second healer. After a wipe on each of the Adds, we got to the boss, and took him down second try.

The gloves dropped for mages/rogues/deathknights/druids - which consisted of 80% of the run. 3 Mages, 2 druids and 2 rogues.

some of us already had said item, and the remainder rolled.

The winner happened to be someone who had an equivalent level crafted item, so it was only a sidegrade for them (set bonus, when they get the second item)

This pulled the Drama Llama out of the closet, the second highest roller started complaining that he only had a blue set of gloves and that he should get the drop.

Normally, we would do some sort of loot council for this situation - make sure that someone that will benefit the guilds progression gets it - but were kind of dumstruck with what to do - we had a pug member so didnt feel it would be right to go ahead and choose a winner, I guess, and we didnt check the gloves on the winner before handing over.

The immediate complaint from the second highest roller also didnt help - both sides of the argument were being greedy in their own way, and loot was distributed before it could be properly discussed. (we were also rushed to move to assemble for 25 man which never went ahead due to numbers, and we went to Naxx.)

This brings up a few interesting things. (Greed before greed?)

  • The second highest roller, was determined they should get the loot, purely because they didnt have gloves as good as the winner
  • The winner was trusted to be actually doing an upgrade. As it turned out it was a sidegrade as mentioned and the upgrade couldnt have been smaller.
  • Someone else in the guild may have had a better use for the item still, but was keeping quiet.
  • Having the pug member there added complications.

What would you do in such a situation? I agree that the gloves should not have gone to the person that won them, but on the basis of how the second roller was acting, I would not have wanted to give it to them either, unless it was truly best for the guilds progression for them to have them.

A post then went up on the forums, and this is probably what has drawn my attention to the matter the most. The bad loot distribution was a mistake, we will live. But the post makes it out like the guild does this regularly, and on purpose. It challenges a whole set of looting rules we try to abide by, by telling us that our current system is rubbish - when they are saying we should be using a system like we already are... if that makes sense! (Ill make a seperate post on our choice of looting system.)

Here is the poll, before it was removed:

Option 1: You agree that the loot should have gone to me because I had a blue.
My opinion? This depends. There have been many systems invented to try to make loot distribution fair and help guild progression. Not necessarily the worst geared is the best choice. For example, they could get the same crafted gloves that the winner had cheaply off of a guildie that can craft them, and someone with crap gloves but another tier item that would double the upgrade benefit with a set bonus could have had.

Option 2: No, I want more epics!
Clearly put up purely because he was (understandably) frustrated. It says if you dont think I should have gotten the item, you think that you should get it purely because its a very good item, and it has an inkling of a benefit, therefore Im taking! (basically, being greedy)

Option 3: I dont know.

That is all. Basically you agree with me that I should have gotten the loot, your greedy, or your stupid.

The poll had been taken down, and the GM put up a post pointing out that it was a mistake, and the issues regarding loot distribution will be further discussed on the next officers meeting.

I know this post will come accross as more ranty than intended, but I wanted somewhere to put down the details and my thoughts on the matter. Both are decent players, but a moment of thoughtlessness by the winner (purplz plx! moment?), the fact the complaints basically said "oi, no! Give it to me you nubbin!" caused a very uncomfortable atmosphere that resulted in bad judgement, in a rush to move on.

If your reading this guys (youll know who you are, and I know youll end up reading this :p names are kept away for privacy details :D) it was a mistake on our part for not taking action to address the situation, but consideration for other guildies and the progression is critical for a successful guild. The loot will come, its already falling like candy from a mugged trick or treaters goody bag, its just mostly going to waste because we never have the right classes in :p

There are many lessons to be taken out of the above, that shall hopefully make us operate smoother, so its certainly not a bad thing, just obviously frustrating for all involved.

Winner: Why shouldnt I get it? (lack of understanding.)
Wanter: Hey, its a bigger upgrade (correct and realistic, but ignoring the needs of the rest of the raiders.)
Leaders: Confusion, and bad decision. (lack of experience, and implemented working systems.)
Other raiders: Frustration (Complaints, lack of confidence in leader decision, or frustrated because they may agree but someone else stole the limelight first :p)

So, what else could possibly happen to further the evenings intrigues I hear you all ask.

The Leggings of the Lost Conqueror, dropped off Gluth. Yeah, thats right - the same kind of token that dropped last night that couldnt be used by anyone and was wasted.

We are convinced Blizz has a conspiracy after out attempte to (unsuccessfully) get something done about the chest piece from last night.

Ah well, its becoming a running theme in guild chat

"will this get changed you recon?" "Its blizz.." "Oh yeah. Never mind then."

/Facepalm.

-V

No comments:

Post a Comment