Ninja looted by Zoolex

[nalkin]

The logic behind having a NBG group on an item worth 4k is way worse than the logic behind a druid (with no rings) claiming need on a +STR ring.

[justin6764]

Just saw zoolex taking the boat to Ecommons hmmmmm now is logged off after being in Ecommon for 10 min? sounds like he selling it on an alt to me

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by nalkin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The logic behind having a NBG group on an item worth 4k is way worse than the logic behind a druid (with no rings) claiming need on a +STR ring.

It doesn't matter. The logic of doing NBG isn't the debate here. The group had previously established the fact that they would NBG the ring. It was a static condition of the group.

If you're going to defend a druid rolling need on a 10ac, +7 strength ring, I guess that's a matter of opinion. I don't see it. I think it's exceptionally greedy, I'd never do it, and I'd 100% agree with Zoolex if I was in the group when this happened. And as it turns out, the rest of the group does seem to agree with Zoolex. So I guess there's that.

[Fourthmeal]

think outside the bun y'all

[Kaedain]

whomever this druid was, way to go tainting the druid class even further

[justin6764]

If EVERYONE knew it was need before greed, why did the necro YOU the defender a SHAMAN and the OTHER SHAMAN all roll? The only possible person it could of gone to IF it was need before greed was a tank where couldnt really use it much anyway..

[YendorLootmonkey]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I guess that's a matter of opinion. I don't see it. I think it's exceptionally greedy, I'd never do it

I happen to agree that if I were a druid, I probably would not have rolled in that situation. But again, the concept of "need" is subjective. And maybe I was just in a PUG who NBG'd some +WIS stuff and a melee rolled on and won it because it also had +HP and was an upgrade for him. You never know what the individual situation is.

Are PUGs defaulting T-staffs to Monks now as a general rule? Just wondering.

[nalkin]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It doesn't matter. The logic of doing NBG isn't the debate here. The group had previously established the fact that they would NBG the ring. It was a static condition of the group.

If you're going to defend a druid rolling need on a 10ac, +7 strength ring, I guess that's a matter of opinion. I don't see it. I think it's exceptionally greedy, I'd never do it, and I'd 100% agree with Zoolex if I was in the group when this happened. And as it turns out, the rest of the group does seem to agree with Zoolex. So I guess there's that.

Well I agree that the logic of NBG isn't up for debate. Though one could argue the point that perhaps the group wasn't NBG given his statement of "if you want GER roll". But supposing that it was a NBG group the argument is whether the druid has claim to "need". Statistically the rings were probably worse for the tank or negligible than what he had and they at least equal to negligible for the druid. So why not claim need.

I Don't see how a group member investing time into a group gets the tag "greedy" when wanting a fair shot at a valuable item which he worked for as equally as the tank did. While the Tank is not greedy for wanting outright loot privileges.

[Edzilla]

Didn't yall hear? Str gives tanks parry - it's a legit upgrade.

[justin6764]

Originally Posted by Edzilla [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Didn't yall hear? Str gives tanks parry - it's a legit upgrade.

No, but didn't you hear? The mage, necro and shammy x2 all participated in the roll.