Greedy Goblin

Thursday, April 1, 2010

Suggestion: greed with compensation

I'm sure most Blizzard employee hate the official suggestion forums like the bubonic plague. There are mostly "make my class OP this way" or "nerf this or that class ability" suggestions besides complete nonsense.

I think any good suggestion must:
  • targets a real problem that makes players in general annoyed
  • solves it without harming other players (class rebalances are not subject of player suggestions)
  • does not turn the game upside down, simple to implement
My suggestion is an augmentation to the standard PuG need before greed box. The problem is that many items are wanted by some who cannot need on it. Caster druids for cloth, shamans or paladins to leather/cloth, RP items, expensive BoEs that morons would disenchant and so on.

No, I'm not suggesting to let these people need it, as it would only open the door for ninjas. The current system is better than "everyone needs on everything". The suggestion is to provide a third option between need and greed: "greed with compensation".

This option would be stronger than greed/disenchant, and anyone could press it. If no one needed, then the item will be rolled between the "greed with compensation" people. However there's a catch: the vendor cost x3 of the item is instantly taken from the winner (he can't press the button without this gold) and given to the one who rolled the highest greed/disenchant (or distributed evenly among greed/DE people). This would compensate the other player(s) for not getting the item and would discourage everyone from using this option simply to ninja and vendor it.

Before I'd post it on the forum (and ask for you to support it in comments) I would like to discuss the idea here to remove all possible glitches.


Kaaterina said...

It's a patch to an existing problem, not really a suggestion.

Blizzard should fix itemization for those classes and maybe allow for spellpower to be derived from armor, instead.

What would happen if more than one person rolls greed with compensation? The highest wins, and the rest that rolled are treated as though they greeded? (Splitting the money?)

Also, it still doesn't help even the competition between those who need and those who greed with compensation. Nothing stopping a plate ninja from needing on everything in sight.

It's a moderately good idea but it doesn't exactly solve anything.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure how quick or easy it will be to implement and code properly. However, beyond that, I only have two comments:

1) It seems like the Greed With Compensation button will require more explanation of its function than is typically given when the Need/Greed box pops up. There is a lot to be said about making as much of the game as intelligible as possible inside the game. Being able to communicate the effect of the button simply would be very desirable.

2) I am not certain of the reasoning requiring 3x the vendor cost. I understand why it must be more than the vendor cost, but why 3x as opposed to 2x or 4x?

Townes said...

I agree that the current system is bad and that a healer in plate ought to be able to roll on cloth healing gear. Just like they can in raids where certain types of healing gear are scarce.

But trying to discourage vendoring vs. disenchanting makes no sense to me. I haven't done the math, but I bet you can. The shards and dust generally sell for more than the vendor cost of the item. Even if you win the disenchant roll 20% of the time, it may net you more than vendoring the gear. Or more than 3 times the price of vendoring the gear.

Maybe it won't. I'd check the math on a few servers.

Anonymous said...

Without actually looking up the prices on a range of servers, I would worry that 3 times the vendor price is substantially lower than the disenchant value, particularly in the case of ilvl 200+ rare/epic gear.

[Off topic: your use of 'would' in the last sentence, meaning 'wish to', is a very archaic usage, unusual in modern English. The more common modern idiom is 'would like to'.
The precise distinctions of shall/will had begun to fall out of common usage by the early 20th century (for example, see ). Feel free to remove this section of the comment in moderation.]

Azzur said...

Gevlon's post touches 2 separate issues and I'll thus address them separately:

The current loot system is:

Off-spec (or off-armour-type) rolls are considered greed and thus disenchant is on the same priority. However, in reality, it is a waste to shard something when it can be used.

I've seen proposals on the forums to change the looting system to:
Off-spec need

The off-spec need would be a higher priority than Greed/disenchant. I feel Blizzard would probably implement this system eventually.

The 2nd topic is this "compensation" thing. In heroics, I have no need for gear and will welcome any shards from the run. I do get annoyed when someone rolls Need on items.

I believe the "Greed with compensation" can be extended to "Need" as well. Thus, the loot can be:
Need with compensation.
Off-spec need with compensation.

Forcing someone to pay (an admittedly trivial amount) for gear will at least make them think twice about hitting that "Need" button.

Flex said...

According to an article I only just read, having players lose out on items due to randomness - including having to roll against people who just greed to vendor - is in the best interests of Blizzard. If you didn't get the item this time around, you'll be back again, much like a slave to a slot machine. If you have a clear and structured path to your upgrade, you'll stop playing that content (and get through the rest of their content faster).

So I think the issue is we're simply trying to fix something that's not broken in the first place: It's designed that way for a reason.

Azzur said...

So I think the issue is we're simply trying to fix something that's not broken in the first place: It's designed that way for a reason.

I absolutely disagree. I'm sure Blizzard is aware that their loot system is not adequate. Eventually, I believe they will adopt the system I recommended (i.e. Need -> Off-spec need -> Greed/disenchant).

It's pretty interesting that your opinion appears to be formed by reading some random article.

Sten Düring said...

That system is already being used manually. It's called GDKP.

Full GDKP would be unsuitable for the type of runs where automated loot-distribution is used. I, for one, would personally either attempt to kick the player who opened a bidding-interface mid-combat while I'm tanking multiple targets, or I'd leave the group that allowed this to occur.

Thus a fixed value would come in useful. 3X vendor is, I believe, the default AH suggestion, which is good enough for me.

Don't even suggest current AH median value. We're talking random groups here, so WHICH of the five possible auctionhouses should set the price? Ie, bad idea.

An optional variant is to allow each player to preset a value K, which is then multiplied with the vendor price.
No matter wether we use a fixed/default 3Xvendor or KXvendor we still need a pop-up for the other players to say "screw you". Same rules as for vote-kicking. Three players push "screw you" and GDKP-greed reverts to greed. Bid not accepted.

Kaaterina said...


Only that your little conspiracy theory falls short to explain why Blizzard fixed Warriors wearing leather. (By introducing talents that derive AP from armor. Same as Death Knights.)

Or the badge gear. How does your theory explain away badge gear?

What about tier tokens? Craftable gear for every tier of content?

All of those are ideas that reduce the randomness in gearing up.

Not to mention the whole welfare badge gear IS conductive to having a structured and clear path to your upgrade.

Never attribute something to malice when it can be attributed to idiocy. Simply put, Blizzard didn't think the system through to the end.

Frankly, WoW is one of the least time-consuming or grind-encouraging MMOs out there. While other MMOs might need those tricks to retain playerbase, WoW doesn't.

There's a huge social treadmill that works better than any time-consuming treadmill that anyone can think of.

Xaxziminrax the Second said...

Note, I think the compensation cost should be 1x vendor price for every other party member, so if your whole party greeds and you GwC, every other person would get money as though they had vendored it, as opposed to 3/4 of vendor price.

>It's a patch to an existing problem, not really a suggestion.

More than half the game is kludges implemented to fix other kludges, so saying that it patches an existing problem is actually in Blizzard's style and more likely to be recieved.

>Blizzard should fix itemization for those classes [...]

Done, via Cata's mastery system (which rewards players for using appopriate armor types, details to be worked out). But mastery DOESN'T fix the inability to need for RP gear/gearing alts/experimental sets/etc.

>Nothing stopping a plate ninja from needing on everything in sight.

The compensation price would have to be high enough that GwC everything would be detrimental to the person receiving the loot. I think Gevlon inferred that up front.

>[...] the Greed With Compensation button will require more explanation of its function than is typically given [...] There is a lot to be said about making as much of the game as intelligible as possible inside the game.

I agree that more of the game explanations should be organic. However, there are bigger fish to fry in this pan. How do you figure out how much hit rating yuo need to hit a mob your level? Alt tab. How do you figure out the spec or rotation to be highest dps? Go ask Rhonin/Mograine/Saurfang/Thrall right? No! Alt tab. How do you figure out what stats you need and which gear you should take? Luckily the game highlights things you want in green text that starts with "Equip:" right? No; that leads to spellpower hunters. See next point for why GwC button isn't a problem like these.

>Being able to communicate the effect of the button simply would be very desirable.

The tooltip would say similar, "Roll on this item for a second spec, an alternative character, or roleplaying. Recieving this item will cost you XgYsZc."
>Forcing someone to pay [...] for gear will at least make them think twice about hitting that "Need" button.

I was drifting to this same thought. I notice the loot from the last boss is always needed now by whoever can click the dice button. Discouraging this would be beneficial, I think.

>So I think the issue is we're simply trying to fix something that's not broken in the first place

I'm not going to run heroic pit of saron every day for two months for a CHANCE at RP gear. Most people won't, nor will they bother for a CHANCE at some obscure offset piece which isn't their armor type, that they'll probably never use anyway. Also, I won't 'be back again' if I'm an enchanter missing 3 dust, and I lose a disenchant roll on a green.

A GwC button would allow rolling for those reasons, instead of in the last example having to say "would you guys mind passing on the next green that drops, I REALLY need the dust!" It would take only one person greeding to screw it up, while using a GwC button would actually reward the players for getting that enchanter their dust.

We're not discussing replacing need rolls. We're discussing a prioritization system for loot which is currently depreciated, even though it has valid uses.

Foo said...

Ignoring april 1.
(A) OMG those with gold get better gear.
(B) Setting the value multiplier is going to be a mine field.

I personally would have no problems with gear getting:
** need with compensation (expensive)
** greed with compensation (cheap)
** shard (with compensation (cheaper)
** pass option (lions share of compensation).

Blue (or better?) BOE gear could simply have a Bid process (ties determined by first to bid at a price gets it & all bids exposed simultaneously)/ pass (again gets lion share of compensation).

Anonymous said...

I think there are two reasons why such a system wouldn't make it to the game
1) Blizzard in Cata has already tried to force a highest armor available plan through mastery system in order to make a paladin for instance, highly dislike cloth. This doesn't fully get rid of the problem, but will hopefully band-aid the problem well enough.

2) Simplicity is golden. Especially in pugs. I don't see Blizzard adding a middle of the road option to need before greed simply because the current system works 'well enough' and greed with compensation in any form muddies the water too much.

I acknowledge the weakness in both facts is the fact that they are focusing on the works 'well enough' for blizzard, not really the player.

Though, when you as a blogger point out that blues work 'well enough' for raids, its hard to argue against something that just works 'well enough'.

Akasza said...

Many people suggested how to solve the "druid needing cloth" issue and I support this one: people can "need" offspec items, but if the "designated needer" rolls need too, he auto-wins, for example mage would win a cloth robe over that druid.

This could also implement role check, if we have 3 plate classes but only one signed as " tank, dps" other 2 signed only as "dps", the "tank" person should auto-win that defense plate etc. Pure dps cannot tick tank box and get away with it, I've never seen being asked to dps, always tank in such case, so they would end up as tanks incapable of performing the job and wouldn't get even to the first boss.

P.S. If the post is not "april fools" then your suggestion is a bit like GDKP? Pay if you want item that badly?

Chewy said...

For me it's no more than an irritation. Gear can be purchased from emblems and valuable gear from raids is subject to attendance/reward - EPGP in most civilised guilds (pug raids not withstanding, but "you pays your money and you takes your choice").

Like all software companies it comes down to a finite amount of programming resource and so a priority list has to be deployed. If I had a vote, which of course I don't, I wouldn't vote the idea high on the list of priorities.

Bobbins said...

Since you like to comment on M&S. Why do people select disenchant when the (obvious) disenchant value is a lot less than the vendor value? Doesn't this just reward laziness?

As an enchanter I would never have disenchanted when the vendor value is more. But since the new everyone can disenchant rules I dispair at the overall loss of value (even taking into account cross realm differences).

PS It also floods the market with cheap enchanting materials!

Zazkadin said...

I think there was no problem here until the disenchant option was introduced. Now someone who wants an item he cannot roll need on has to convince everyone not to roll disenchant. Of course that always fails, as most people click the disenchant button automatically.

Maybe the solution should be more in a sort of postponed disenchant (e.g. there is a disenchant machine at the end of the instance that is only enabled/present when there is an enchanter in the group), which allows players to trade a drop before it turns into a shard. Then the players can work out the compensation amongst themselves without the game having to attach arbitrary prices (x3 vendor price) to drops. (Can players trade gold in instances? Not sure.)

Is a compensation really needed by the way? If someone rolls need on an item no one is compenstated. So why should there be compensation when someone truly needs an item that coincidentally does not meet the "need" requirements?

nonameform said...

I was in random with a social guild member yesterday and we basically boosted two DPS through it. The saddest part was of course that warrior DPS who was doing less than the warrior tank, rolled need on anything he could (random greens, boss loot). Unfortunately, since it was a pretty short heroic (we finished in under 15 minutes), we still weren't able to kick him when we reached the last boss. So not only we boosted two people who couldn't make 2K DPS on bosses, we also funded one moron with extra gold.

As long as people can just need on anything they can theoretically equip, there will be death knights in spellpower/intellect/haste plate. Even Cataclysm itemization changes will hardly solve anything, since DPS cloth will probably still be the best loot for both moonkins and elemental shamans.

Greed with compensation idea is neat, but I don't suppose it will ever make it to live servers. There will always be people who don't have enough gold to make a greed with compensation roll on gear they need (but can't need due to limitations), while someone just makes that roll for the looks of the item. Probably those who don't have enough gold don't actually deserve the item in first place, but that's unfortunately a pretty big player base (level a new character to 80 to make a chopper... oh shit, I still need to pay 12.5K; screw Blizzard for misleading me).

sonickat said...

I've never seen a problem with using alternate classes of armor. I've played both a paladin and druid.

There will always be situations where a piece of armor drops that no one else really needs that isn't your primary armor class but is functional and an upgrade other than armor.

I think it is stupid to ask someone to pay for an item they can use as an upgrade just because its not the same armor class as the best type they can wear.

I do like your idea of a third option. I would implement it differently however. The system already checks your role against the items there is no reason the system cant do that first and if it is appropriate for your role allow you to need on it regardless of your armor class if you can equip it.

On the back end automatically only roll the appropriate armor classes first and then if none of them selected need roll the remaining needs.

There is no need to confuse people by introducing a new button.

Either that or remove the restriction completely. Its lame to begin with.

Anti said...

i'm gonna play devils advocate - i doubt Blizz could allow this because it could be played to transfer gold from one server to another.

it would be difficult. it would be slow. it would be fairly pointless on similarly progresses servers. but it could be possible.

other than that i have no objection to the idea.

my current sugestion forum crusade is to get LFBG to allow me to ignore AKFers. vote kick would probably be abused by players of random BGs.

but if i could ignore AFKers and the worst of the non-afk, and if my subsequent random BGs never grouped me with those people again, i would be much happier in the long run.

also if people ignored the full-time AFKers, the BG bots, then it would be much less effective a technique. they would not get queues nearly as often. so in the long run it would help drive them out of the game completely.

Bulbasaur said...

I think any solution in wow about gear involving ingame money empowers goldfarmers. But that's not your fault, and taking away that problem from the table, this solution is pretty good and clever.

Fricassee said...

You can always just have the game check the ilvl of the item against what the player is currently wearing. If the item is higher than what they're wearing (and they can wear it), they can roll need on different tier armor.

But Blizzard will never implement this, especially because you will be wearing the correct armor type when Cata comes out with mastery and all.

And happy April Fools Day.

Armagon said...

Although I've been bitten by this for a couple of reasons, I still think it's opening another can of worms.

On the premis that everything would be fair, you'd need an arbitrary amount of "Need priorities", like "this is my BiS 5man item", "this is a huge upgrade", "this is a small upgrade", "this is an offspec upgrade" - plus it's silly actually to equal "greed for vendoring" with "greed for disenchanting" - when the prices differ by factor 10 possibly.

The idea is good, and even if this should be an April Fool's (which I think is a bit too harmless for Gevlon) I did bring up that point in the past, so it's one of the things that, in a perfect world, would be fixed - but is actually so complicated that it's not worth it. It only sucks for people not raiding, as you can replace every 5man item in a raid sooner or later, but for everyone else it's just a minor nuisance.

Anonymous said...

my 2 cents :

I think blizzard are trying to keep the need/greed.disenchant dialog simple and won't be thrilled to add another option.
(especially since gear drops from heroics are not things most people care about)

your suggestions required the players have some gold for the run (I agree not too much though - roughly 50g per item) - It seems like blizzard are trying to make gold less neccesary.

When you suggested the player paying the other players for the item - is it to prevent ninjas or is it to compensate the other 4 for missing out on a greed?

Anonymous said...

I actaully agree with your suggestion and it would solve a lot of headaches caused by PuGs during the initial formation phase. No more spending 10-20 minutes discussion what can be rolled on by whom and what should be rolled on all trash drops and then again on bosses. It would feel nice to be monetarily compensated for losing an item to some moron on a ninja streak.

Tonus said...

As someone already mentioned, Blizzard is looking to make changes in the next expansion that will make it much more attractive for players to select "their" armor type. Mail wearing classes will get bonuses for using mail armor, that they will not get when wearing leather or cloth.

I don't think that the change you propose (compensating others for taking an "off-class" item) is difficult to implement. But it may simply come too late for Blizzard to want to add it, since they're looking to solve the issue another way.

Still, it's a viable suggestion. I think that one objection that may be raised is that it may be a way for enchanters to make some extra cash, depending on the market. I don't know what the market for Abyss Crystals is, but if I could AH one for more than 3x or 4x the value of a drop, I'd want to roll "need with compensation" on items I know I will not wear.

Anonymous said...

Another possible suggestion would be to carry a stack of dream shards and abyss crystals.

If there is an item that drops you can do a "Replace roll" and get the item while subtracting a shard from your inventory (This is only works for boss drops and not random greens).

Remove the chance that gold is traded and abused, but still have a system in place to get offspec / RP items.

You get the item and the highest roll still gets the shard.

sam said...

great idea but as people would gear up faster not likely to happen

Anonymous said...

Don;t bother posting this on suggestion forums, as blizzard is implementing their own version of a fix in cataclysm (apparently itemisation will change so that no druid will ever need to be able to roll for cloth etc). This would only fix the current system, and they aren't paying much attention to current problems as it is ("cataclysm will fix it").

Xaxziminrax the Second said...

>[...] it could be played to transfer gold from one server to another.

You can currently do this via not auto-looting mobs, just examine the corpse, then go on with your run. It leaves loot available to other party members. Similarly, you can click on these fancy "need/greed/pass" things which effectively give or take gold from other servers.

Braille said...

Foo said:

"I personally would have no problems with gear getting:
** need with compensation (expensive)
** greed with compensation (cheap)
** shard (with compensation (cheaper)
** pass option (lions share of compensation)."

This is the best version I've seen. Here’s how I’d implement it, assuming the term "full compensation" used here is equal to 3x vendor value:

1. Each person who passes gets full compensation from the winner.

2. DE rollers each get 2/3 of the full compensation from the winner, or 2x vendor value.

3. Greed rollers will get 1/3 of the full compensation from the winner, or 1x vendor value.

4. Need rollers who lose get the same as Greed rollers in compensation.

The point of this is to encourage greedy people to roll as low as possible, if greed is their motivation rather than actually using the gear for something.

Yes, I realize this means that if 4 people pass and one person rolls Need, they will pay out 4x full compensation, or 12x the vendor value. I still think that's fair. How often are you really rolling Need on anything to actually use it?

Think about it. If you roll Need (and win) on 1/5th of the gear that drops (probably a far higher estimate than reality), that means you will probably pass on 4/5 of the gear that drops.

Say the average vendor value of rolled items is 10g. One thing drops and you roll Need, everyone else passes, you pay 120g to the group (30g per person).

For every one of those Need rolls, on average, you will pass on four more. Each time you pass you will get 30g (avg) from the winner. After four of these you will have received 120g on avg; all of the gold from the 1/5 rolls you roll Need on and win.

If you’re passing more than 20% of the time, you will be making money on this system, so a greedy person is encouraged to pass as often as possible.

The only difficulty is in how to clearly convey this to the greedy yet stupid players so that they will pass on nearly everything the way they currently roll Need on nearly everything. Maybe something as simple as putting the gold value of the compensation for the roll in the tooltip for the roll should do this. So when you mouse-over Pass, you see “30g compensation” in the tooltip. DE tooltip would read “20g compensation if roll is lost,” and Greed and Need tooltips would read “10g compensation if roll is lost.”

The system would probably have to grey out any roll option that the person can’t afford as well. No going into debt for Need rolls, even if you really need the gear. After around four passes they’d have enough to pay out compensation for a Need roll win anyway, so this doesn’t really hurt an under-geared person’s chances of gearing up. A person who’s gearing up is probably running a ton of dungeons anyway, so they should be making decent gold along the way just from all the non-class/spec items they’d be passing on.

With that system, if the person just wants cash, they’d be heavily tempted to start passing on everything even if they wanted the item. Heck, doing dailies wouldn’t award nearly as much gold/hour as going to a dungeon and passing on everything the whole run. Of course, that doesn’t matter to an AH businessman, but that’s not what this system is targeted for anyway. Businessmen will make their gold and have decent gear regardless of the loot system.

What better way could there be for Blizzard to encourage people to run Heroics long after they’ve passed the gear they could get from the drops or badge rewards, essentially volunteering to carry people through? Want to have someone in your Heroic UK with avg ilvl 260 gear? This system would reward that person a hefty cash purse for taking the time to do that.

swills said...

Too complicated.

The main problem is the Druids not being able to need on cloth and so on. No-one really cares if all greed RP items.

Why not just allow any classes who can use an item to Need on it, but give armor priority to the Need rolls?

If both the Druid and the Priest need the Cloth legs then the Priest gets it. If the Priest only greed, then the Druid gets it.

This would work with Warriors & Enh Shaman needing on Leather melee DPS gear. Holy Paladins needing Mail healing gear, etc.

Would fix 95% of the problems that exist I think.

raymond said...

If you would like to make it a fair market system. Let everyone need on everything, then let people barter for items at the end of the run. I think that Pallies have an unfair advantage of being able to "legitimately" need everything. You need plate for armor, need it. You need leather for dps, need it. You need cloth for healing, need it. I think that it is bad enough that pallies get plate items that come with caster stats, but you also want the clothie stuff for too???

Or here is a suggestion, remove BoP. That way everyone will need everything and be able to sell items on the open market.

Klepsacovic said...

I like this idea, though as others have pointed out, it could require some extra explanation, which some players might not be able to handle. Then again, maybe those are the players who this is intended to fix.

The true problem is itemization: Caster leather being somewhat rare, so then druids want cloth, or the item budget system causing plate to be inferior to leather. This should be fixed in Cataclysm, which should make "greed with compensation" unnecessary.

A few times I have wished I could buy items off whoever won the greed roll, but with auto-DE that's often not possible. Once I was able to trade a cloth item to a poorly-geared resto druid, but that's a rare opportunity.

@Kaaterina: There would be no more "needing to vendor", only "needing for need" or "needing because the player is a total douche." The first is easy to recognize and the second can be kicked.

Bristal said...

I offered to buy something from someone who needed then said woops, didn't mean to need. Not surprisingly, you can't give money (or likely anything other than something looted in that instance) to a cross-server PuG member.

He gave it to me anyway.

PuGs can be irritating to those that actually need gear upgrades from instances because nobody else really cares about anything other than speed.

So people don't/can't take time to really look at an item to see if it's an upgrade. Need errors occur. I admit I occasionally need on things that later I realize I shouldn't have.

I've started just letting the group go ahead while I peruse, but since I heal, that can be a problem.

Anonymous said...

1) It's too complicated. I've seen players who couldn't even entirely grasp need before greed.

2) What if someone doesn't have enough gold? You just posted on how broken the leveling economy is on some servers and factions. This would only serve to make it worse for players who are having difficulty gearing up for lack of gold.

Anonymous said...

Am I wrong or will this be fixed as soon as the gear changes to the cataclysm stats? I mean it is a smart fix and I like the idea of everyone else getting the vender cost for it but does it really need handled before the changes?

If the change would make the cataclysm change smoother I would be all for it but the cataclysm change is the solution and so will be just as smooth or rough as it will be regardless of this fix.

Anonymous said...

Good idea, but as has been mentioned, a bit too complicated.

I'd change it to a new loot method - I'll call it "Auction Loot". When loot is discovered, a roll happens immediately to determine who wins the item.

For the person who won the roll, they will have the options to Keep, Sell, or Disenchant.

Everyone else will just have one option to "Buy" (assuming they have the gold).

If the initial winner picks sell/disenchant and one or more others pick buy, then the buyers roll among themselves and the winning buyer pays the initial winner for the item.

If necessary, buyers who would have been able to click need could be given preference (even over the initial winner picking keep) to keep the need before greed dynamics (they would still have to pay for it though).

Taemojitsu said...

The reason rolling need is an issue at all is the pace of dungeon completion under the LFD and its anonymous nature with cross-server groups. Design pressure pushed Blizzard to implement this efficient grouping method because of the need for gear, and really only becomes a problem (vs actual rudeness as a result of community values) because of the disenchant option, that prevents someone from trading an item someone wants but couldn't need for. I'm not sure dungeons will be completed so quickly in Cataclysm that the current problems will still exist. I noticed speculations about the "Emblematic" feat of strength, that was added in the most recent patch.

There isn't much more to say about the official suggestion forum. Not only must an idea be correct, it also competes for development resources and not already thought up beforehand. But I wondered if the suggestion I once made for the new mage Invisibility spell to apply a cool 'alternate dimensional phase' graphical effect and for the visibility restriction to apply to all invisibility effects was seen by the devs :p I think the Story forum is a positive change, and it's nice to see both the US and EU got it.

Zan said...

Greed needs to be a step above DE. That way people can greed for offset and they'll get an item instead of it being sharded.

Sjonnar said...

I don't know how to make a URL into a link in a comment, so i have the URL for the US forum post here.

Dan said...

I appreciate the mention of topics being posted on the official forums. My comments can be found in the US forum topic as posts #16 and 17.

Anonymous said...

I think they are going to fix this problem in cata by making classes not want gear outside of their armor type. All classes will get a mastery bonus for wearing armor that is their type, stam will be equalized, and all dps gear will have 4 stats. I don't think they are going to spend too much time on something that probably won't be an issue in cata anyway.

Yaggle said...

All drops should be BOE and all rolls should be auto need just like frozen orbs.

Anonymous said...

Unless I missed some change based on the comments, the suggestion actively penalizes the player by deducting gold from their account to "pay" for the loot.

How about a different system all together? How about all items won by need role are automatically set to not vendorable and not disenchantable much like the token gear you purchase today.

Now there is no active penalty and there is no value gained in ninja'ing an item.

Problem solved.

Kristopher said...

Add a new option ... "Bid".

First bid starts at 3 times vendor. Subsequent bids add one gold to that.

Once bidding starts, anyone can bid currentamount+1 gold if they wish by hitting a single button. Set a hard five second rule for new bids ... highest standing bid for 5 seconds takes item.

Bid price is dumped into party loot ( bidder gets a share, of course ).