The suggestion from yesterday, after seriously modified according to comments was posted (US version). If you like it, please support it by a comment on the forums, the more people support it, the more likely that Blizzard reads it. More supporters doesn't convince Blizzard (or they would nerf Paladins to 1DPS) but make them read and consider. So your post can make a difference.
Today is raid day for the blue guild, if you are in, come and let's kill Yogg. (Plan B: Dedicated few)
The ganking guild already have 5 lvl 80, soon we'll accept lvl 80 transfers.
Today is raid day for the blue guild, if you are in, come and let's kill Yogg. (Plan B: Dedicated few)
The ganking guild already have 5 lvl 80, soon we'll accept lvl 80 transfers.
9 comments:
Sorry, still in Thailand, so timeframe and latency is a no go for blueraiding for my part.
You read some of the comments and have to shake your head. As with the other thread, one of the early comments shows a person who jumps in to criticize the idea without understanding how it works.
Pure M&S. I responded diplomatically (as Machena, the 74 rogue) but I wanted to verbally slap that person. Read first, then critique! Calling an idea "retarded" and then showing that you do not understand what you read makes you look particularly stupid.
Why did you remove it as a separate option? Now it's just going to cause everyone to pass (because greed loses gold) and then whoever loots the corpse first gets it for free. It's encouraging ninjaing and not at all helping with the druid-cloth problem.
The original idea was great. Maybe slightly too complex, but too bad for those who can't figure it out. Now it's just about as complex, but not remotely helpful.
I kind of have to agree with Klep. Any time a blue or purple would drop, and if I did not need it, I would pass. Most people do not need anything from heroics, so everyone would almost always pass.
Then what?
Hey gevlon,
I wanted to post on the forums but my account expired and well... I can't :P
Here was my original post:
"Completely agree with this.
Instead of the current 3 buttons present a 4th one should be implemented to show the "Want" button.
I tweaked Blizzards default UI for loot distribution and implemented a want button. If its implemented perfectly well it will only show for certain classes. Classes that cant use X-bows may want one (no reason).
On the picture the want button is a bag because it might be for offspecc too.
The plunderers helmet does not have the want button because it may be a enhance shammy looking at Ingvar's loot. He can't want the helmet because he could just need it.
The amount of money one will need to pay for compensation will be displayed when going over the want button.
http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb194/sdasd5x2/want.jpg
"
Hope the image brings a bit more support just to have the morons aesthetically pleased :P
The idea you have posted on the EU forums there is NOT the same idea you posted about here.
From the forum post:
"The suggestion is: those who win by "need" or "greed" has to compensate the others."
A lot of people are angry about this in the thread, and getting called idiots for not reading it properly, but it seems to me that they did read it properly. If you roll anything except disenchant, you have to pay money for it.
Nice try with the bait and switch.
Seriously guys, read the full post before commenting.
Gevlon clearly wrote that if everyone pass the item will be randomly distributed and not just left lying around like its now.
Decent idea, still not happy with it though. I personally don't care if a druid wants a cloth item. My priest would of loved some of them mail drops I have seen but I can't wear them so too bad. I don't give a @&!# about anyone I'm pugging with, I want my fair chance at the D/E, F* them. Yes it will always be a D/E because I'm an enchanter.
If pass is effectively the unweighted greed button, why not just call it greed like in the original suggestion? It's not passing on the loot if you still get it. Or call it vendor.
@Anonymous: At first I thought you were joking, but you said you were serious.
Post a Comment