When rolling Need on an item

[Sasha]

This is a horrible idea for people who play with friends and are considerate.
If I'm doing something like shiva and the pld sword drops and I roll need for my retainer, then someone asks for it, I'd then be able to leave and give it to them.

With this idea it throws that out the window so impatient people can get their drop quicker.
The current system is nice, however sometimes people will not lot hoping you will leave, its fine though since its yours if you stay.

[DrOstler]

This is a horrible idea for people who play with friends and are considerate.
If I'm doing something like shiva and the pld sword drops and I roll need for my retainer, then someone asks for it, I'd then be able to leave and give it to them

You'd still be considered an ass for rolling in the the first place. Regardless of whether the system is how it is now or how i suggest you should always discuss rolls on loot for raids with your friends/team beforehand anyway.

But that's a social issue

[Felis]

I didn't miss the point. The point is that it wouldn't work for gear that is for multiple classes like healer and tank. There's also the point where the Loot system is designed for all content based upon roles and not individual jobs.

The point is that the Loot system is one thing meant to work for all instances of loot. Why bother to design more when one is sufficient and effective? If you have a problem with it, once again, I say, ask the people to lot or pass. Most immediately do so.

Say in WoD are 2 healers (2 WHM, or 2 SCH, or 1 WHM and 1 SCH) and the healer body drop.
2 jobs can roll Need, the others Greed

Healer 1 roll Pass
Healer 2 roll Need
At this moment the system should know that the others can't get it whatever they roll, because they can only Greed it, and give the body to healer 2 instead of waiting for rolls that don't counts anyway

[Giantbane]

It's probably made so the client is determining if you can click need or not. So the server has no idea who can or can't need on it. It just handles the rolls and the distribution. Would make it easier on the server.

To elaborate, anywhere that you can trim communication on a server, you do. So if the server doesn't have to transmit to the client to grey out the need button, then it won't have that information. As far as the server knows, it waits for X amount of rolls to be completed then rewards the highest roll the item. So in this case they would trade some server bandwidth for a slight inconvenience on someone not rolling for an item. While I would agree that it is a miniscule amount of data to transmit from our point of view, imagine for all the loot rolls. That's a lot of rolls a minute (probably in the neighborhood of several thousand or hundred thousand a minute.) Tons of data that is saved.

I doubt it, it's an MMO, you should trust the client with as little as possible (because the client can be hacked). I doubt either the decision to need/greed or the roll is client authoritative for this reason.

[Firepower]

It does seem like a simple idea and should definitely help and I can't personally think of a way this could be abused. The lotting system doesn't change it would simply just need editing since the system already knows if you can need or greed (since it greys out need if you cant) so it should be able to use that information based on the party setup eg: 1/8 can need, has player with /need lotted need if yes make drop timer to 0 and then it would drop to the person who needed. Then it should work pretty simply whether there is 1 or the entire party can need. eg: 5/8 can need has all players eligible lotted / reset timer to 0.

Though that could also potentially be a nightmare to code in and come up with all sorts of bugs like the loot timer ending when its not supposed to etc... Only the dev's would know the amount of work and how simple it really is to implement.

[LineageRazor]

I doubt it, it's an MMO, you should trust the client with as little as possible (because the client can be hacked). I doubt either the decision to need/greed or the roll is client authoritative for this reason.

I thought about this at first, as well - but truthfully, it wouldn't take awfully long to figure out that a hack is being applied in this case, and you'd be banned in pretty short order and with pretty clear evidence. Walking underground? Moving more quickly than you should? These things can be hacked client-side and can be hard to detect and report. That Bard just rolled Need on the Dreadwyrm Cane? It is NOT going to take the other players long to notice.

I don't actually believe that Need/Greed determination is handled client-side, but if it was it'd be one thing that would be REALLY HARD to abuse safely.

[Giantbane]

I thought about this at first, as well - but truthfully, it wouldn't take awfully long to figure out that a hack is being applied in this case, and you'd be banned in pretty short order and with pretty clear evidence. Walking underground? Moving more quickly than you should? These things can be hacked client-side and can be hard to detect and report. That Bard just rolled Need on the Dreadwyrm Cane? It is NOT going to take the other players long to notice.

I don't actually believe that Need/Greed determination is handled client-side, but if it was it'd be one thing that would be REALLY HARD to abuse safely.

You're absolutely right, but like you said, I'd still be surprised if it was up to the client. It's not like a few random rolls and an item vs. job check is terribly processor intensive in the grand scheme of things.

[Nutz]

I would support this change except it flies in the face of another "needed" QoL change -- the ability to pass after you roll need (or greed). Similarly this is not something that needs to be implemented, but it would have its uses. Many people automatically roll need on things when they can, often before another member could pipe up and say, 'Hey could you guys pass on that? It would be really helpful for my X class [that I'm not playing right now]'. Many people would gladly pass the item, but can't because they already rolled. Automatically passing out the loot after all possible need rolls would only compound that issue.

Basically I'm for one or the other. Save time and/ or frustration.

[Alistaire]

No because even items I am the only one able to roll on there a button called pass because what if I don't want the item and someone could use it? Pass is there for a reason and sorry you just need to wait on people to roll. You could ask them to roll?

They said "after they roll". After you roll, you can't pass.

Of course there's a dozen threads on here asking to allow that to happen for the reason you stated, so this request would be in direct contradiction to that request. They should honestly go with the request to allow passing after lotting because it covers more people's "needs". First time I've seen this kind of request and it screams more "please let me get items instantly in WoD so I can drop faster", but then I'm a cynic.

[DrOstler]

it screams more "please let me get items instantly in WoD so I can drop faster", but then I'm a cynic.

I've never quit anything after getting a drop. On that issue I've always thought that if you quit you should have the item removed from you.