Swift White Hawkstrider loot ninja.

#0 - Nov. 5, 2010, 12:28 a.m.

The other night, a guildy of mine, Beersmith, was in a Magister's Terrace run, wherein it was stated at the beginning of the run that loot was being put on Master Looter, specifically "to be fair" in regards to the mount drop.

Mount dropped, everyone rolled, my guildy came out top roll.

Cue the long silence.

Then the group leader abruptly looted the item to himself and left, having ignored everyone from the group.

So a GM ticket was put in, this is an obvious case of ninja looting when it had even been agreed from the start to be fair with the looting.

Well the answer came back..and the answer is "nothing will be done".

Really? You mean to say that people can pull stunts like this and get away with it?

So because it was not absolutely specifically stated that the mount will be rolled on, which seems rather implicit in the "to be fair" statement, that someone is free to use the time and effort of others who came for the explicit purpose of a chance at the mount, and burn them in the end with no consequences?

Since when is rules lawyering of that level conducive to a good play experience?

Nevalistis

#12 - Nov. 5, 2010, 1:45 a.m.

There's a few things I'd like to clarify here.

Master Looter, as a system, means that you are entrusting a single individual to distribute loot as they see fit. If there is no agreement otherwise that another determining factor is involved in redistributing that loot (for example, highest roll on an item wins), then the default loot system is what is used to determine who gets the item.

From your description, Irilunen, without looking into the situation myself, there is not a clear agreement made in how loot is determined to be distributed. Things like "MS > OS" are not specific enough either, as they do not encompass what defining factor determines who is rewarded with the item.

Also keep in mind that, per the definition, "ninja looting" does not expressly exist in World of Warcraft. There can be scams, and there can be looting disputes. Scams can be a situation where a group is clearly mislead to believe loot is being distributed in one fashion and then the deal is broken. A looting dispute is when players disagree on how loot was distributed, but the loot was given out per the loot system used.

We may step in for situations where a very clear scam has occurred (though keep in mind in many cases we are unable to redistribute loot), but it sounds like this unfortunately was not the case in this situation. You may want to review our Scam and "Ninja Loot" policies for more information.

What is Blizzard Entertainment's stance on "ninja looting" within the World of Warcraft?
http://us.blizzard.com/support/article/17761

Scam Policy
http://us.blizzard.com/support/article/20459

Nevalistis

#16 - Nov. 5, 2010, 2:06 a.m.

Q u o t e:
So the very clear implication of the master looting going through with the rolls and then deliberately dishonoring them is not enough?

Unfortunately, an implication is not an agreement, Irilunen. It would be akin to what you refer to as circumstantial evidence in a court of law. This is why we require that there be clearly stated loot rules in these situations.