coercer rolling need on carotidcutter

[Buttcliffe]

someone please defend why a coercer should roll need on the carotidcutter.... i'm speechless atm trying to figure it out

[Sabutai]

Buttcliffe wrote:

someone please defend why a coercer should roll need on the carotidcutter.... i'm speechless atm trying to figure it out

because mages like to poke stuff too.Kidding aside you just have to chalk it up to being with a bad person, make note and don't group with them again.

[Gungo]

enchaters have a melee AA line

If he doesnt really raid thats the best dps weapon i presume he can use. its not a bad line for dps'ing in groups, not sure its worth it on raids with some of the better AA lines.

Enchanters need to be turned into herald of xioltl from aoconan nothing like a mage with a big 2 hand axe blowing fire and lighning all around. transforming themselves into a demon for a short duration as well to increase their damage.

[Hakthaf]

Mages have their own dagger from CoA, dagger of arcane rites, 93.3 rating if i remember correctly, no reason at all a mage should call need on carotidcutter if there is a melee primary needing it. Would not group with said person again.

[bobdbutcherer]

It is a risk you run when running a PUG.  Then again, I had a mage get mad at me cuz I rolled need on the Praetor's Guard on my SK.  Is there anything wrong with a non-raiding SK rolling on a ranged slot item that gives + spell crit and damage proc on spells?  I didn't think so.

[Zmobie]

bobdbutcherer wrote:

It is a risk you run when running a PUG.  Then again, I had a mage get mad at me cuz I rolled need on the Praetor's Guard on my SK.  Is there anything wrong with a non-raiding SK rolling on a ranged slot item that gives + spell crit and damage proc on spells?  I didn't think so.

No, nothing wrong... as long as all the pure casters in the group already have it. If they didn't, and you rolled, I'd not group with you again.Same for the Coercer and the Carrotidcutter. Just because you CAN use something doesn't mean you should roll on it. Both those items have obvious intended users, a Coercer obviously isn't for the first, and an SK obviously isn't for the 2nd.--Tusk

[Norrsken]

Blacktusk@Venekor wrote:

bobdbutcherer wrote:

It is a risk you run when running a PUG.  Then again, I had a mage get mad at me cuz I rolled need on the Praetor's Guard on my SK.  Is there anything wrong with a non-raiding SK rolling on a ranged slot item that gives + spell crit and damage proc on spells?  I didn't think so.

No, nothing wrong... as long as all the pure casters in the group already have it. If they didn't, and you rolled, I'd not group with you again.Same for the Coercer and the Carrotidcutter. Just because you CAN use something doesn't mean you should roll on it. Both those items have obvious intended users, a Coercer obviously isn't for the first, and an SK obviously isn't for the 2nd.--Tusk

Actually, sks benefit quite a bit from +spell crits too. If you'd yell at me for rolling on it as a sk, Id probably not group with you either.

[Illyakuran]

bobdbutcherer wrote:

It is a risk you run when running a PUG.  Then again, I had a mage get mad at me cuz I rolled need on the Praetor's Guard on my SK.  Is there anything wrong with a non-raiding SK rolling on a ranged slot item that gives + spell crit and damage proc on spells?  I didn't think so.

A SK may not be a pure caster but if it's an upgrade and not something being grabbed as a backup item I don't see the problem with it. Unfortunantly crusaders have to cover both the melee and spell arenas if they want to be good since roughly half of their skills are spell based.

[Antipalad]

Someone please defend why we have to have these class X looted item Y which isn't perfectly suited but useable by class X posts.

[Antryg Mistrose]

Antipaladin wrote:

Someone please defend why we have to have these class X looted item Y which isn't perfectly suited but useable by class X posts.

Because some people think that they are entitled to items that others can also use.The same moronic people who claim that bards, enchanters & crusaders don't deserve anything over 'pure' classes, should be made to group/raid only with their 'pure' brethren.p.s. Carotidcutter is the best melee weapon available to non-raiding enchanters (who are using STR line)

[chily]

Hakthaf wrote:

Mages have their own dagger from CoA, dagger of arcane rites, 93.3 rating if i remember correctly, no reason at all a mage should call need on carotidcutter if there is a melee primary needing it. Would not group with said person again.

the rating says nothing m8, the damage spread is important and the dagger of acrane rites sucks for melee dps.

The carotidcutter has a far better damage spread and is a really nice melee weapon for a str line specced coercer.

[liveja]

If a melee in the group actually needs that weapon, it's an UPGRADE for him/her, then IMO no mage has any business rolling for it at all. I don't care what freekin' AA line they're spec'd for, either.

I would put said Coercer on my ignore list immediately.

[chily]

and what if a round shield drops that is nice for tanks, swash/brig, dirge/trouba and others and you "claim" because you are a swash with shield spec? would the aa specc matter then?

For a melee coercer it's a nice weapon and prolly a upgrade if he/she didn't had epic yet.putting ppl on ignore doesn't solve anything sry.If you talk to him and look at the other weapons he/she has you maybe can make a petition and get it traded because he/she rolled by misstake obviously.

[Noaani]

Flaye@Mistmoore wrote:

If a melee in the group actually needs that weapon, it's an UPGRADE for him/her, then IMO no mage has any business rolling for it at all. I don't care what freekin' AA line they're spec'd for, either.

I would put said Coercer on my ignore list immediately.

I agree. Even though the item may be an upgrade for said coercer (and coercers have access to less weapons than scouts), if a scout or fighter was in the group and didn't have it, they get priority.

Same can be said about an SK rolling on Praetor's Guard. Sure its an upgrade for them, and it may even be the best item for that slot avalible to them, but the exact same can be said of the coercer and the carotidcutter, and so the same applies, mages first.

[Detor]

Noaani wrote:

Flaye@Mistmoore wrote:

If a melee in the group actually needs that weapon, it's an UPGRADE for him/her, then IMO no mage has any business rolling for it at all. I don't care what freekin' AA line they're spec'd for, either.

I would put said Coercer on my ignore list immediately.

I agree. Even though the item may be an upgrade for said coercer (and coercers have access to less weapons than scouts), if a scout or fighter was in the group and didn't have it, they get priority.

Same can be said about an SK rolling on Praetor's Guard. Sure its an upgrade for them, and it may even be the best item for that slot avalible to them, but the exact same can be said of the coercer and the carotidcutter, and so the same applies, mages first.

Yeah, some people want to have it both ways - "Oh sure that coercer can use that item, and it really benefits him in this way, but a pure melee would benefit much more so it's just wrong for the coercer to roll on it." but then turn around and say "Oh, that shadowknight can really use praetor's guard, so it's ok if he rolls on it even when a pure mage doesn't have one."  People seem to go for whichever way benefits them the most AT THE MOMENT, considers the other person greedy, but then turns around and would do the same thing for a different item while wondering why people are then calling them greedy.  Decide - if something greatly benefits one class, and then also benefits another but to a little lesser degree is it or is it not ok for that 2nd class to roll on it.  Don't go - well, when it's something *I* could use to a lesser degree then it's ok, but *not* if it's something somebody else could use to a lesser degree over me.

[Aneova]

As long as the class rolling for it can use it, it's fine if you're coercer in question is say rolling need on a two hander claymore that he obviously can't use then put him on ignore. We all have our moments of "I want" or "Shiney new itemitus" calm down take a deep breath and move on. It's a game, no need to worry to much on who gets what batch of 1's and 0's.

[Noaani]

Orpheus666 wrote:

As long as the class rolling for it can use it, it's fine if you're coercer in question is say rolling need on a two hander claymore that he obviously can't use then put him on ignore. We all have our moments of "I want" or "Shiney new itemitus" calm down take a deep breath and move on. It's a game, no need to worry to much on who gets what batch of 1's and 0's.

Common deciency towards fellow players (humans) should always trump the "OMG I want the new shiny!" impulse.

[Bloodfa]

If it's not red to them, why not?  Whether you think it's suitable for them or not really doesn't have any impact on their view.  It's their coin for the subscription, and if they want to roll on it and transmute it in front of the rest of the group, and wave a mana vial in front of you, that's their choice.  I'd personally make it a point to immediately put them on the ignore list, but unless you tell them at the onset "We're running CoA for Carotidcutter because Funkytoes the gnome needs it, that acceptable for you?", it really does come down to a roll of the dice and whether or not Stranger #1 feels like being nice to Stranger #2.  The need before greed thing is poorly implemented.  I hit "greed" on everything, but I've run with some who "need" everything.  People are what they are.  Anonymity only encourages greed in a lot of people.

[Noaani]

Obviously short of setting loot options to leader only no one can force someone to not roll on an item.

The view of some other players is to get everything they can, and screw anyone that may want the actual item because they want the plat that they can get from selling it to the merchant.

However, that does not mean this view is the decint thing to do, and as I said above, common deciendy "should" always trump the "OMG I want the new shiny" impulse.

Common deciency often involves declining an item because it is a far better upgrade for someone else than it is for you. It often involves having someone lese decline an upgrade for them because it is more of an upgrade to you. Common deciency does not involve declining an item that is an equal upgrade to you as it is to the person you would otherwise be declining for, that would be labled foolishness by most. In the case of the OP, common deciency on the part of the coercer would have been to tell the group they planned on rolling on the carotidcutter if it dropped, assuming it was an item he actually wanted. A mage rolling on a melee dagger is unusual, reguardless of what classes can equip it, so a little warning about his plans would have been the decient thing to do.

The familirality of a player or person should have no bearing on this apparintly strange to some notion of deciency. In fact, it is the manner in which we treat those we do not know that is how we are measured as people by many of those we do know.

I am well aware that not everyone plays by these standards, and that is fine, I tend to remember who they are (I do not use ignore, as it often ends up in half conversations in chat, which is annoying).