Quest item DKP rule and a suggestion

[Gaetano]

Part I: Status Quo

Okay as most probably knows, the current rule about items such as Bindings of the Windseeker and Ancient Petrified Leaf + Mature Black Dragon Sinew goes as follows:

Person with one or more quest items gets preference when another part of the quest drops, provided that the person pays the same amount of points that the first item cost.

Now, the rationale with this rule never quite struck home with me but it seemed harmless enough. Certainly we would be better served as a whole if we have even a few people with completed quests rather than a dozen incompleted ones. That princinple is sound and it's not what is wrong here anyway.

There is a part of the rule that is however vulnerable to manipulation and blatant abuse (though in truth, such behaviour is more or less imposed on us by the DKP system; it just goes to a whole another level here). That is of course the rule that you must pay the same for the next piece as the first.

Example:

We have quest items X and Y. Relevant difference is that quest item X drops a whole lot more often than quest item Y.

We have players A and B, both of whom intend to do the quest as soon as possible. Neither have either quest items yet so they are equal what comes to bidding.

Now, let's assume that player A has a slight lead in points due to saving up for this specific purpose and he wins quest item X (which drops first because it has a lot higher chance of doing so) after a bid war against player B, using up nearly all of A's points (player B correctly assuming A will use all his points if necessary, so he bids everything he has to push up the price).

Since item Y drops far more rarely than item X, let's assume it just so happens that another item X drops before any item Y's drop. Now, player B gets it for minimum points as player A already has it and can't return the "favor" of pushing up the price.

Then *BAM*, item Y drops. Here is what ensues with current rule system:

Player B gets it for minimum points. Having been drained of points when bidding for his item X, player A has nothing to bid against player B with. Even if he did, player B would have a huge advantage because he only needed minimum points to get item X. To further ensure that player A would not get the item, the quest item rule state that he is to come up with the same amount of points than he paid for item X.

To sum up:

Player B gets his quest items first. He also paid the minimum points for them so he still has plenty to go around.

Player A is still waiting for item Y to drop again. This happens a couple week later, and as dictated by the quest item rule, he pays the same amount of points for it than he paid for the first item which was hotly contested at the time, even though this time around there's no-one to contest item Y. Having been raiding these two weeks actively, player A goes only slightly into negative points after paying up. He'll still need a couple more weeks to get enough points to challenge player B on any bid though since player B never lost any considerable amount of points on the quest items.

To remind everyone, at the start player A had more points due to saving up longer/raiding more actively than player B. What went wrong?

... to be continued, I need food :P. Please refrain from commenting until I have finished, this post is just the first part (that only serves illustrates the current problem). I know there's a lot of points to argue here and you're itching to post them but I will address them in a short while.

[Guus]

Yeh true, i dont wanna pay a gazillion dkp for my druid epic quest item while Sig gets it almost for nothing..... oh wait ;)

Anyway I can see your point, youre taking a long time eating tho :D

[Gaetano]

Part II: Questions and Answers

Q: What do you mean, "Wrong"?

A: Call me naive, fool, hopeless romantic or whichever but I happen to believe the DKP system is about rewarding activity, not manipulation and/or dumb luck. If you think both players A and B in my example got exactly what they deserved I hope dearly you're some forum wanderer and not a guild member. At least not a hunter.

Q: But isn't this the same what happens with normal DKP drops too? If you want it first, you have to pay lots; if you're patient you get it cheaper later.

A: Yes and no. The price pushing part is same but it has more far reaching consequences here. By pushing up the price on the first item, you do not only make it (and the next item!) more expensive for the person who really wants it but you can/will completely sabotage their chance of getting the second item.

Q: So, shouldn't player A just let player B win the item if that's the smartest thing to do?

A: Look at answer to the first question. Why should he? He has the most points; he's been active. He wouldn't even gain a similar advantage over player B than B had over A at the beginning. Because of the current system, player B holds all the cards (ie. has advantage). Again, should the rules not favor the most active player who has most points saved up?

Q: Okay, okay, you paint a pretty bleak picture but how do we know this isn't just some pathologic scenario meant to scare us? There's a lot of assuming in there.

A: Well the only two real assumptions are that you have two players with same goal and two different items with reasonably different drop rates. This is not far fetched at all. As what comes to the probability of such scenario, it depends on the disparity of drop rates but in case of Leaf+Sinew, the Leaf has 2.5 times higher chance of dropping than Sinew (if Thottboth and Allakhazam aren't horribly inaccurate). Accommodating for the fact that Onyxia can be killed a bit more often than Majordomo, in an average month we get two Leaves and one Sinew.

I know this doesn't conform to real life experience very much but it helps to remember that we killed Onyxia at least twice before we got Majordomo down (and MJD didn't drop quest items as often back then); also we were quite lucky to get a Sinew on both times.

Lastly, the scenario above has already happened as far as I know; Kaldor and Maran both had Black Sinew when the first Leaf dropped. They sorted it out with a gentleman agreement and kudos to them for that (I later ceded the Leaf to Maran without bidding since he had Black Sinew and I only Blue; at least at that time there were no talk about giving Black Sinew preference which I admit is sensible though). However I can't say for myself that I'd gladly pass the Leaf if I had Black Sinew, nor do I expect anyone to do that for me either.

Q: So, Leaf and Sinew eh? Covering your own ass by any chance?

A: I admit freely I have a vested interest in this matter and that the problem with current rules only occured me when I was about to get the short end of the stick. However the suggestion (will follow this post) is not only fair to me, but everyone. In fact it should be made retroactive so that Kaldor, Maran and Trouble would be refunded (which again is not entirely in my best interests).

Criticize ideas by their own merit, not their presenter's.

Q: But I still want to criticize you! Is loot so important to you that you spend your waking hours thinking about stuff like this instead of the good of the guild? Omg lootwhore wtf!

A: Where to start... okay,

First: In addition to helping the guild by attending raids, I help the guild by helping myself; by having better equipment I'm more effective in my role in raid groups.

Secondly: How exactly does one help the guild besides getting himself better equipment? Get OTHER members better equipment. So stripped bare, the suggestion to think of guild before self is just a convoluted way of saying "help ME get loot instead of yourself!".

Thirdly: I DO help guild members and friends get stuff when there's little to nothing in it for myself. If you think otherwise, you're ignorant; if you claim otherwise, you're a liar also.


I didn't design the game and one of the aspects I enjoy least is that after level 60 you can't improve your character by any other means than getting better equipment; ie. running after loot.

I enjoy accomplishments such as taking MC bosses down as much as the next man but after the initial successes much of the thrill is gone and while there's satisfaction in the increased ease we take them down by now, there's only so many times you get any elation for killing the same set of bosses over and over.

I also enjoy challenges as well, as perhaps pointed out by my track record of showing up for Ragnaros/BWL attempts. LBRS/Strat/Scholo are also far more entertaining with 5-man group instead of a raid in my opinion.

To sum it up: If I'm a lootwhore, that makes you a hypocrite dumbass (note, this is for those who think along the lines of the question above).

Q: Great Gaetano, we bask in your wisdom! Please tell us how to solve this situation!

Stay tuned for Part III: The mysteriously elegant solution!

[Gromagrim]

While you're trying to beat the DKP system, you're going to get these kind of problems. It's pretty simple. Want the item? bid the points. Want the item, but not for that many points? Don't bid, wait for the next one to drop.

I'm getting a bit sick of people trying to second guess all the DKP bids, this is why people get so mad when they miss Raids, their 12-raid plan to be the first to win uber-item #3 doesn't come to fruition, Well boo-hoo guys. The guys I watch who use DKP fairly and responsibly always seem happy enough, and getting loot slowly but surely, while those of you who constantly watch the DKP standings and whine when you find that your expert manipulation is flawed because, shock horror you're not the only one trying to play the system. The last to get the item will always get it cheaper, because they've had to wait for so long while the others get it.

If you'd bid on the Giantstalker Leggings last week Gae, instead of trying to play the system, you'd not be in this situation. Food for thought.

EDIT: Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but this whole situation is that we get 2 sinews dropping before a leaf? so the whole 'Not fair I don't get it first' thing actually doesn't matter at all......

[PariaH]

you can solo farm the sinew in winterspring solo i have 1 in my bank for our hunters already.

yay for me ^^

[Gaetano]

Part III: The solution

The solution is in fact quite simple.

Instead of a person already possessing a quest item having to pay the same price for the next quest item as the first one,

a) if there's no contention (meaning no-one else has any parts), the player gets the second part for free (or 20 points, doesn't really make a difference) when it drops.

b) if there are more than one person with same level of "preference" (for example all have one item), bidding ensues. However, the price that each person paid for the first item is taken into account. Winner is whoever bids the most when including his/her price for the first item.

Let's go back to our coveted items X and Y and our old friends player A and B.
For further clarity we'll assume that player A started out with 120 points and player B started with 100 points. Then player A won item X for 100 points and player B won his the next week for the minimum of 20 points. Next we fast forward to the *BAM*:

Both players have accumulated 50 points by the time item Y drops. Player A and B commence bidding. Player A has 70 points now and player B has 130 points. However, according to the suggested rule, player B must overbid player A by 80 points (since he got item X 80 points cheaper). Player A bids 50 points and player B cannot top that by 80 points, so it goes to player A.

So why is this a good solution? Isn't it player B who gets shafted this time around?

No, no he isn't. With this system, whoever spends the most points total, gets the item first. Suppose that player B could've and would've outbid player A by 85. In this case he would've used the most points, 5 more than player A in total, and as a result he gets them item first (this of course requires that he got more points than player A somehow between the X and Y drops). He can also opt to wait for the next item Y drop, when he'll get get it without having to bid at all; ie minimum points.

So in all ways, the process becomes similar to normal DKP drops. Who spends most points gets the item but with a price premium. The more patient / less active get the item later, but at lower or even minimum price. Also neither player has to go into negative points. Activity, saving up and patience is once more rewarded instead of sabotage and backstabbing.

And like I said before, in my opinion this should be made retroactive and people who got quests done in the old system refunded.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, if anyone has any questions / comments, let's have them. However, READ all three parts before you post. If you ask a question that I've already answered in part two, I will send ninjas after you.

[Gromagrim]

you can solo farm the sinew in winterspring solo i have 1 in my bank for our hunters already.

yay for me ^^Talking Black sinew, not Blue

[Nyana]

offtopic: please alter your #3 topic title, its a little bit offencive maybe.. I wish it was that simple, but unfortunatly not.

ontopic: good read, but im not poking my nose in this since im not a hunter or a 2h sword user for that legendary thing. I think it's a bid odd that you have to pay the same price for part 2 as one did for part 1, but again, im not in a situation where I need 2 parts to complete something epic/legendary.

[Gaetano]

There's so many things wrong here that I'm having a hard time deciding where to start but I'll just do it at the top so here goes:

While you're trying to beat the DKP system, you're going to get these kind of problems. It's pretty simple. Want the item? bid the points. Want the item, but not for that many points? Don't bid, wait for the next one to drop.

I just spent a better part of an hour writing up an elaborate explanation how what you say is exactly NOT the case with the quest item rule. Wanting an item and having the most points doesn't equal getting it. At best it gets you the item and sends you to the dkp poor house for weeks because of the double penalty incurred by the current rule. Likely as not, someone will get it far cheaper before you, and you still get to go to the poor house for weeks when you finally get it.


If you'd bid on the Giantstalker Leggings last week Gae, instead of trying to play the system, you'd not be in this situation. Food for thought.


I was trying to play the system when I wanted item that would give me 18 agility upgrade over my current rare leg equipment? I could for example point out that the 3 epic items (on which I've used a total of hmm somewhere between 370 and 390 points I think) I've gotten so far give me a whopping 14 agility in total over the 3 rare ones I used to have.

I really wanted those leggings but in the end had to give up since Kaldor can always bid up to his limit now that he got the quest bow.

Happens to be the same reason I didn't get the GS belt last night. Almost got it already but then got overbid by quest bow owner.


EDIT: Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but this whole situation is that we get 2 sinews dropping before a leaf? so the whole 'Not fair I don't get it first' thing actually doesn't matter at all......

You're wrong. It doesn't have to be Leaf and Sinew, especially not in some specific order. Same applies to priest quest (though not currently for us since we can't kill Kazzak) and the Legendary sword quest. Also it doesn't have to be just two people, it can be more.

[Gromagrim]

Part I: Status QuoTo further ensure that player A would not get the item, the quest item rule state that he is to come up with the same amount of points than he paid for item X.This isn't the case at all, please read the example from the original threadExample
Melian paid 50pts for one half of the Bindings of the Windseeker. Currently, should the other half drop, it's his for 50pts. Should the first half drop again, and (for example) Isador win it for 70pts, they could both bid on the second part, the minimum bid being 50pts.

[Gaetano]

Example
Melian paid 50pts for one half of the Bindings of the Windseeker. Currently, should the other half drop, it's his for 50pts. Should the first half drop again, and (for example) Isador win it for 70pts, they could both bid on the second part, the minimum bid being 50pts.

So is the lowest paid amount that is the start bid, or what the first person paid? If lowest, my example is valid. If the first, my example would apply with very small modifications. In fact, in that case player B has even more incentive to push up the price of first item as high as possible for the purpose of making sure that only he can bid that high when the second item drops. Also what I said earlier about the double penalty and poor house would still apply.

[Gromagrim]

There's so many things wrong here that I'm having a hard time deciding where to start but I'll just do it at the top so here goes: I always love when replies start like this, because a favourite pastime of mine is throwing stones at glass houses. If that's too subtle for anyone, please ask for an explanation.

I just spent a better part of an hour writing up an elaborate explanation how what you say is exactly NOT the case with the quest item rule. Wanting an item and having the most points doesn't equal getting it. At best it gets you the item and sends you to the dkp poor house for weeks because of the double penalty incurred by the current rule. Likely as not, someone will get it far cheaper before you, and you still get to go to the poor house for weeks when you finally get it.I like to think of myself as an intelligent man, but I'm having problems following. The best case is you get the item first for lots of points, but if you do get the item, someone else gets it cheaper and before you? I'm sure it made sense at somepoint, but following the example below it, it should be quite simple to see that I wasn't discussing Quest items, but DKP in general, therefore, moving on;

I was trying to play the system when I wanted item that would give me 18 agility upgrade over my current rare leg equipment? I could for example point out that the 3 epic items (on which I've used a total of hmm somewhere between 370 and 390 points I think) I've gotten so far give me a whopping 14 agility in total over the 3 rare ones I used to have.

I really wanted those leggings but in the end had to give up since Kaldor can always bid up to his limit now that he got the quest bow.

Happens to be the same reason I didn't get the GS belt last night. Almost got it already but then got overbid by quest bow owner.okok, so when you had to keep checking the DKP site and trying to calculate how many points you could afford to pay on one epic, and still guarentee a second, you weren't playing the system? And when Kaldor spends his DKP on the quest first, while you pick-up 3 set pieces in the meantime, it's the systems fault that he bids higher on a set item?(His first, your fourth). And why didn't you win the GS belt? you had the points, again, you could have spent more points, making you player B instead of player A, but your calculations told you not to? lol. I'm sorry that sum didn't work out, Einstein.

You're wrong. It doesn't have to be Leaf and Sinew, especially not in some specific order. The big flaw in your argument is that you switch from general to specifics depending on which best fits your complaint. Lets return to A+B X+Y. You're assuming the drop will be XXY, correct? So, in my eyes it doesn't matter whether A or B gets item X first, because it's X+Y that's the actual prize. So you're argument of 'Why should A wait for his loot when he has most points' has no grounding whatsoever, as, by doing what was suggested, and letting B get the item first (for more points) will guarentee that A gets X+Y first.

The problem, that I'm sure you've noticed, but declined to mention, is that it's a gamble. The drop order may be XYX, meaning, that by playing tactically, A will lose first pick on the item to B. I think the problem remains that you want the best loot first, and cheapest - In fact, I believe that you even voiced an opinion that the guild should implement some kind of MT-for-all-classes system, and give the best loot to the best players in some kind of council effort, well, I'm afraid that's not going to happen.

[Fusion]

I really wanted those leggings but in the end had to give up since Kaldor can always bid up to his limit now that he got the quest bow.

Happens to be the same reason I didn't get the GS belt last night. Almost got it already but then got overbid by quest bow owner. Fact: The GS legs were my first GS set item, you forced me to bid almost all of my points for them and you complained at the time that I was trying to strip you of YOUR points, I'm fairly sure that you had enough points to bid past my maximum.

Fact: I bid all of the points I had available for a second GS piece while you had close to four times the points available. The belt went to Maran for 110 points in the end, you had over 300 hundred at the time, so why didn't you outbid him if it was that important you got the item?

[TheIcon]

as I still dont have any quest items for my class (yet) it dosent really concern me, but my 2 cent worth of thoughts (after reading all this @_@)
Should a piece drop and someone already having one half and no others have the "first half" then he/she gets is for 20 flat epic price. Should 2 people have the "first" item needed then they bid on the 2nd part. (or settle it like men/women)
I can see the flaw in having to pay the "lowest" bid price a 2nd time, that should only one person be present that needed the item but would be say 100 DKP short of the mini start, he/she would be forced into negative DKP. (ofcause the same would be the case if the person dosent have 20 points to pay a flat start price, but atleast its a fixed price and not a price that might have been driven up).

(sorry if I miss read something its late and im tired)

[Gaetano]

I like to think of myself as an intelligent man, but I'm having problems following. The best case is you get the item first for lots of points, but if you do get the item, someone else gets it cheaper and before you? I'm sure it made sense at somepoint, but following the example below it, it should be quite simple to see that I wasn't discussing Quest items, but DKP in general, therefore, moving on;

Well I did make the assumption that you were commenting on something that I was discussing in the post, such as quest items, as opposed to something that I wasn't, such as DKP in general.

Oh and my reply did have a word missing. I meant to say that likely as not, someone will complete the quest far cheaper and sooner than you (even if, and even more because, you spend a small fortune on the first item).


okok, so when you had to keep checking the DKP site and trying to calculate how many points you could afford to pay on one epic, and still guarentee a second, you weren't playing the system? And when Kaldor spends his DKP on the quest first, while you pick-up 3 set pieces in the meantime, it's the systems fault that he bids higher on a set item?(His first, your fourth). And why didn't you win the GS belt? you had the points, again, you could have spent more points, making you player B instead of player A, but your calculations told you not to? lol. I'm sorry that sum didn't work out, Einstein.


Yes, in case you happened to know, there a smaller upgrades and there are bigger upgrades. Currently, the quest bow would be a HUGE upgrade for me, while the GS belt would've been an upgrade of a whopping 4 agility (plus some secondary stats). I'm not sure what you're accusing me of; not blowing all my points on the first item, no matter how small an upgrade, is playing the system?

What comes to my calculations, plans and "playing the system", I indeed had a sinister plan when we started doing 40-man raids. It was to first save up for big upgrades like Blastershot Launcher, then start working on building the item set. Funnily enough, it worked perfectly; at least until my "calculations" were in the end foiled by the "human factor", thanks to which I didn't actually get to spend up any of the points I had saved for the Blastershot when it actually dropped.

I agree wholeheartedly that in hindsight, Kaldor's choice to go for the quest bow first turned out far better.


The big flaw in your argument is that you switch from general to specifics depending on which best fits your complaint. Lets return to A+B X+Y. You're assuming the drop will be XXY, correct? So, in my eyes it doesn't matter whether A or B gets item X first, because it's X+Y that's the actual prize. So you're argument of 'Why should A wait for his loot when he has most points' has no grounding whatsoever, as, by doing what was suggested, and letting B get the item first (for more points) will guarentee that A gets X+Y first.

Yes, ideally the parts would drop in XYXY... order. Then there would be no contestion of Y, but even then the player with second most points would still be able to exact a huge price for the player with most points in every situation.

I'm also assuming that A isn't a mind reader, so he can't predict at which point B stops bidding (if he could, he could indeed turn the tables on B). So either A gets it for maximum point, or B gets it for minimum points (in which case B will get Y first no matter how things turn out from there).

My proposition largely eliminates these multi-item "tactics" and reduces it to a simple matter of most points used = first get.


The problem, that I'm sure you've noticed, but declined to mention, is that it's a gamble. The drop order may be XYX, meaning, that by playing tactically, A will lose first pick on the item to B.

Like I stated above, ceding the item to B would be a gamble and even if the gamble were to pay out, it would still require either mind reading skills or a very careful calculations on when to stop bidding (and assume B is unaware of this and happily bids more than he can afford in regards of getting the next Y).


I think the problem remains that you want the best loot first, and cheapest -


I want the quest bow and I want it next since I've saved up most points for it. I'd also like it for 300 points instead of 600 (that's assuming it'll drop this week, the price is likely only to go up). Guess that makes me a greedy bastard or something (though for the third time, I suggest my rule would be made retroactive and people be refunded). In either case I'd pay more than Trouble, Kaldor and Maran put together for their bows. My simple wish is that willing to pay that much would ensure that I actually get it. Shame, shame on me.


In fact, I believe that you even voiced an opinion that the guild should implement some kind of MT-for-all-classes system, and give the best loot to the best players in some kind of council effort, well, I'm afraid that's not going to happen.

I believe I'd like to call your "fact" bullshit if not an outright lie. I've never suggested anything that could be interpreted like that by any stretch of imagination (not sober anyway; if someone wants to take me to task for my ramblings last Saturday night, I must admit the glaring flaw in my person that I sometimes say things I don't really mean when I'm very, very drunk).

[Banadan]

No one's forced to go into negative.. It may be rare, but it isn't the last one. People seem to not get this and act as if the item was the last one ever dropping. Saving up the points for that elusive Item X, never bidding on anything else and then, for whatever reason, missing the raid where this item dropped and then realising that all this point saving left them without any other gear (armor in this example) and without the Item X - and then blowing the fuse? Pointing fingers at others and say that it's their fault? Nah...

It will drop again, some other time, maybe later, but it will. It wasn't the last drop and no one's forcing anyone to sell their children into slavery just to afford that item. Just relax and take the GAME easily. Yeah, no "save the world and quench the famine and correct the DKP system" post here, but I just don't take this number cruncing part seriously. Maybe because I have very long experience with the DKP system, in many online games, and simply know that in the end, my chars get all what they want, as long as the raids are done in the areas where this item comes from. And if not, what the heck, the items from some new area will be better. Simple.

[Gaetano]

People seem to not get this and act as if the item was the last one ever dropping.


With this attitude, we might as well go back to rolling. Sure everything will drop again in due time (discarding the fact that they've lost most of their value by then) and in the end everyone will have equal equipment if we just grind long enough. How wonderfully simple, why did we ever decide to use DKP instead?

[Gaetano]

Not that I mind all the personal attacks and bickering (even though I hoped to to at least some extent by addressing the issue in the second post), but let's hear if anyone has actually something to say about my suggested rule? My example might have not been perfect and covered every possible variation (hence "example") but if someone can demonstrate how my suggested rule is worse than current rule, I'd be most interested to hear it.

[leva]

Okay as most probably knows, the current rule about items such as Bindings of the Windseeker and Ancient Petrified Leaf + Mature Black Dragon Sinew goes as follows:

Person with one or more quest items gets preference when another part of the quest drops, provided that the person pays the same amount of points that the first item cost.

Sry can't agree with that highlighted part. According to the officers the Mature blue sinew does not count. Atleast it did not count last time.

[Gromagrim]

In fact, I believe that you even voiced an opinion that the guild should implement some kind of MT-for-all-classes system, and give the best loot to the best players in some kind of council effort, well, I'm afraid that's not going to happen.

I believe I'd like to call your "fact" bullshit if not an outright lie. I've never suggested anything that could be interpreted like that by any stretch of imagination (not sober anyway; if someone wants to take me to task for my ramblings last Saturday night, I must admit the glaring flaw in my person that I sometimes say things I don't really mean when I'm very, very drunk).Well, the fact is that I believe the suceeding statement. That fact is therefore not incorrect, but nice try.

Also, assuming you ignored the 'I believe' clause, the fact there would still begin 'You voiced.....' a would-be fact that you then go on to back up yourself with the 'drunken ramblings' excuse.

Luckily, I'm not the sort of man who gets annoyed by incorrect accusations of speaking bullshit, or being an outright liar, because had I been, your bristly tone and seeming inability to read the words in front of you may have landed you in some hot water.

As it stands, I can happily summise that your anger at not getting all of the loot first is something I've not had to cope with personally, or perhaps I'd have more empathy with your atonal whining.

But I'd not be the man I'd like to think myself if I didn't find some good in amongst all the detritus, so I'll take a good look at your suggested rule, and see if it might be a better option, and discuss it with the other officers. Watch this space.

[Gaetano]

Okay as most probably knows, the current rule about items such as Bindings of the Windseeker and Ancient Petrified Leaf + Mature Black Dragon Sinew goes as follows:

Person with one or more quest items gets preference when another part of the quest drops, provided that the person pays the same amount of points that the first item cost.

Sry can't agree with that highlighted part. According to the officers the Mature blue sinew does not count. Atleast it did not count last time.

Yes, it apparently is the practise now that Mature Blue Dragon Sinew does not confer any level of preference to its holder or at least Black Sinew gives higher priority. This seems perfectly reasonable to me as the quiver is after all just a "bonus" item for completing the quest and I'm not suggesting we change this should we adopt a new rule.

[Gaetano]

Well, the fact is that I believe the suceeding statement. That fact is therefore not incorrect, but nice try.

Also, assuming you ignored the 'I believe' clause, the fact there would still begin 'You voiced.....' a would-be fact that you then go on to back up yourself with the 'drunken ramblings' excuse.

Luckily, I'm not the sort of man who gets annoyed by incorrect accusations of speaking bullshit, or being an outright liar, because had I been, your bristly tone and seeming inability to read the words in front of you may have landed you in some hot water.

As it stands, I can happily summise that your anger at not getting all of the loot first is something I've not had to cope with personally, or perhaps I'd have more empathy with your atonal whining.

But I'd not be the man I'd like to think myself if I didn't find some good in amongst all the detritus, so I'll take a good look at your suggested rule, and see if it might be a better option, and discuss it with the other officers. Watch this space.

Thank you for the feedback, I shall henceforth endeavour to produce whining more musical in nature.