No, You May Not Roll on Items for Another Class and Strip Out the Mods

[Eldren]

As per my observation earlier, I find it intriguing that it’s the people displaying no concerns for utility (e.g. Eldren’s signature) after collectively earning something that are the ones attempting to convince people that penalties are unenforceable or that we should rely on ‘the system’ rather than informal conventions or social contracts. It’s clearly to your advantage to tell people that such is impractical or to discourage them from trying, it’s imperative to your ‘survival.’

 

The simple fact of the matter is that consensus is never reached in any domain of this nature and we cannot really rely on individual sovereignty as we would in reality due to the fact that everything is collectively earned thus collectively owned. Consequently, we can only rely on majoritarian approaches. In a domain like this, I see nothing wrong with ‘mob rule’ provided that people are ostracised based on reasonable evidence. I encourage metaphorical pitchforks. In reality, I'm a social libertarian but I don't apply that here because I recognise that the dynamics are very different.

 

I don't have to agree with your more socialist perspective, though it's at least beneficial that you're honest about it. I don't believe in collective ownership, and I don't think the game supports that paradigm. An item is not actually owned until it's in someone's inventory, and it only goes into their inventory once they win a roll on it. The party collectively downed a boss. At that point, they're each individually rolling on the item for their own personal purposes. They each individually want the item. Unless they're in a guild together (in which case loot contentions like this frequently don't arise to begin with), the upgrade only benefits that group until they disband, at which point it's a benefit solely to its owner. As a result, it's largely pointless to use group benefit as a hammer by which to discourage fulfilling one's own interests at the expense of consideration for the collective.

 

Your earlier analyses of utilitarian benefit applied across a group is inexact due to the dispersed nature of said groups, even once people start collapsing on one another again in endgame. True benefit applies only to the individual in this case, and motives aren't in question: people are there to upgrade their characters, and they participate in collective effort to have an opportunity at a higher quality of personal upgrades. They don't roll to disburse amongst the group, they roll to acquire a personal upgrade.

 

I can't disabuse you of any views you hold to the contrary, I can only point to my own perspective on this with any real authority and sovereignty. It isn't crucial to my "survival", I'm a realist in what's actually happening vs. an idealist appealing to what I hope will happen. Groups cooperate so each individual has a shot at individual upgrades, since not enough gear is disbursed in a given bit of group content for each person to have a guarantee of walking out with an upgrade. This is why people are largely expected to run the same content multiple times until they reach the point where, in their own consideration, the effort is no longer commensurate with their rewards, at which point they move on. This is intentional on BioWare's part, as people running content repeatedly improves the chances of ongoing subscription.

[vvp_pe]

As per my observation earlier, I find it intriguing that it’s the people displaying no concerns for utility (e.g. Eldren’s signature) after collectively earning something that are the ones attempting to convince people that penalties are unenforceable or that we should rely on ‘the system’ rather than informal conventions or social contracts. It’s clearly to your advantage to tell people that such is impractical or to discourage them from trying, it’s imperative to your ‘survival.’

 

The simple fact of the matter is that consensus is never reached in any domain of this nature and we cannot really rely on individual sovereignty as we would in reality due to the fact that everything is collectively earned thus collectively owned. Consequently, we can only rely on majoritarian approaches. In a domain like this, I see nothing wrong with ‘mob rule’ provided that people are ostracised based on reasonable evidence. I encourage metaphorical pitchforks. In reality, I'm a social libertarian but I don't apply that here because I recognise that the dynamics are very different. If people have no concern overall utility, why should I have any concern for their desires?

 

 

You mean just like it works in any other domain where individual sovereignty can't apply due to the ramifications it has for others, whether online or in reality? Let's strong-arm people into playing with those they fundamentally disagree with so that the individual they disagree with consistently gets advantages. If a person is place in an ignore list or their actions made known to the 'public' sphere then people choose to reject them too, just as the person chose to reject the values of those people. I fail to see how that is 'unfortunate.'

 

lol you don't think things are built by the community in real life.

[chton]

Yes, of course. But just because you are in a videogame dosent mean that you have to be an egoist, right? After all you ar playing togetherr with other people

 

That was just an extreme example, no harm intended

 

Yes I'm playing a video game, and I likely contributed as much to the success of the mission, thus I'm due same as anyone else. It's not that big a deal in the long run. It is after all simply pixels.

[Galbatorrix]

Who cares I'm not in your guild and anyone who PUGs a raid gets what they deserve.

 

 

Yeah, because expecting random kids on the interwebs to be decent to one another "just because" is ludicrous.

 

Honestly, it's sad, but I really Hope Bioware just gets rid of dungeon loot all together in the future and just drops a loot bag per boss for each participant with a random item that you or your companion could use. Heck, they could even make Orange items tradeable for the people present in case the Trooper and Guardian want to switch.

[Gereon]

It's not that big a deal in the long run. It is after all simply pixels.

 

On that i completely agree, i wont get angry over some colored pixels

 

We are just discussing different opinions, thats what forums are for, right?

[chton]

On that i completely agree, i wont get angry over some colored pixels

 

We are just discussing different opinions, thats what forums are for, right?

 

That's what I'm doing some people want to make some moral judgment or other over loot in a video game. LOL they're gonna black list people and put it on your permanent record, go to your guild leader. Lots of drama over nothing but it's entertaining watching them get worked up.

[Liquidacid]

this is really more of a rule that the group should decide ..

 

but who cares cause

 

WHATEVA I DO WHAT I WANT

[Sufran]

I don't have to agree with your more socialist perspective, though it's at least beneficial that you're honest about it. I don't believe in collective ownership, and I don't think the game supports that paradigm. An item is not actually owned until it's in someone's inventory, and it only goes into their inventory once they win a roll on it. The party collectively downed a boss. At that point, they're each individually rolling on the item for their own personal purposes. They each individually want the item. Unless they're in a guild together (in which case loot contentions like this frequently don't arise to begin with), the upgrade only benefits that group until they disband, at which point it's a benefit solely to its owner. As a result, it's largely pointless to use group benefit as a hammer by which to discourage fulfilling one's own interests at the expense of consideration for the collective.

 

Your earlier analyses of utilitarian benefit applied across a group is inexact due to the dispersed nature of said groups, even once people start collapsing on one another again in endgame. True benefit applies only to the individual in this case, and motives aren't in question: people are there to upgrade their characters, and they participate in collective effort to have an opportunity at a higher quality of personal upgrades. They don't roll to disburse amongst the group, they roll to acquire a personal upgrade.

Whilst I disagree due to my perspective on collective effort rendering items within the realm of collective values/ownership and regard the utility as on-going beyond the dispersal of the group, I can certainly appreciate your perspective and respect it. As to the comment on repeatedly running content, I think Bioware would rapidly change the system if people did begin rolling Need on every item due to the personal benefits such confers (even the tiny fraction of credit value helps you buy items from the GTN, after all). If they had intended that to start with then I imagine they'd allocate items equally to everyone irrespective of class or need, it would procedurally fair rather than substantively fair. There would be no options, hence why I take what you label a 'socialist' approach. Anyway, take care.

Edited January 25, 2012 by Sufran

[Jedi_Wannabe]

if I am able to press NEED, then i'm allowed to do it

 

 

/thread

 

If I'm able to stab you in the eye with a pencil, then I'm allowed to do it.

 

[BaronSamedi]

... An item is not actually owned until it's in someone's inventory, and it only goes into their inventory once they win a roll on it. The party collectively downed a boss. At that point, they're each individually rolling on the item for their own personal purposes. They each individually want the item. Unless they're in a guild together (in which case loot contentions like this frequently don't arise to begin with), the upgrade only benefits that group until they disband, at which point it's a benefit solely to its owner. As a result, it's largely pointless to use group benefit as a hammer by which to discourage fulfilling one's own interests at the expense of consideration for the collective.

 

Your earlier analyses of utilitarian benefit applied across a group is inexact due to the dispersed nature of said groups, even once people start collapsing on one another again in endgame. True benefit applies only to the individual in this case, and motives aren't in question: people are there to upgrade their characters, and they participate in collective effort to have an opportunity at a higher quality of personal upgrades. They don't roll to disburse amongst the group, they roll to acquire a personal upgrade. ...

 

This is the best rational for this side of the argument I've read to date across all threads on this topic.

 

While I still lean towards the side of "need" for the character, not the companion or the looks, after reading this argument I doubt I'll get upset over the issue any more. In fact, I may even consider rolling "need" for my companion or looks in the future.

[Eldren]

Whilst I disagree due to my perspective on collective effort rendering items within the realm of collective values/ownership and regard the utility as on-going beyond the dispersal of the group, I can certainly appreciate your perspective and respect it. As to the comment on repeatedly running content, I think Bioware would rapidly change the system if people did begin rolling Need on every item due to the personal benefits such confers (even the tiny fraction of credit value helps you buy items from the GTN, after all). If they had intended that to start with then I imagine they'd allocate items equally to everyone irrespective of class or need, it would procedurally fair rather than substantively fair. There would be no options, hence why I take what you label a 'socialist' approach. Anyway, take care.

 

It's the Battle of the Holocrons.

 

This said, while I don't know with 100% certainty, my suspicion is that BioWare implemented Need Before Greed as a point of familiarity for MMO gamers who have grown used to the system over the 7-year lifespan (so far) of World of Warcraft, who popularized the system. Since we seem to have a lot of gamers involved in these forums who indicate this is their first MMO, or that they never played WoW, I think that might be part of the vehemence with which they participate in loot distribution threads (which are legion on these forums).

 

To be honest, I think the reality of companions being such an integral part of the non-group experience (which receives significant focus, as solo 1-50 play accounts for a much larger percentage of game content and player interface than the group content during that time, or at the level cap) brings up a glaring flaw in NBG: in a very real sense, players who want to upgrade their companions can have a defensible position in stating they need everything that doesn't have a class requirement on it. Arguments about whether companions "need" Flashpoint or Operation-quality upgrades notwithstanding, if a player wants their companion to have that quality of gear, they have a valid reason for rolling Need on something that doesn't have stats optimized for their own class.

 

As a result, I personally think that in Flashpoints and Operations, BioWare should implement an addition to each boss' loot tables, a companion loot bag. The whole group can roll on it (and would likely roll Need), and it uses the existing "smart loot system" (currently utilized in quests) to give you an upgrade for one of your companions (it might not be one you use regularly, but it's a companion upgrade regardless). To make this work, they then adjust the existing loot tables so everything aside from this companion loot bag has a class requirement, and the system prevents you from rolling Need on any item that doesn't include your class.

 

All loot drama is immediately solved.

[TipsyDrow]

I get that. But this general topic has come up in the past. And in those discussions, I've tried to make the point that there will be situations where one class is rolling need for an item and another class is rolling need for a mod. And the example I tend to use is +Crit. Because there are benefits to +Crit for both healers and DPS.

 

And so there will be a situation where two classes NEED the item for an upgrade. One might wear the item. One might mod strip it. But the need is genuine.

 

And people still flip out and get huffy about it.

 

Which means, to me, this type of discussion isn't about being fair. It's about loot drama. You typical loot drama that crops in these games alllllllllllll the time.

 

You are going to meet a healer one day who finally realizes that an upgrade to crit is going to help them heal better. And that might be the day that some DPS class totally wigs out on the healer because ... duh ... they're DPS and crit is their big thing.

 

And now you're stuck in a loot drama situation where a healer has to try to explain why they want to need on an item?

 

It's just silly.

 

These items are all rolled on. There's equal chance to win. But it's always going to be a situation where someone lost and is upset about losing.

 

/sigh

 

Unless things change after lvl 45 (that's as high as I have gotten) the only mod in an item I have seen that is worth taking out for multiple classes is the enhancement mod. The armoring and mod (mod) will both have the stats for only the particular class the item was designed for. That being the case, to roll need on that item when you could spend two lousy planet commendations or some absurdly low amount like 2k credits on the gtn to get that one little enhancement mod is a douchebag move. Now the other argument that the player wants the piece to strip all mods out, toss class appropriate mods in and wear

is, and god I even hate to admit it, actually a valid roll on the item. I wouldn't personally do it without discussing it before the FP is ran, but from someone who plays jedi and refuses to wear the horrendous jedi robes, be they medium or heavy I can understand why someone would roll on the smuggler gear for looks. Again I wouldn't personally do it out of the blue, I spend a fortune on the gtn getting what i want, but at the same time, I would neither boot another player nor ***** at them for doing it. The best thing to do is set loot rules the whole group agrees on before the run starts. People run FP's for different reasons. I sometimes will join a group with the specific intention of rolling on trooper chest pieces or smuggler chest pieces. I always state up front my reason for running the FP and also assure the group i will only roll need on the item I want (for looks) is not needed by someone in the group as an upgrade for their current toon. I have never had an issue with anyone in any FP when things were discussed before starting.

Edited January 25, 2012 by TipsyDrow

[Lasarith]

...if anyone in that class is with your group.

 

I can't believe I'm posting about item rolls, or about this issue. People worry too much about loot, and I'm a big believer in just enjoying the game.

But poor claims hurt group dynamics, and there's no need for this kind of thing.

 

Today, a Sith Marauder rolled Need to get this

Cademimu Sharpshooter's Jacket

+34 Endurance

+38 Cunning

+18 Critical Rating

 

when I pointed out it was made for an Agent, like me, he said he intended to strip out the mods and trade them.

 

When I noted that the mods are Bound, he insisted that since he could wear it, he could roll. More surprising was that when he brought the issue to /General, a few voices agreed.

 

Most did not, but the others need to know that sort of claim i's a party-breaker. This is clearly an Agent item - a huge upgrade in my case - and my next group will get a little less healing as a result.

 

One of the pleasures of running Flashpoints is the chance to get gear suited to you. If it's better suited to someone else, leave it for them.

 

So far all the Flashpoints i have run are way below my level, so i just get the cash, and x on all items (unless im soloing it) i have no need for the loot while the lower level does)

[rzrknight]

i dont think this will ever be solved unless BW actually do something to close the drops.

 

Otherwise there will always be 2 groups:

 

1) people like me who will /ignore the player and leave / kick the guy.

 

2) people who will need on everything cause they can.

[Eldren]

i dont think this will ever be solved unless BW actually do something to close the drops.

 

Otherwise there will always be 2 groups:

 

1) people like me who will /ignore the player and leave / kick the guy.

 

2) people who will need on everything cause they can.

 

Nice false dichotomy there.

 

Have you considered that some, possibly even many, of the people who roll on loot in a fashion you disapprove of might have reasons? Or are you only caught up in disagreeing with those reasons and considering them objectively invalid as a result?

 

In short, what makes your perspective more valid than theirs?

 

Both perspectives are valid, which is why there's an impartial system in place to insure neither perspective takes ascendancy over the other. Anything beyond that isn't designed, only put forth in attempted enforcement via a social contract that these forums seem to make obvious not everyone subscribes to or agrees with.

[rzrknight]

Nice false dichotomy there.

 

Have you considered that some, possibly even many, of the people who roll on loot in a fashion you disapprove of might have reasons? Or are you only caught up in disagreeing with those reasons and considering them objectively invalid as a result?

 

In short, what makes your perspective more valid than theirs?

 

Both perspectives are valid, which is why there's an impartial system in place to insure neither perspective takes ascendancy over the other. Anything beyond that isn't designed, only put forth in attempted enforcement via a social contract that these forums seem to make obvious not everyone subscribes to or agrees with.

 

That is my point exactly , there is no way i will agree that they have the right to need on everything and i dont think i will make them agree with me.

 

Therefor , either BW comes in to solve the problem by limiting the loot in someway , or we will always keep the 2 groups.

[Inarai]

That is my point exactly , there is no way i will agree that they have the right to need on everything and i dont think i will make them agree with me.

 

Therefor , either BW comes in to solve the problem by limiting the loot in someway , or we will always keep the 2 groups.

 

But, see, that's not the subject.

 

The subject is people having different ideas of what IS legit to need on - for example, a Shadow rolling on a single blade saber for the sake of the mods which would entirely upgrade the saber he's carrying now. There's disagreement as to the legitimacy of this.

 

Which is why you establish loot rules at the outset - it's not a simple binary thing here.

[rzrknight]

But, see, that's not the subject.

 

The subject is people having different ideas of what IS legit to need on - for example, a Shadow rolling on a single blade saber for the sake of the mods which would entirely upgrade the saber he's carrying now. There's disagreement as to the legitimacy of this.

 

Which is why you establish loot rules at the outset - it's not a simple binary thing here.

 

I lack the insight to see why.

 

If you consider that exist pre established loot rules then:

 

If the groups rules allow this kind of thing he is on his right to do so.

 

If he breaks the rules , he is wrong.

 

Still binary to me.

[sjmc]

If you consider that exist pre established loot rules then:

Where did these "pre-established loot rules" come from? I can't find them in the codex.

 

Or are they based on the way other games have treated companions and/or upgradeable (and separable) gear that can be worn by multiple classes in loot distribution?

 

What is so unfair about distributing loot equally and letting people use it however they believe will be most beneficial to their character and game experience? Especially if you are talking about pre-50 loot that will be upgraded to something else tomorrow.

Edited January 25, 2012 by sjmc

[Inarai]

I lack the insight to see why.

 

If you consider that exist pre established loot rules then:

 

If the groups rules allow this kind of thing he is on his right to do so.

 

If he breaks the rules , he is wrong.

 

Still binary to me.

 

There are no pre-established rules. Where are you going to import rules for mods or companions from?

Edited January 25, 2012 by Inarai

[Ronamo]

That is my point exactly , there is no way i will agree that they have the right to need on everything and i dont think i will make them agree with me.

 

Therefor , either BW comes in to solve the problem by limiting the loot in someway , or we will always keep the 2 groups.

 

Keeping my opinions of the actions in question out of it for the moment, you're still pigeonholing players. There is certainly a chance for there to be people who will neither roll need on everything they can nor leave the group or complain if someone else does. They will remain apathetic or neutral to the situation, or aggressive towards all other parties.

 

You cannot speak in absolutes when dealing with social contracts like the ones surrounding the "right" or "wrong" distribution of loot.

Edited January 26, 2012 by Ronamo

[GetPloughed]

if I am able to press NEED, then i'm allowed to do it

 

 

/thread

 

And you are the key reason why the MMO community sucks.

 

BioWare should have foreseen this issue and made every piece of armour class depended but I guess for some reason they thought they'd attract a more mature/adult audience than WoW. They were clearly wrong.

 

I'd say they need to fix up the current loot system, but that's an understatement, it needs a complete overhaul, starting with a /roll system. Kind of funny when I made my first character we formed a group and took on The First on Balmorra, went smoothly until we found out we had no way to distribute loot since we can't rely on the need/greed system when people don't know the stats they want. Ever since that I haven't seen a single group form for World Bosses, which is a shame.

[RudeDog]

 

I don't understand, with such a mindblowingly simple itemization design, why we can even roll on gear we can't use anyway.

 

The whole Need v. Greed system is horrible IMO. There should just be random drops that update your inventory (with no BoP) and then you can sale or trade what you get. Then you have no Need v. Greed drama.

[Ronamo]

The whole Need v. Greed system is horrible IMO. There should just be random drops that update your inventory (with no BoP) and then you can sale or trade what you get. Then you have no Need v. Greed drama.

 

You wouldn't have a balanced economy or need to run content for gear, either.

[Inarai]

You wouldn't have a balanced economy or need to run content for gear, either.

 

And it makes things way too easy for credit sellers - which then turns into hyper-inflation.