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

[Edryk]

Sorry, but this is silly. The Companion is not a separate player, or a separate entity. It is part of your character. This isn't any different than arguing that if I was healing through the FP I shouldn't be allowed to roll on a blaster which would be a DPS upgrade.

 

I must pause here and give Bioware credit - a lot of people were concerned about companions. If Bioware has made them so interesting, lifelike, and believable that people seriously think they're a separate entity, they've succeeded admirably.

 

Of course, this also raises the question of whether or not the companion, if they ARE there, deserves their own loot roll? If they don't get one by virtue of not being present, then if they are they should have their own roll, right?

 

Cool, have your companion tank for you. I will tag along on autofollow and just roll on gear. Wait, I can't do that in a full group? But my friend who I duo with is dpsing and me getting upgrades directly affects his gameplay. So I should get two rolls, right?

[chton]

This entire issue boils down to two things: priorities and courtesy

 

1. Priorities - Companions are used for PvE (usually solo) and, on PvP servers, open PvP. They are never used in warzones, rarely used in dungeons and never used in raids. In short, companions are used for only about half the content in the game. This automatically makes players a priority over companions

 

2. Courtesy - something most kids lack and many adults now dismiss, but it does still exist. Selfishness is never attractive. Rolling for an orange item with stats you will not use is no different than rolling for an epic with stats you will not use. You can obtain moddable gear via the GTN, planetary vendors, crafting, drops and PvP. In many cases you can solo lower-level dungeons for moddable items if you like the look.

 

Those rolling need over a player of the appropriate class that genuinely needs (aka it's an upgrade for) that item is selfish and should not be tolerated in a group, period. Their guildmaster should also be notified and, if no action is taken, the guild should be blacklisted as well

 

Excuse me, seems like the person who "needs" the upgrade can also obtain said item from these sources you list. Oh I forgot, apparently logic and "courtesy" are mutually exclusive. People who tell some one what they can or can't roll need on are being selfish and their guild leaders should be contacted and if nothing is done black listed.

[Galbatorrix]

Anything else is a social courtesy, but not a social requirement.

 

 

 

I agree with this 100%. It is a social courtesy. Whether you choose to show courtesy to others is your own choice. Apparently, this concept isn't as important to some as others, as this thread makes that fact glaringly obvious. Either way, arguing decency is pointless when all some people know is "me, me, me", so, I'll stop. Good luck in game.... you're going to need it.

[ferroz]

The companion didn't contribute to the flash point.

Maybe he didn't?

so he doesn't deserve loot.

so? I'm there, and I participated in killing the thing that dropped the loot.

 

you have entitlement issues if you think you deserve it more than I do...

 

If disagreeing with that makes you feel better about stealing loot from people that DID contribute, think what ever you want.

What about those of us who think you're just using a red herring and totally making an argument that isn't relevant, so agreeing or disagreeing doesn't really matter? You don't really cover our case... Edited January 27, 2012 by ferroz

[Creed_Buhallin]

Cool, have your companion tank for you. I will tag along on autofollow and just roll on gear. Wait, I can't do that in a full group? But my friend who I duo with is dpsing and me getting upgrades directly affects his gameplay. So I should get two rolls, right?

Most people recognize the distinction between players - you're going to have a hard time arguing that you are an extension of your friend's character, but I guess as long as he keeps you in a shock collar and punishes you when you speak out of line, I'm certainly not going to tell him what he can and can't make you wear.

[ferroz]

Whether you choose to show courtesy to others is your own choice.

Certainly, though passing on an item that someone else want when you don't want it isn't really being all that selfless, since you don't give up anything.

 

if you really want to be the soul of courtesy, you should always pass on everything. You make a lot of people happy that way.

 

Just don't think that entitles you to any other loot later on.

 

Either way, arguing decency is pointless when all some people know is "me, me, me", so, I'll stop. Good luck in game.... you're going to need it.

Sad, when people get all "me, me, me" just because a piece of loot has stats they the prefer. I mean, they have some serious entitlement issues if they think that actually means they deserve the gear more than the one who wants it because of it's looks. Edited January 27, 2012 by ferroz

[Edryk]

Most people recognize the distinction between players - you're going to have a hard time arguing that you are an extension of your friend's character, but I guess as long as he keeps you in a shock collar and punishes you when you speak out of line, I'm certainly not going to tell him what he can and can't make you wear.

 

Who said I was an extension of my friend's character? It was simply a counterpoint to the idea that you should roll for any gear that affects your gameplay, or that companions should get a separate roll. Context...

[Twazzock]

I think the principle reason you get vocal individuals supporting such egocentric behaviour is that they collectively realise that they have to give the impression that their behaviour is accepted by a sufficiently sizeable group of people. Why? Because if they seem isolated or small (as I think they actually are) then the majority will, rightly, stamp on their faces without hesitation. Fortunately, I suspect we are the vast majority so don't pander or back-down if you're faced with those that want to Need for their absent companion over a player or to take something for the 'aesthetics' of an upgrade to you; black-list them and leave because I suspect there's far, far, far more people with your perspective that'll be willing to group. The same cannot be said for the backstabbers and carrions, they'll only get into groups because people are ignorant of their past actions.

 

Personally, I’d refuse to heal somebody that did such a thing and offer an ultimatum. I will not continue to co-operate with an individual or group of individuals that has no sense of collaborative spirit, it’s a principle I won’t deviate from. If everything is intended as a means to an end solely for your benefit rather than the collective then go play something other than an MMO.

 

Naturally, I have no objection to those that Need for companions after everyone in the group has given consent or if a companion has contributed to the effort but attempting to equate whimsical notions of re-sale or aesthetics with the quantifiable effects it will have on longevity or damage for the best-suited recipient is simply asinine to me. I blame these covetous cretins on those akin to Ayn Rand and Milton Freidman; they made being a duplicitous dunce somewhat acceptable again.

 

One of the best posts I've ever read, and I couldn't agree more. Spot on

[sjmc]

or that companions should get a separate roll.

Companions should not get a separate roll unless they are part of the group. Otherwise they share your roll.

[ispanolfw]

I agree with this 100%. It is a social courtesy. Whether you choose to show courtesy to others is your own choice. Apparently, this concept isn't as important to some as others, as this thread makes that fact glaringly obvious. Either way, arguing decency is pointless when all some people know is "me, me, me", so, I'll stop. Good luck in game.... you're going to need it.

 

Except the ones arguing the points against you AREN'T saying "me, me, me" They say EVERYONE has a fair chance to roll, and that others who feel that one or more members should have PRIORITY on rolling have a sense of entitlement. And I can guarantee you that they would agree the people who roll on EVERYTHING, and I mean EVERYTHING, also could have that sense of entitlement. I say "could" because they may have been burned in the past and just want a fair roll on whatever drops, since the game gives them that right. Or they could just be greedy and not care.

 

The ones arguing against you are saying they will roll on what they feel is an upgrade for them be it stats or looks. And that everyone, again, has the same fair chance to roll on the item they ALL contributed to creating.

Edited January 27, 2012 by ispanolfw

[Eldren]

Sad, when people get all "me, me, me" just because a piece of loot has stats they the prefer. I mean, they have some serious entitlement issues if they think that actually means they deserve the gear more than the one who wants it because of it's looks.

 

This is what's at the core of it, Ferroz. These people argue against someone rolling on an item they want because in actuality the first person wants it as well, and wants to stack the deck in their favor as much as they can. They attempt to argue a moralist perspective, saying someone's being selfish if they roll on an item they want at the expense of someone else getting it, not realizing (or ignoring) that the instant they roll on an item someone else rolls on, they're in fact placing their own wants above those of another player. The instant any two (or more) people roll on the same item with the same priority roll, one or more people are going to have their wants superseded by someone else. No one likes losing a loot roll, but how they handle it is a mark of their maturity.

 

At the end of it, everyone is being selfish on both sides. One school of thought wants everyone else to acknowledge their perspective's superiority and submit to it, regardless of personal agreement, the other school of thought just wants to get the stuff they want, and is willing to accept the chance that they might not.

 

But if they do, they have to deal with someone saying they stole the item somehow, as though they did something that prevented another player from staking a claim. In reality, everyone who wanted the item staked their claim via highest-priority roll ("Need"). The dice decided from there.

 

No system is more impartial, so folks in reality have no reason to complain about favoritism or "ninjaing".

[Creed_Buhallin]

Who said I was an extension of my friend's character? It was simply a counterpoint to the idea that you should roll for any gear that affects your gameplay, or that companions should get a separate roll. Context...

And my point was that the companion is unique because it IS your character.

 

There is undoubtedly a line where "need" crosses to "greed" - that's the whole point of the two terms. I think the vase majority of people accept that taking something just to sell it qualifies as "greed" - that's the original, classic definition. I also think it's generally accepted that rolling need for your alts without approval is pretty bad form, although some may disagree.

 

But for some reason, some people are not only putting an incredibly restrictive view on "need", but insisting that anyone who doesn't follow that restrictive view is a blacklistable jerk. Believe it or not, it is possible to have something between "The only person who can Need on something is the one who has the specific correct stats and gets the biggest improvement" and "I'm going to roll on this because my father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate can use it."

 

So yeah, I got your context - I just thought it was rather inane, and responded with appropriate humor.

[Edryk]

Except the ones arguing the points against you AREN'T saying "me, me, me" They say EVERYONE has a fair chance to roll, and that others who feel that one or more members should have PRIORITY on rolling have a sense of entitlement. And I can guarantee you that they would agree the people who roll on EVERYTHING, and I mean EVERYTHING, also have that sense of entitlement.

 

The ones arguing against you are saying they will roll on what they feel is an upgrade for them be it stats or looks. And that everyone, again, has the same fair chance to roll on the item they ALL contributed to creating.

 

Why does it have to be about a piece of gear I want? What if it is two people in the group that aren't me? One wants a piece for a companion that isn't contributing or for looks. One wants it for his character. The one that wants it for his character will equip it and see the benefits immediately - for himself and the group. The one equipping it for his companion or looks will see benefits only for himself.

 

The one needing for his companion is only thinking about himself, not the group.

 

Both sides can twist the situation to make the other side look bad.

[ferroz]

And a Companion is not the same as a "wrist slot" item because the wrist slot item helped you contribute more to the FP. The companion didn't do anything at all.

Whether it contributes in the flashpoint or not is irrelevant; the player was present and contributed; all of the players contributed. None of them are more deserving than any of the other players.. The player is the one that actually wins the loot, and then distributes it as they wish.

 

This is not an unwritten rule of WoW. I assume you haven't played recently, because nowadays, people roll the highest priority on everything they can - for their friends, to DE, to sell, to trade, and to intentionally grief others.

I haven't seen this but once or twice in more than 1000 lfd pug groups. It's certainly not that common, unless that's changed drastically in the last couple of weeks.

 

People arguing on the side of being considerate to others are taking into account other people's desires, feelings and acting accordingly - and appreciate when the same consideration is shown to themselves.

Actually, they just being misleading to try and keep from having to admit their own entitlement issues; I think they're even trying to hid it from themselves. That's why they lash out with name calling like they do, demonizing the people who disagree with them: they are ashamed of themselves.

 

Then you have a couple people here trolling 75+ pages arguing semantics - the difference between a 'need' and a 'want'

That because people are misusing the word to try and mask their own entitlement issues, and they're basing the argument a claimed need when that isn't actually the case.

 

When you really look at it, you can see that they're all wants, and that the people claiming need are just using that as a red herring to distract people from the fact that they have an even worse entitlement issue than the people that they're demonizing.

 

Seriously people, stop responding to trolls and let it die.

There really were only a couple of trolls; I can only think of 2 of them (the ascii art one and the guy who's on the first page or so with "/thread" that keeps getting quoted Edited January 27, 2012 by ferroz

[Ancaglon]

No system is more impartial, so folks in reality have no reason to complain about favoritism or "ninjaing".

 

If someone pulls this sort of ******* move on a group with me, I will not group with them again, I don't care how they justify it to themselves, unless it was a genuine mistake and they apologize to the person they screwed over. Reputation matters, ninja-looters are not wanted.

[chton]

I agree with this 100%. It is a social courtesy. Whether you choose to show courtesy to others is your own choice. Apparently, this concept isn't as important to some as others, as this thread makes that fact glaringly obvious. Either way, arguing decency is pointless when all some people know is "me, me, me", so, I'll stop. Good luck in game.... you're going to need it.

 

I keep getting this same refrain of how you will be ostracized and no one will ever group with you. There's a couple of things some of your server community folks need a lesson in. First there are these things called guilds, and this may shock some of you I know, but we have friends from real life. So just because you need PUG, don't group us in that sad scrum of humanity. If I'm bored and people aren't around I may slum it with you and need all I want. But for really getting stuff done I don't need you.

So ignore, go write my name on your dreaded black list, big whoop. I got what I wanted, you need to reform and replace me. You will now have less people to group with and I just move on to PVPing or something until my friends log in. When cross server grouping comes along even better.

If this game needed more than 4 for groups or there really was difficult content that I don't run with my guild you empty threats would matter. Not the case in this game. Good luck with your courtesy campaign. You'll find like minded people and have fun. Me I'll do as I please and have fun. Every one wins, I just get the gear I like and no drama, you get the drama you like. Works for all of us.

[ispanolfw]

Why does it have to be about a piece of gear I want? What if it is two people in the group that aren't me? One wants a piece for a companion that isn't contributing or for looks. One wants it for his character. The one that wants it for his character will equip it and see the benefits immediately - for himself and the group. The one equipping it for his companion or looks will see benefits only for himself.

 

The one needing for his companion is only thinking about himself, not the group.

 

Both sides can twist the situation to make the other side look bad.

 

Except the game gives equal right to everyone to roll on what drops. They contributed, they get the chance to roll. There are extremes on both sides of the "moral" and/or "social" aspect of it, but the game doesn't see nor care about that. I feel the loot system is fine as it is, but I don't roll need on everything I see. Even if the item is an upgrade for me and say another marauder, most of the time I check their gear to see if they would get a bigger benefit from it, and usually pass or greed if so.

 

But you know, that's my opinion/view to do that. And I don't force it on anyone. The only absolute is the system gives everyone that contributed to the kill the same chance to roll on what drops.

 

And the other person not needing for his companion is NOT thinking about himself? Sure he might use it then and benefit the group for the rest of the FP. But how do YOU know his thoughts and why he rolled on it? He may be just as "greedy" for the item, he may not use it then at all, but you know, he used his game given chance to roll on it. I cannot fault EITHER of them for that. I CAN fault people who say "you don't deserve this as much as the other guy" EXCEPT in the case of someone just afking the whole FP and only rolling on items. That type would likely get booted anyways however.

Edited January 27, 2012 by ispanolfw

[ferroz]

If someone pulls this sort of ******* move on a group with me, I will not group with them again, I don't care how they justify it to themselves, unless it was a genuine mistake and they apologize to the person they screwed over. Reputation matters, ninja-looters are not wanted.

the person you're responding to isn't talking about ninja looters... maybe you should re-read it?

[Ancaglon]

the person you're responding to isn't talking about ninja looters... maybe you should re-read it?

I read it the first time. Blaming the system because it allows people to need on stuff that's not "needed" is just fatuous.

[Calsetes]

Ok, ok, ok, I got it. Work-all wonder solution, here.

 

You talk about who wants what, who needs what, you get all the "loot-stuff" talk out of the way before running the flashpoint. Failure to do this means you're failing to plan ahead - not a bad thing, but it could cause problems later on down the line.

 

If someone sees "bad looting behavior" going on, then they can bring it up to the group. See what the reaction is, and if the group is fine with it or wants to deal with it at that point.

 

The party leader has a sort of "final say" on what happens. They can boot whoever they want from the group for any reasoning whatsoever. It'd be in their best interest to go with the majority of the party's opinion, but final say goes to them, as they have the power.

 

If you do something the group does not like, or even the party leader does not like, then do not be surprised if you get removed from the party if you do not change to flow with the group / group leader's intentions. Also, feel free to remove yourself from the group if you do not agree with the group leader - you are the only one in control of this situation.

 

Take thirty seconds, be a bit more courteous to your fellow teammates, and you can prevent problems in the future. Failure to do these simple things means you're leaving yourself open to something you may not want to have happen to you.

 

Can we all at least agree to that? Regardless of what "need" or "greed" is defined as by you, run it by the group first? And then after that, should you still go by your definition, do not be surprised if you get "das boot?"

[Creed_Buhallin]

Why does it have to be about a piece of gear I want? What if it is two people in the group that aren't me? One wants a piece for a companion that isn't contributing or for looks. One wants it for his character. The one that wants it for his character will equip it and see the benefits immediately - for himself and the group. The one equipping it for his companion or looks will see benefits only for himself.

So then the overriding concern is how much the item will contribute to the group for the rest of the run?

 

So if I'm healing, I shouldn't be allowed to need on a blaster that would be a DPS increase for me, because it's not going to help the group for the rest of the run?

 

I shouldn't be able to roll on something that I can't use until next level, because it won't immediately help the group?

 

I can roll on any item that might drop from the last boss in a flashpoint, because at that point helping the group immediately is irrelevant?

 

[Edit to add: What about someone who changes spec frequently? If an Assassin bounces between DPS and Tanking, should he not be able to roll on a decent tanking item because he's DPS'ing today?]

 

This particular qualification has more holes in it than most, and that's saying a lot.

Edited January 27, 2012 by Creed_Buhallin

[ferroz]

I read it the first time. Blaming the system because it allows people to need on stuff that's not "needed" is just fatuous.

if that's what you got from it, then you need to re-read it... because you missed all of the key points.

[apantoliani]

Well, I'll definitely not because some guy on a forum told me I can't.

 

If you have to bring your argument to a forum to get approval or community consensus on an issue, you've already lost. Not saying I'm one way or the other on rolling other loot that is at best, a cosmetic roll for the marauder. Just pointing that out. Internet battle ftl.

[The_Archon]

So just because you need PUG, don't group us in that sad scrum of humanity. If I'm bored and people aren't around I may slum it with you and need all I want.

 

= not even your guildies will group with you. Aww.

[VanorDM]

If an Item drops made specifically for a certain class then the player in the party of that class should get the item, IF it is better than his current one.

 

And if that item is better then the one I currently have equipped on my companion, which may very well provide a greater boost to my performance then it does for that other person, I have no right to roll on it?

 

That answer will of course depend a bit on the situation. Did my companion help in the fight? Do I actually use a companion any longer? If we're talking about lvl 20, then the usefulness of a companion is much higher.