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

[ferroz]

What I don't get, honestly, is how you can't get the concept that a piece of gear with stats for a smuggler should go to the smuggler.

Because there's no valid "should" ... the loot does go to the person who wins the roll; there is no should

 

the only way you can bring up should is if you think you're entitled to loot; the folks that don't think anyone is entitled to loot (like me) disagree that there is ever a "should" except in cases where the group has a agreed to abide by an alternate looting method.

 

You're acting as if every loot drop in the game is universal and everyone can equally use everything.

No, we're acting as though no one actually deserves any particular loot drop over anyone else that contributed to earning that loot drop.

 

Each FP has specific loot for each class. A lot of times, it is even named appropriately.

I don't see your point.

 

How can you fault the IA for being upset because he lost the "Operative's Jacket" to the Marauder?

Because he has entitlement issues.

 

Bioware created that loot for the IA class.

No, Bioware created that loot for everyone who can equip it, including companions.

 

Sure, you can roll need on that item too if you're a Marauder (and everything else that drops too for that matter), but how can you do so and feel good about it?

If I have a reason why I want it, and the IA has a reason why he wants it, why would I feel bad about him having entitlement issues?

 

This is not the way Bioware intended loot to work.

Clearly you're incorrect.

 

Otherwise, they wouldn't have force fed you proper stat priority and also tried to appropriately name the drops to help people figure out who should get what.

Your conclusion (above) doesn't follow from this premise.

 

Stat priority does not say anything about how bioware intended loot to work.

 

FYI: there's a preview button just to the right of "submit reply" ... you can use that to re-read your post and make sure you're using the right words.

Edited January 27, 2012 by ferroz

[Creed_Buhallin]

They let everyone need on everything because of companions. Heck, they may even encourage you to roll need for companions over other players in your group. Who knows. But, again, I jut think that humans should come before NPCs.

BAM!! There it is!

 

You think the player is more important than the companion. To someone who runs with a companion out a lot (I solo with a Sniper as an alt) I can tell you that my companion's gear is really, REALLY important to me. You're perfectly welcome to think humans are more important than NPCs. Guess what? I'm not an NPC. When she's under-geared and I can't burn down whatever I'm facing before she drops, she's not the one who has to wait for the med probe, or pay the credits for the repair.

 

You can put whatever justification you want on it, make whatever distinctions you feel are appropriate, but at the end of the day, a piece of gear on Kaliyo affects how well I can accomplish the challenges in the game. Kaliyo isn't sneaking off at night to do stuff without me (well, she might be, she's kinda a freak), and she doesn't really care what she's wearing. But I do, and it matters to me what she's wearing as much as what you're wearing matters to you.

 

If you can't move your mindset into the reality of this game, that's fine - but I'm certainly not going to gimp myself - that's right, let me repeat it - I'm not going to gimp myself because you can't deal with how important companions can be.

 

My way prevents loot drama and makes the run more pleasurable for all.

No, it really doesn't. You create the drama by trying to decide for others what qualifies as need. Is that for your companion? Can't use it. How much of an upgrade is it for you? I'm more sniper-specced, so critical is more important for me than you, why'd you roll on that??

 

Really, there's one sure way to figure out who's creating the drama: Which side of this debate is running of to the forum and starting 100-page threads?

[jontyld]

I think its funny to see the people who justify rolling on anything they feel like talk about entitlement issues

[Galbatorrix]

If there truly was a consensus, or better yet an official definition of "need", I could see your stand on principal but, shifting the burden of communication on to someone who may well not be aware of your view on looting ettiquette is just an exercise in futility.

 

Even if I agree with your point of view, I'd be just as annoyed at you for raising a stink over the issue and blasting the offending player while I have to sit through your punishing tirade as I would the offending player.

 

What is your hesitance with stating your desires beforehand and clearing the air of potential friction? Your words will carry alot more weight as the reasoned advisor beforehand they will as the guy hotly complaining that he lost out on a piece of loot.

 

 

It really doesn't matter if you lay out loot rules before hand or not. With certain people, you can never win. If I were to always lay out ground rules before the runs, some people that may not have needed on anything but there own class items may now need on mine too just because I was "being a douche and trying to tell them what to do".

 

So, all you can hope for is that you get lucky. Three times lucky in come cases. Lucky that anything drops for your class in the first place. Lucky that no one else rolls on it if they can't fully benefit form it. And lastly, lucky if you win the roll when the whole group decides their companion/bank account needed it more than you.

 

 

Either that, or wait until Bioware fixes the situation some how and forces people to play nice.

[Calsetes]

Geez, I'll say it again - in condensed form, this time:

 

Go ahead and roll Need on whatever you want. If your party has an issue with it, they will deal with it in one of several ways - be it bringing it up to the group, telling you to stop, or just flat-out booting you. In a situation that doesn't involve an immediate dismissal from the group, it is entirely up to you whether or not you stay with that group, and whether or not you change how you currently use your selection criteria for that group.

 

If everyone asks you to stop needing everything, and you keep doing it, don't be surprised to get booted. If everyone starts hitting need also, then do not be surprised if you don't get stuff. If everyone leaves your party, then do not be surprised if they formed their own without you. If the leader changes to some other looting method, then do not be surprised.

 

I don't think this stuff is rocket science. I mean, I always let my group know if I'm looking for anything in particular right off the bat that might be "against the norm," such as trooper armor for a guardian, because they might be cool with it, or they might not.

 

 

Edit: I get the "companions make a difference" argument. If you say you're needing for your companions, and the group asks you to stop, then... see my whole thing above.

Edited January 27, 2012 by Calsetes

[ferroz]

**But what if the current system is how they want it to work?**

 

Why would they give you such an over abundance of hints and nudges on proper loot priority if that was the way they wanted it to work? Why name loot after specific classes if they wanted loot rolls to be a free for all?

They don't give any hints and nudges about loot priority.

 

They let everyone need on everything because of companions. Heck, they may even encourage you to roll need for companions over other players in your group. Who knows. But, again, I jut think that humans should come before NPCs.

That's just silly. Humans can't wear any of the gear in the game. The gear is just pixels.

 

The companions, on the other hand, can.

 

 

[My way prevents loot drama and makes the run more pleasurable for all. You do what ever you want though.

No, your way causes loot drama. My way is to talk about it in group, and that is the only thing that can be done to reduce loot drama

[Spartanik]

Because there's no valid "should" ... the loot does go to the person who wins the roll; there is no should

 

the only way you can bring up should is if you think you're entitled to loot; the folks that don't think anyone is entitled to loot (like me) disagree that there is ever a "should" except in cases where the group has a agreed to abide by an alternate looting method.

 

No, we're acting as though no one actually deserves any particular loot drop over anyone else that contributed to earning that loot drop.

 

I don't see your point.

 

Because he has entitlement issues.

 

No, Bioware created that loot for everyone who can equip it, including companions.

 

If I have a reason why I want it, and the IA has a reason why he wants it, why would I feel bad about him having entitlement issues?

 

Clearly you're incorrect.

 

Your conclusion (above) doesn't follow from this premise.

 

Stat priority does not say anything about how bioware intended loot to work.

 

FYI: there's a preview button just to the right of "submit reply" ... you can use that to re-read your post and make sure you're using the right words.

 

Even so by your logic it shows very lack of fair play.

As an example Im pretty ilum isnt working as bioware intended, and stil ppl massively exploit ilum in several ways, by your logic you are defending Exploiters, just because they are able to, thus assuming Bioware wanted that to happen.

 

im hoping in game i wont group with you ever.

That's just silly. Humans can't wear any of the gear in the game. The gear is just pixels.

 

The companions, on the other hand, can.

trolling now?1 i see.... Edited January 27, 2012 by Spartanik

[ferroz]

I think its funny to see the people who justify rolling on anything they feel like talk about entitlement issues

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. Want a do over?

[Loendar]

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. Want a do over?

 

I think he finds it funny that you are calling out others on entitlement issues when your position is that you are entitled to everything.

 

It made me laugh as well.

Edited January 27, 2012 by Loendar

[Creed_Buhallin]

I think he finds it funny that you are calling out others on entitlement issues when your position is that you are entitled to everything.

That's not his position at all.

 

His position is that everybody is entitled to lay equal claim to the rewards for content they helped defeat. That's pretty much the definition of equality.

 

The other side is claiming that only certain people can lay claim to items, and what's more, THEY get to decide what is an isn't an acceptable claim. That's entitlement.

 

It's not really all that hard, if you can get past the way things worked in older games.

[xsteinbachx]

There should be a setting that the Group leader can set before the instance. Either everyone can roll, or only the class that can use the item. That way everyones happy, and it stops the BS.

 

Seriously, everyone has different views on drops, and no one can agree, let it be settled in game with an easy option.

[Maccaroth]

No, we're acting as though no one actually deserves any particular loot drop over anyone else that contributed to earning that loot drop.

Anyone can do whatever he wants - need, greed or pass the loot. It's true.

 

When you have four people it's simply more sensible to let the other people take the gear they need if you don't need it (to equip yourself). That way healer will be able to get healer gear and tank will equip tank gear when it'll be possible for looting. It's not free, it's done because by allowing them to take "their" parts you'll be free to take "yours" in return and the whole party will benefit, since you'll take equipment you really need to improve your stats and boost the party (and yourself).

 

If you'll take need for a companion (and you have many companions), then everyone can take need too. That way you can win some items (or nothing, or all, it's random roll divided by four people), but there is no guarantee that you'll lay your hands on parts for your character.

 

That's the main reason why people usually don't roll need for their companion without asking first and don't roll over the needs of the other players in the group. Not because they are nice - although some people are - but because they are able to see how this course of action benefits them indirectly.

Edited January 27, 2012 by Maccaroth

[ispanolfw]

I think he finds it funny that you are calling out others on entitlement issues when your position is that you are entitled to everything.

 

It made me laugh as well.

 

He never said he was entitled to everything. He said he was entitled to roll, just like EVERYONE ELSE in the group who helped defeat the content at hand. So if he rolls need against someone, and loses, and DOESN'T whine that he lost and is actually completely ok with the outcome every time, he's still feeling entitled? May want to think about that a bit.

[Spartanik]

That's not his position at all.

 

His position is that everybody is entitled to lay equal claim to the rewards for content they helped defeat. That's pretty much the definition of equality.

 

The other side is claiming that only certain people can lay claim to items, and what's more, THEY get to decide what is an isn't an acceptable claim. That's entitlement.

 

It's not really all that hard, if you can get past the way things worked in older games.

 

If that was true they didnt had the greed option in the first place.

[Zhothon]

Guys and gals. Stop arguing with the select few who think they are entitled to roll on all gear. They represent a very small fraction of the player base. If you see people acting like them in the game, do what a majority of us would do.

 

Kick them out of the group.

 

They are arguing here for the sake of arguing. You will never get through to them.

Edited January 27, 2012 by Zhothon

[sjmc]

As an example Im pretty ilum isnt working as bioware intended, and stil ppl massively exploit ilum in several ways, by your logic you are defending Exploiters, just because they are able to, thus assuming Bioware wanted that to happen.

It is not an exploit to put gear into Companion gear slots. If Bioware didn't want companions to wear gear, they wouldn't have given them gear slots.

[ferroz]

Even so by your logic it shows very lack of fair play.

How so?

everyone contributes = everyone has a chance at loot. If you want to hold people to a specific standard, the onus is on you to communicate that standard.

 

How is that a lack of fair play?

 

 

I'm in favor of fair play; I'm against people insisting that they somehow deserve loot over other people for arbitrary reasons.

 

 

As an example Im pretty ilum isnt working as bioware intended, and stil ppl massively exploit ilum in several ways, by your logic you are defending Exploiters, just because they are able to, thus assuming Bioware wanted that to happen.

No, bioware has specifically said that they didn't intend for the issues in illum to happen, while the stuff I seen where BW commented on looted makes it pretty clear that looting for companions, mods and even appearance, is working as intended.

 

im hoping in game i wont group with you ever.

Why?

[Edryk]

He never said he was entitled to everything. He said he was entitled to roll, just like EVERYONE ELSE in the group who helped defeat the content at hand. So if he rolls need against someone, and loses, and DOESN'T whine that he lost and is actually completely ok with the outcome every time, he's still feeling entitled? May want to think about that a bit.

 

His is the only position which allows for forcing it on other people by actually hitting the need button. No matter what you agree on, if a person feels entitled to roll, there's nothing I can do to stop them. My only recourse is to not play with them.

 

But hey, they keep saying that it's wrong to force your opinion on others, while maintaining that they do just that and shifting the onus of discussing it to others.

[Loendar]

He never said he was entitled to everything. He said he was entitled to roll, just like EVERYONE ELSE in the group who helped defeat the content at hand. So if he rolls need against someone, and loses, and DOESN'T whine that he lost and is actually completely ok with the outcome every time, he's still feeling entitled? May want to think about that a bit.

 

It's really just semantics. If you feel everyone can/should roll on everything then you inherently feel that YOU are entitled to everything which is the opposite of what other people are saying.

 

So, yes, his position takes entitlement issues to the extreme.

[Nightfox_]

His is the only position which allows for forcing it on other people by actually hitting the need button. No matter what you agree on, if a person feels entitled to roll, there's nothing I can do to stop them. My only recourse is to not play with them.

 

But hey, they keep saying that it's wrong to force your opinion on others, while maintaining that they do just that and shifting the onus of discussing it to others.

 

This ^^

[ispanolfw]

His is the only position which allows for forcing it on other people by actually hitting the need button. No matter what you agree on, if a person feels entitled to roll, there's nothing I can do to stop them. My only recourse is to not play with them.

 

But hey, they keep saying that it's wrong to force your opinion on others, while maintaining that they do just that and shifting the onus of discussing it to others.

 

Except the game is designed this way. We aren't making the opinion that it is, it just IS designed that way. If we DIDN'T have entitlement to roll, we would not be allowed to. 100% absolute. Not my opinion, nor his. That's just how the game works. I personally do NOT roll on everything, and i've stated as such several times, so has he.

[VanorDM]

They represent a very small fraction of the player base

 

Really?

 

Because based on the number of posts I've seen about this issue, they clearly are not a small fraction of the player base.

 

But if you want to insist on using rules that don't really apply, and force your opinion on everyone else, with no warning... Feel free to do so.

 

For most of us, the issue isn't if you should or shouldn't roll need for companions. The issue is that people seem to believe there's no reason to even discuss loot rules ahead of time.

[ispanolfw]

It's really just semantics. If you feel everyone can/should roll on everything then you inherently feel that YOU are entitled to everything which is the opposite of what other people are saying.

 

So, yes, his position takes entitlement issues to the extreme.

 

I'm entitled to roll. Nothing more. If I lose the roll to someone who is going to just sell it to an NPC vendor, so be it. I however don't roll on everything. I check the other guys' gear and see if it helps him more and typically pass if it does. But you know, the game is designed contrary to that. You helped, you get to roll. That's an absolute, not an opinion.

[Vydor_HC]

It's really just semantics. If you feel everyone can/should roll on everything then you inherently feel that YOU are entitled to everything which is the opposite of what other people are saying.

 

So, yes, his position takes entitlement issues to the extreme.

 

Not at all, his position is one of equality...everyone is equal to roll, winner gets item. The other way levels opinionated entitlement on who deserves to get to roll. That's not equality. That's something that would have to be discussed ahead of time as to who qualifies for what since it's not universally equal.

[Loendar]

I'm entitled to roll. Nothing more. If I lose the roll to someone who is going to just sell it to an NPC vendor, so be it. I however don't roll on everything. I check the other guys' gear and see if it helps him more and typically pass if it does. But you know, the game is designed contrary to that. You helped, you get to roll. That's an absolute, not an opinion.

 

And the entire point of this thread is an attempt to modify the existing system to make it more equitable for the 'player toon' over the companion/Alt. Plan and simple.

 

Yes, the current system allows for the problem to exist - this is an attempt to address that.