chton Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 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. But I and a number of other people are perfectly happy the way it is now so no need for this change. See again there's this thing called party chat, you can use it for all types of useful stuff, one determining loot rules before a run. If you use it and everyone agrees to your rules, it's all good. The only issue is when people don't discuss the rules and assume people play like them. A few minutes in the beginning saves drama and lets BW work on actual issues. Feel free to argue but I see no way a simple discussion before hand wouldn't solve every one of these issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jontyld Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 I'm curious to see whats going to happen with all this need for companion stuff when these guys hit 50 and gear matters, and companions become vanity items that follow you around the fleet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kindara Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 (edited) Just because someoen has different priorities, that doesn't make them a jerk, social or otherwise. Why do you think it's ok to enforce your priorities on other people? I'd really like to know. Last time I checked the greedy needy all about me culture is frowned on no matter where you go. My statement stands. Why should i be forced to work with someone that wants to take everything and leave nothing for anyone else? Which way is better? Working together and everyone gets a shot at something nice designed for them? Or Everyone working so 1 person can take everything with the call off "I can make it work for my companion." The content is designed for groups. Groups have to socially interact and that means taking other priorities or ideas into consideration. Edited January 27, 2012 by Kindara Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vydor_HC Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 (edited) Sadly there are a lot of folks who think it's ok to not discuss them, and then hold people accountable to those unwritten, unspoken rules. -shrugs- Could be, but in these discussion I do not see people stating that, nor defending it's intent. Vitally all threads I've seen, discussing the loot rules ahead of time, is the only that both sides agree on. Edited January 27, 2012 by Vydor_HC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferroz Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Because, I've yet to really see a post that defends ninjaing or one that says "no matter what the group decides I'm going to do the opposite".with the exception of 2 obvious trolls Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferroz Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 -shrugs- Could be, but in these discussion I do not see people stating that, nor defending it's intent.it's been stated several times in this thread alone, not to mention in many of the similar threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Setanian Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Because, I've yet to really see a post that defends ninjaing or one that says "no matter what the group decides I'm going to do the opposite". Then you have not read the entire thread. By my calculations, it is universally agreed on this thread, that if the group sets rules at the start, you have a choice to agree to those rules and go along, or to voice your disagreement and leave the group. Regardless, it was never ninja'ing in the first place, and people just do not *want* to accept this, because once, you do accept it, the whole NBG rules falls apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vydor_HC Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 (edited) it's been stated several times in this thread alone, not to mention in many of the similar threads. That they will ninja? I haven't read them. Pretty sure their trolls, unless they are defending it. Edited January 27, 2012 by Vydor_HC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldren Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 One crew (we'll call them the "anti-companion" crowd) wants people to have their rolls limited to a certain narrowly-defined corridor. The other crew wants people to roll as they desire, and let the dice fall where they may. Who's being selfish here? What the anti-companion crowd doesn't seem to realize is that they want to force others to behave as they wish, while their opposition lets people behave as they desire either way. I again posit that the selfish perspective is obvious here. If someone rolls Need on several varieties of gear for a variety of reasons, that's fine: they were in the Flashpoint, they helped down the boss that dropped the gear. All going into a Flashpoint gives you as a guarantee is an opportunity to roll on loot. You aren't guaranteed loot, you're only guaranteed the opportunity to try for it. Some folks want to improve their chances past "chance at" into "nearly guaranteed", and they're upset the system doesn't let them. You all go in, you all roll as you feel is appropriate. The end result is everyone needs upgrades, and everyone wants something from the Flashpoint. Each person is being selfish if they're willing to roll against someone else for a piece of gear. That the anti-companion crowd attempts to disguise this by moralizing and appealing to a social contract that not everyone acknowledges is the amusing part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferroz Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 (edited) Last time I checked the greedy needy all about me culture is frowned on no matter where you go. My statement stands. Why should i be forced to work with someone that wants to take everything and leave nothing for anyone else? Which way is better? Working together and everyone gets a shot at something nice designed for them? Or Everyone working so 1 person can take everything with the call off "I can make it work for my companion."False dilemma. The actual choices are between Everyone gets a chance at loot they want where I dictate the correct priorities and whether they are allowed priority. vs Everyone gets a chance at loot they want. Period I much prefer the latter; you have no business setting my priorities. Edited January 27, 2012 by ferroz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ispanolfw Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Last time I checked the greedy needy all about me culture is frowned on no matter where you go. My statement stands. Why should i be forced to work with someone that wants to take everything and leave nothing for anyone else? Which way is better? Working together and everyone gets a shot at something nice designed for them? Or Everyone working so 1 person can take everything with the call off "I can make it work for my companion." The content is designed for groups. Groups have to socially interact and that means taking other priorities or ideas into consideration. So it's ok to shun someone who favors looks far more than stats? Because that would be the same according to what you're saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vydor_HC Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Then you have not read the entire thread. By my calculations, it is universally agreed on this thread, that if the group sets rules at the start, you have a choice to agree to those rules and go along, or to voice your disagreement and leave the group. Regardless, it was never ninja'ing in the first place, and people just do not *want* to accept this, because once, you do accept it, the whole NBG rules falls apart. hmmm, that's exactly what I was saying. Don't know where you inferred anything otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maccaroth Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 VanorDM - I will elaborate a bit. When you have many people - let's say milions - then it's rather obvious that in common forum, in a specific topic you'll always find people with different approach to the topic. Because the people are different. But what people are talking here is no indication of their number. How many people doesn't post here? We can only be sure that people with opinion A and B exist. We can be sure about what we saw. I saw people stating A and no people stating B on my server. I can be biased - because that I didn't meet people stating B doesn't mean they don't exist - but this can also lead me to the point that people stating A are the majority. At least on my server. Then I can think that they are majority overall. In other words - it's hard to tell, since we don't have access to hard data and I can base only on my experience in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferroz Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 That they will ninja? I haven't read them. Pretty sure their trolls, unless they are defending it.No, that people will hold others accountable for unwritten unspoken rules and that it's unreasonable to expect them to actually talk in party chat to discuss them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyACT Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 False dilemma. The actual choices are between Everyone gets a chance at loot they want where I dictate the correct priorities and whether they are allowed priority. vs Everyone gets a chance at loot they want, I much prefer the latter; you have no business setting my priorities. Game communities are all about social conventions - you break the conventions the sense of community suffers. This thread is all about discussing agreed conventions - of course anyone is free to break them and face the consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Setanian Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 hmmm, that's exactly what I was saying. Don't know where you inferred anything otherwise. Sorry, 2 different angles going on, I think I mixed yours up with the other. Apologies if I did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Creed_Buhallin Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 I'm curious to see whats going to happen with all this need for companion stuff when these guys hit 50 and gear matters, and companions become vanity items that follow you around the fleet. I can't speak for everyone, but at the point when I don't need items to improve my play, I won't roll Need on them. The point most of us are trying to make is that you should leave somoene's evaluation of what they need to them, and respect it. I'll point out again that my tank companion's armor is as critical to me as the personal armor of any Mercenary out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vydor_HC Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 No, that people will hold others accountable for unwritten unspoken rules and that it's unreasonable to expect them to actually talk in party chat to discuss them. -shrugs- I don't know how that got confused with the point I was making. I said nothing of the sorts. I guess that's why tangents in threads can get so confusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vydor_HC Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Sorry, 2 different angles going on, I think I mixed yours up with the other. Apologies if I did. -nods- It's getting confusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vydor_HC Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 I'm curious to see whats going to happen with all this need for companion stuff when these guys hit 50 and gear matters, and companions become vanity items that follow you around the fleet. My guess would be, if they don't have a need for an item, they wouldn't roll need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Setanian Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Game communities are all about social conventions - you break the conventions the sense of community suffers. This thread is all about discussing agreed conventions - of course anyone is free to break them and face the consequences. No, this thread is about 'forcing' the convention that if accepted allows people to dictate that gear is more suitable to them and that others should not use their roll how they choose but as the people here choose. Because, by so doing, the chances of gaining loot are increased for these people. The irony is need before greed is exactly the opposite in effect. It's the greedy demanding the 'need' be passed to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Creed_Buhallin Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Game communities are all about social conventions - you break the conventions the sense of community suffers. This thread is all about discussing agreed conventions - of course anyone is free to break them and face the consequences. The problem is that those social conventions are being carried over from other games, and simply haven't kept up with the realities of TOR. Let's consider an alternative: Assume (I don't know if it does) that in WoW, Intelligence as a stat boosted both a Mage's direct damage, and the toughness of a Warlock's pet. Would it be acceptable for the warlock to roll need on an Intelligence item, even though it only improves his pet? And even then, would only be a meaningful improvement for his Voidwalker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkenGundark Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 False dilemma. The actual choices are between Everyone gets a chance at loot they want where I dictate the correct priorities and whether they are allowed priority. vs Everyone gets a chance at loot they want, I much prefer the latter; you have no business setting my priorities. Here's the problem with that. When everyone has different priorities that clearly act to the detriment of the rest of the group? Then I'd argue that we should have the right to say/do something. And no, just because our views differ from someone else's and just because we are trying to exert our influence does not necessarily make us oppressive and/or tyrannical. You're arguing an extreme viewpoint. You want a completely hands-off system were nobody, anywhere, gets to dictate anything. All well and good if everybody could be trusted to act towards the common good. They can't. What gives me the right to determine whether my priorities should have any bearing on what gets said/done in a group? Only my actions and my continued good will. If I do anything that works contrary to the best interests of the party, then you stop me. If my interests conflict with the best interests of the party, then you stop me. But until then, you're damn right I see the need to prioritize things like loot management. Give upgrades to those who can make honest use of them. Make the most effective use of the resources the group is given. But this fanatical adherence to "You can't tell me what to do. NOBODY tells me what to do," isn't productive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edryk Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 I'm not enforcing anything. It's already that way, if Bioware didn't intend it to be that way, it would not be that way. And if it was a mistake on their end, they will change it. I don't force others to pass on gear because it's a bigger upgrade to someone else. I just expect that in the ABSENCE of an agreement among players, that the rules of the game will allow what they will, and I will never complain of such. And it's not hypocritical. The rules are what they are, I had no say in them being made, and neither likely did you. As people have stated before, this is about as close to "fair" as you can get. And why we say the "social" or "moral" or whatever side is forcing? Because they want to force THEIR views on everyone else. I do not. My views are actually different than the system in place, but I understand they are that way for a reason. So why are you even here if your opinion is that Bioware will make the rules and you'll live by them? I don't want to force my views on anyone else. I just want to play with people that share my opinions. And I'd like to know beforehand if not. I CAN'T force my views on anyone else. I can't MAKE anyone pass. However, people can roll on everything even if they have no use for it, and the game allows that. Sorry that I don't share your idea of 'fair'. I'd like to play the way I want, and I'll let you go play the way you want. But the only way we can both do so is if I remove you from the group, or I leave. Otherwise you get to do things your way and I can't stop you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldren Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 The problem is that those social conventions are being carried over from other games, and simply haven't kept up with the realities of TOR. Let's consider an alternative: Assume (I don't know if it does) that in WoW, Intelligence as a stat boosted both a Mage's direct damage, and the toughness of a Warlock's pet. Would it be acceptable for the warlock to roll need on an Intelligence item, even though it only improves his pet? And even then, would only be a meaningful improvement for his Voidwalker? Probably a better question for that game's forums. What I know is this: if that lightsaber is an upgrade for Jaesa, I'm rolling Need on it regardless of a Sith Inquisitor being in my group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts