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

[Galbatorrix]

My guess would be, if they don't have a need for an item, they wouldn't roll need.

 

These are people that would need on an orange item for appearances sake over someone in their group who actually uses those stats and would get a huge boost from it. Nothing they could do would surprise me at this point.

 

 

Honestly though, this thread is the number one reason why everyone should consider joining a guild. Guild runs are so much more pleasant. It's nice to know that if a cool gun drops for my Gunslinger, I'll win it and get a big ol "Congrats!" from them over losing it to the Sentinel because "My Little droid here uses pistols and I can mod it for AIM".

 

 

Seriously people, join a guild and have fun. Or PuG and deal with the ninjas in this thread.

[ferroz]

This thread is all about discussing agreed conventions - of course anyone is free to break them and face the consequences.

Actually, it's about whether those actually are conventions in the is game, and the fact that they aren't agreed on...

[ispanolfw]

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.

 

It's not my idea of fair. If all parties involved have an equal chance at what drops, it just is fair. Fair means something pretty specific, not what you or I feel it means.

 

1.

free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge.

 

ie if everyone has the same chance to roll, with no bias or any other outside influence to not roll, it is fair. And to a degree you CAN force them. If you do not discuss prior, and then kick them for rolling by the rules set in the game, that is paramount to enforcing your view. If you DO discuss it and they agree but then break said agreement, by all means. They agreed, and failed to follow, they broke the rule and you forced nothing.

[Eldren]

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.

 

This isn't about the "common good", which isn't even defined in this (or any other) game. If the "common good" is about putting the group's needs above the individual's, then no one gets anything because everyone's passing so someone else can have it. Then to distribute anything, you require an impartial system, unaffectable by anyone involved, to determine disbursement.

 

Oh wait, we have that already!

 

Yes, a fanatical adherence in this particular argument to "You can't tell me what to do" is quite germane, as it's the fundamental underpinning of the argument from those who say "You should not do as you like if it keeps me from getting what I want."

 

At least those who say "Roll for everything" are willing to let whoever wins the roll have what they won. They aren't attempting to restrict others' freedoms.

 

The key word is "attempting", as no one here can actually restrict the freedom of another player to roll as they personally desire when loot pops up.

[Vydor_HC]

These are people that would need on an orange item for appearances sake over someone in their group who actually uses those stats and would get a huge boost from it. Nothing they could do would surprise me at this point.

 

-nods-

 

If they felt they needed it, I have zero problem with it. I have the same odds as they do at winning the item. So, the need was there..I am in to place to determine otherwise. Use/Equipping of an item is only one way to use something.

 

-shrugs-

 

Anyways, I'm sure if you and I grouped we'd be able to work out a compromise on loot rules.

[ispanolfw]

These are people that would need on an orange item for appearances sake over someone in their group who actually uses those stats and would get a huge boost from it. Nothing they could do would surprise me at this point.

 

 

Honestly though, this thread is the number one reason why everyone should consider joining a guild. Guild runs are so much more pleasant. It's nice to know that if a cool gun drops for my Gunslinger, I'll win it and get a big ol "Congrats!" from them over losing it to the Sentinel because "My Little droid here uses pistols and I can mod it for AIM".

 

 

Seriously people, join a guild and have fun. Or PuG and deal with the ninjas in this thread.

 

So someone who prioritizes looks over stats is wrong? They are playing wrong? So you get to decide this? The orange item system ENCOURAGES customizing your looks. What right do you have to tell them they are playing wrong?

[Creed_Buhallin]

These are people that would need on an orange item for appearances sake over someone in their group who actually uses those stats and would get a huge boost from it. Nothing they could do would surprise me at this point.

My wife will happily take lower stats on something she prefers the appearance of. That's what's important to her when she plays. With disrespectful comments like this, were we ever unfortunate enough to encounter you in game I can guarantee we'd spare you the slot on your ignore list, and happily take care of that for you.

 

Why is it so utterly impossible for you to show the least bit of respect to someone who might have a different playstyle than you do?

Edited January 27, 2012 by Creed_Buhallin

[Edryk]

It's not my idea of fair. If all parties involved have an equal chance at what drops, it just is fair. Fair means something pretty specific, not what you or I feel it means.

 

1.

free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge.

 

ie if everyone has the same chance to roll, with no bias or any other outside influence to not roll, it is fair. And to a degree you CAN force them. If you do not discuss prior, and then kick them for rolling by the rules set in the game, that is paramount to enforcing your view. If you DO discuss it and they agree but then break said agreement, by all means. They agreed, and failed to follow, they broke the rule and you forced nothing.

 

Good job quoting only the definition from dictionary.com that supports your argument. Here are the others.

 

2. legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules

4. neither excellent nor poor; moderately or tolerably good

 

For (2) we are discussing the merit of the rules. And for (4) my opinion is different than yours.

[Matte_Black]

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".

 

Doesn't this strike you as a sign that maybe your view is not such a widely assumed one, if you are afraid to broach it.

[Galbatorrix]

So someone who prioritizes looks over stats is wrong? They are playing wrong? So you get to decide this? The orange item system ENCOURAGES customizing your looks. What right do you have to tell them they are playing wrong?

 

 

 

Looks don't you take down that gold in that quest you're trying to complete. Better stats do. Make sense?

[VanorDM]

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.

 

Ok I understand now.

 

Here's the issue though, while yes if you base your opinion on what you see on your server, you may come to a given conclusion, based on your observation.

 

However your observation of a subset of the whole is inherently suspect because you aren't getting data from a wide range of people. On my server, Kath Hound a RP server, people are going to have different priorities and opinions then people playing on a PvP server, or even a PvE server.

 

On the message boards, because it does attract a wide range of people from different types of servers, you're going to find a better sample group.

 

I've seen more then one person say that people who feel it's ok to need for companions are a very small, even meaningless minority. However based on the posts I've seen, that doesn't seem to be true at all. I can't give a % of those for and those against, but it's clear that neither side is a massive majority (80% or higher) of the player base.

[ispanolfw]

Looks don't you take down that gold in that quest you're trying to complete. Better stats do. Make sense?

 

And? Just because you prioritize killing Elites or Champions doesn't mean they do. They just want to look cool or whatever. So, still looking for why you get to decide for them.

[Jigsaw-Complex]

So someone who prioritizes looks over stats is wrong? They are playing wrong? So you get to decide this? The orange item system ENCOURAGES customizing your looks. What right do you have to tell them they are playing wrong?

 

BH wearing Sith robes? Wrong.

 

Jedi wearing smuggler hat? Wrong.

 

Smuggler wearing Inquisitor robes? Wrong.

 

It's a cop out to say that orange gear is up for grabs. It's whoever needs it, then whoever can wear it, then whoever wants it. That's how it goes.

[Setanian]

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.

 

In this case, you are referring to loot I assume. That be so, there is no detriment to the group at all. The entire group are doing whatever they are doing so they all get a chance at loot.

 

 

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.

 

The common good is quite irrelevant. And even if it were, who is to decide it? You? It takes some ego to assume you know more about what I need than I do myself. Your whole argument fails right there.

 

But until then, you're damn right I see the need to prioritize things like loot management.

 

And who are you to decide anything for me? I can make my own decisions. I do not need you to decide for me. When you finally reach the understanding of that, you will understand that what you attempting to do, is dictate to others your terms and conditions.

 

But this fanatical adherence to "You can't tell me what to do. NOBODY tells me what to do," isn't productive.

 

And neither is the fanatical adherence to the ideal that your needs and ideals have any leverage over mine.

[Galbatorrix]

My wife will happily take lower stats on something she prefers the appearance of. That's what's important to her when she plays. With disrespectful comments like this, were we ever unfortunate enough to encounter you in game I can guarantee we'd spare you the slot on your ignore list, and happily take care of that for you.

 

Why is it so utterly impossible for you to show the least bit of respect to someone who might have a different playstyle than you do?

 

 

Your Logic is not sound, sir. In fact, it's down right ridiculous. Playing dress up is fun and all, but it won't help you while questing. Stat boosts will. Nice troll attempt though.

[ispanolfw]

Good job quoting only the definition from dictionary.com that supports your argument. Here are the others.

 

2. legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules

4. neither excellent nor poor; moderately or tolerably good

 

For (2) we are discussing the merit of the rules. And for (4) my opinion is different than yours.

 

And I could say the same, but the first one is the primary definition. The second as you pasted in also fits rather well with 1 and how the system works. The fourth doesn't even apply since the word is used in a different way. As in the cake was fair, or decent, or "ok" And as such due to being something based on opinion, STILL wouldn't fit. For something to be "fair" for all parties involved, it has to be impartial of ANYONE'S opinions.

Edited January 27, 2012 by ispanolfw

[Setanian]

Good job quoting only the definition from dictionary.com that supports your argument. Here are the others.

 

2. legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules

4. neither excellent nor poor; moderately or tolerably good

 

For (2) we are discussing the merit of the rules. And for (4) my opinion is different than yours.

 

What rules exactly?

[Loendar]

And? Just because you prioritize killing Elites or Champions doesn't mean they do. They just want to look cool or whatever. So, still looking for why you get to decide for them.

 

While she is allowed to approach the game as a purely aesthetic approach - when she is grouping she is part of a team that is trying to succeed at the task at hand.

 

Loot in an MMO, at the core, is meant to increase your character stats/skills to make them able to take on bigger and better things. Can it be pretty too? Sure.

 

I do not group with the concept that I will be facilitating someone to play Barbie Dress-up to the detriment of everyone else in the group.

 

I would suggest that the broker would be a better avenue for your wife's playstyle than grouping.

[chton]

These are people that would need on an orange item for appearances sake over someone in their group who actually uses those stats and would get a huge boost from it. Nothing they could do would surprise me at this point.

 

 

Honestly though, this thread is the number one reason why everyone should consider joining a guild. Guild runs are so much more pleasant. It's nice to know that if a cool gun drops for my Gunslinger, I'll win it and get a big ol "Congrats!" from them over losing it to the Sentinel because "My Little droid here uses pistols and I can mod it for AIM".

 

 

Seriously people, join a guild and have fun. Or PuG and deal with the ninjas in this thread.

 

Hilarious, been saying this from the start.

[ferroz]

Here's the problem with that. When everyone has different priorities that clearly act to the detriment of the rest of the group?

Could you give some examples of such priorities?

 

I mean, rolling need for looks, companions, or even to vendor don't clearly act to the detriment to the rest of the group any more than rolling for stats does. So clearly you must mean something else.

 

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.

I don't see how it matters whether they can be trusted to act toward the common good or not.

 

What gives me the right to determine whether my priorities should have any bearing on what gets said/done in a group?

You have a right to determine your priorities. It doesn't matter if those priorities are "get better stats" or "look like X" or whatever.

 

Then you act on those priorities. People who take the "get better stats" priority do not have any valid reason to expect people to defer to them as the correct priority.

 

But this fanatical adherence to "You can't tell me what to do. NOBODY tells me what to do," isn't productive.

Can you please tell me who's you're quoting here? I mean, that's what quotation marks mean. To me it just looks like you're putting words in other people's mouth...

[Ancaglon]

I've seen more then one person say that people who feel it's ok to need for companions are a very small, even meaningless minority. However based on the posts I've seen, that doesn't seem to be true at all. I can't give a % of those for and those against, but it's clear that neither side is a massive majority (80% or higher) of the player base.

 

I could just as easily argue that those who DO feel it's OK are being defensively voluble. Ultimately, however, trying to draw any such conclusions from the volume of posts here is an exercise in futility. Only a proper poll, 1 vote per subscription, would even come close to finding the actual weight of opinion involved. Only Bioware are in a position to do that.

 

PS: Given that it's harder to run multiple instances of SWTOR than WoW on the same machine, and the new-ness of the game, AND the built-in Companions, PLUS the lack of auto-attacks, I suspect that the proportion of multi-boxers here is going to be a lot lower, and consequently such a Poll is likely to be closer to "reality" than in many other games.

Edited January 27, 2012 by Ancaglon

[ispanolfw]

BH wearing Sith robes? Wrong.

 

Jedi wearing smuggler hat? Wrong.

 

Smuggler wearing Inquisitor robes? Wrong.

 

It's a cop out to say that orange gear is up for grabs. It's whoever needs it, then whoever can wear it, then whoever wants it. That's how it goes.

 

No, that's how you view it, that's how you feel it should go. If the rules agreed with you there would be no argument. If your group discusses this and agrees to that, no argument. But with just the system in place, and no discussion prior, that would be an attempt to force your view on others.

[Setanian]

Looks don't you take down that gold in that quest you're trying to complete. Better stats do. Make sense?

 

In your ultimate aim to get the gold it does make sense. But it also makes perfect sense for someone to forgo stats to enhance their looks. That they do, is, frankly, none of your business.

[Calsetes]

BH wearing Sith robes? Wrong.

 

Jedi wearing smuggler hat? Wrong.

 

Smuggler wearing Inquisitor robes? Wrong.

 

It's a cop out to say that orange gear is up for grabs. It's whoever needs it, then whoever can wear it, then whoever wants it. That's how it goes.

 

I'm a Sentinel who wears smuggler gear. The difference? I found it myself, bought it myself, made it myself, or checked with the group to see if I could need it before hitting need. Me obtaining all my gear has not pissed off a single person so far, because I took the time to make sure everyone's kosher with me nabbing it.

 

I have no idea how people take the risk of pissing off people by doing whatever they want.

[DrunkenGundark]

This isn't about the "common good", which isn't even defined in this (or any other) game. If the "common good" is about putting the group's needs above the individual's, then no one gets anything because everyone's passing so someone else can have it. Then to distribute anything, you require an impartial system, unaffectable by anyone involved, to determine disbursement.

 

Oh wait, we have that already!

 

Yes, a fanatical adherence in this particular argument to "You can't tell me what to do" is quite germane, as it's the fundamental underpinning of the argument from those who say "You should not do as you like if it keeps me from getting what I want."

 

At least those who say "Roll for everything" are willing to let whoever wins the roll have what they won. They aren't attempting to restrict others' freedoms.

 

The key word is "attempting", as no one here can actually restrict the freedom of another player to roll as they personally desire when loot pops up.

 

And that's why I think it's so hard for people to agree on just how this sort of thing can be handled. I can very much see a "common good" when it comes to handling loot distribution. If a member of a party gets an upgrade to his equipment, that benefits me in the short term (for the remaining duration of the flashpoint or operation) it benefits him in the short term, it benefits the rest of the party in the short term. It benefits all of us in the long term if any of us ever run with that player again, and even if we don't, at the very least, we have one player out there who has better equipment than he had when he started. This is a good thing. I consider that a common good even if that's not something that can be strictly defined.

 

So yes, I prioritize that over someone who is willing to let anyone roll for anything as their whim suits them and where we may end up with instances of people walking away with equipment that does not benefit them stats-wise/power-wise but that they took only for looks purposes.

 

Usefulness takes precedence over vanity. Maybe that's a value you'd prefer I not be espousing because you don't like the idea that I'm putting my priorities in your face, but so be it. The system, as is, lends itself to this kind of abuse. And until people start being a bit more responsible with their use of the "Need" button, you're not going to convince me that there shouldn't be some more control hard-coded into the looting system, or at the very least, a more stringent community-based policy put in force on what's acceptable and what's not.