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

[Loendar]

Let's assume we're talking about PUGs here, as loot distribution is rarely an issue in guild or friend runs.

 

Yes, I'm deciding that I'm using the group game to further my personal game. However, I'm not deciding it on behalf of other players, solely on behalf of myself. Just as every other player in that group is.[ Each player is cooperating to have a chance at loot that drops that they personally want. It will have future group utility and future personal utility, and both are equal.

 

 

 

You're going to have to show me your statistics when you start using terms like "the majority". People are running that content, in my observation, to gear themselves up, and as this thread makes amply evident, they're doing so for a variety of reasons.

 

You're right, I'm in it for nobody but myself, and I cooperate with others so I have a chance to get gear I couldn't get on my own. My obligation to the group extends as far as assisting them all in reaching that same goal: to have a chance at gear they want which they can't acquire on their own. But the instant the loot drops, every single player is rolling for themselves, not for the group.

 

You are deciding it on behalf of other players though - how can you not understand that? Simply clicking NEED on something that isn't for your toon specifically is forcing them to conform to your concept of what is right. Eventually everyone in the group will have to roll need for things to even have a chance to meet your criteria.

 

As for the statistics - you like to bring that up a lot but it does little for your argument. Do I have numbers to give you? No - but neither do you and that doesn't stop you from spouting things out as if everyone does it that way.

[Loendar]

"Established MMO social conventions" don't work here, because the system here is different then every other MMO out there.

 

That is an impressive cop-out and not remotely accurate. This is an age old problem that has been addresssed with a lot less drama every other game I've been in.

[Grecanis]

This is an entirely unconnected aside, but as I do happen to have a medical degree that allows me to properly diagnose sociopathy (an outdated term, btw; the current clinical term according to the APA is Antisocial Personality Disorder), I can say that observational skills alone don't constitute a reliable diagnosis, particularly since this is such a highly misunderstood and debated condition to begin with. Trust me, you're going to want to be sure your diagnosis is accurate when you're mucking around with peoples' mental state and declarations of fitness (or the lack thereof).

 

If you noticed, I used it in speculative, hypothetical terms.

 

Meaning that unless there were some other reason, most people should have learned the distinction between right and wrong by now.

[namelless]

I haven't had this problem yet, but that Marauder sounds like a real nob.

 

It would be nice if they implemented some kind of first prefence system. That way classes who could actually benefit directly(not by exchanging mods) could roll first, and if they decided to pass, other players who wanted it for their companions or to swap mods could roll on it.

Edit: Bleh, i meant Marauder

Edited January 30, 2012 by namelless

[Loendar]

False. I'm deciding that I'll use the group game to further my personal game: solo, group, and raid all. Just like they're using the group to further their personal game: solo group and raid all as they chose.

 

 

I don't see your point. 90 percent of the game/rewards that cater to the group population also doesn't require any group gathered items, ever.

 

You don't NEED the drops. Period. You WANT them, plain and simple; deciding that your wants are somehow legitimate than someone else's wants is extremely self centered.

 

Lets not be absurd eh? In both cases, you are advancing yourself with the aid of a group, working toward whatever priorities you have with the game. Painting yourself as some sort of martyr, when the reality is that you're upset about not getting loot that you've decided belongs to you without having to win it is being extremely disingenuous.

 

It's not absurd. One one side you are part of a team helping those around you get better on the other you are only helping yourself. If you don't want to be a team player then don't be and continue to solo.

 

You are making arguments for a playstyle that is inherently only self-serving verses one that benefits the entire team that you profess to be a part of.

[Loendar]

No we can't. Where you polled that statistic from is anyone's guess. My guess is you posted it hoping someone will agree to it.

 

Established? How can you can have establish, when BW added something to the game, i.e.: companions, that are in no other.

 

Your assumption is incorrect.

 

Other games have mercenaries that can be geared up and equipped.

 

Just because you are ill-informed and your breadth of gaming limited doesn't mean you won't be called to task on it.

[Eldren]

You are deciding it on behalf of other players though - how can you not understand that? Simply clicking NEED on something that isn't for your toon specifically is forcing them to conform to your concept of what is right. Eventually everyone in the group will have to roll need for things to even have a chance to meet your criteria.

 

As for the statistics - you like to bring that up a lot but it does little for your argument. Do I have numbers to give you? No - but neither do you and that doesn't stop you from spouting things out as if everyone does it that way.

 

As a counterpoint, however, the instant other players choose Need, they're forcing the others in their group to conform to their concept of what's right. Since each player is individually doing this, it doesn't serve as a meaningful abnormality in the comparative spectrum, particularly to point out the wrongness of a given viewpoint.

 

I'm very careful when I "spout things out" about "everyone" doing something a certain way, and endeavor to use phrases like "in my observation". I'm sure there are plenty of quotable occasions where I've failed to do so, but I'm fairly confident that in context I wasn't setting up an indefensible absolute in each of those instances.

 

But the term "majority" has been thrown around a lot in this discussion, and as a point of leverage for a person's viewpoint, and their whole viewpoint often falls apart when it's pointed out that they don't have a provable majority to begin with. It becomes germane to the discussion at that point to ask them, as a rhetorical question (since we know they can't actually show a legitimate majority outside of these forums (and often not even then) that represent a statistical minority of the player base), where their figures are coming from.

[Setanian]

Did the companion contribute to the instance? ..if no then it becomes an external factor and should not rise to the level of need.

 

Whether the companion was there or not, it completely irrelevant. If I need something for my companion, and it drops, and I have a roll, I have as much entitlement as the 3 players to select need. I choose the option, not you. I choose what I do with my winnings, not you.

[ferroz]

But it keeps coming back to that. One side counts the primary toon in the group as being more important to playing in that group than a companion. The other doesn't.

No, that's not the difference,.

 

One side thinks that thier loot priorities override other people's loot priorities, and the other side doesn't

 

It brings nothing to the group that has aided in the task at hand and isn't 'more deserving' of the loot drop despite your personal belief on the system.

I'm not saying that it's more deserving. I'm saying that everyone in the group is equally deserving.

[Setanian]

Other games have mercenaries that can be geared up and equipped.

 

Just because you are ill-informed and your breadth of gaming limited doesn't mean you won't be called to task on it.

 

Which ones please?

[Loendar]

I think there are probably a lot of reasons why people do grouping content. A lot of people group to do the group quests as they are levelling and then go back to soloing on the next planet. A lot of people do occasional flashpoints and then go back to doing quests. A lot of people solo most of the time but need good gear so that they have a better chance in PVP.

 

If you are on a PVP server, then you are going to want you and your companion well geared (beyond what is required for solo content) or you will be at a disadvantage when you encounter the enemy.

 

True enough - and I suppose you should find out upfront what kind of group you are getting into as has been stated over and over.

 

A group that is getting together to further the agenda of a specific member to the detriment of the others will likely be a pretty small one.

[Grecanis]

What the player is wearing has absolutely nothing to do with their level of need. Sure, they maybe wearing rags but they might roll need on an item for their companion. That's how I play. My companion is my tank, so I gear him as primary aim, my character comes second.

 

Then bring them along and let them contribute. At that point I would have no objection to thier equal or greater need.

 

Regardless of any of that, I don't need a reason for anyone else to press 'need', once I want to press it, that's all that matters. The other 3 people can decide for themselves, I am certainly not going to dictate which button they press, and as such, I don't expect to them to dictate to me.

 

By pressing need you just dictated that they also roll need if they want to maintain thier equal chance.

[Setanian]

You are deciding it on behalf of other players though - how can you not understand that? Simply clicking NEED on something that isn't for your toon specifically is forcing them to conform to your concept of what is right. Eventually everyone in the group will have to roll need for things to even have a chance to meet your criteria.

 

Well if they 'need' it they should press 'need' right? Or did I miss something?

[Eldren]

Then bring them along and let them contribute. At that point I would have no objection to thier equal or greater need.

 

 

 

By pressing need you just dictated that they also roll need if they want to maintain thier equal chance.

 

Their contribution is irrelevant to the distribution of loot. The player contributed, and what they do with their winnings is no one else's business. And while you've a right to your objection, that objection doesn't obligate another player to change their behavior to submit to your objection.

 

And yes, someone pressing Need mandates others to do the same if they desire an equal chance at something. If they choose Greed, they're acknowledging they're all right with someone else possibly having a higher priority roll on an item, and thus they have no point of contention if someone else wins the item. If they wanted it badly enough to be upset that someone else got it, they had the opportunity to improve their chances at it by choosing the highest-priority roll on the loot.

[Setanian]

True enough - and I suppose you should find out upfront what kind of group you are getting into as has been stated over and over.

 

A group that is getting together to further the agenda of a specific member to the detriment of the others will likely be a pretty small one.

 

How can it be to the detriment?????

 

Geez. Each member gets a roll at the loot.

 

What you want is a better/higher chance at the loot. Greedy ?

[ferroz]

It's not absurd. One one side you are part of a team helping those around you get better on the other you are only helping yourself. If you don't want to be a team player then don't be and continue to solo.

Yes, playing the martyr when the truth is anything but is extremely absurd.

 

in reality, there's no difference between the two sides, other than you labeling people in a way that is totally detached from reality.

 

You are making arguments for a playstyle that is inherently only self-serving verses one that benefits the entire team that you profess to be a part of.

No, in both cases, you are being equally self serving.

 

In one case, one member of a group benefits; in the other case, a different member of the group benefits. That's all.

 

You're making the same argument as "it can be used by the healer and the dps, but since the healer is more important to the group he should get the upgrade" ... it's just an elaborate attempt to mask your own self centeredness.

Edited January 30, 2012 by ferroz

[Setanian]

Then bring them along and let them contribute. At that point I would have no objection to thier equal or greater need.

 

 

 

By pressing need you just dictated that they also roll need if they want to maintain thier equal chance.

 

What people do with their roll is none of my business. What I do with mine, is none of theirs.

[crica]

By pressing need you just dictated that they also roll need if they want to maintain thier equal chance.

 

The game dictated that rule, not the players - that is the default grouping loot rule the game provides.

 

If you want to use a different set of rules, just speak up when joining a group, or more simply, form your own groups and state the loot rules for those that join.

[Ronamo]

 

Whether the companion was there or not, it completely irrelevant. If I need something for my companion, and it drops, and I have a roll, I have as much entitlement as the 3 players to select need. I choose the option, not you. I choose what I do with my winnings, not you.

 

If we're playing the semantics game, as has often been the case in this thread, you're not choosing to do anything with your winnings. You're winning things that you've already chosen what to do with, the preconceived usage driving your decision to make a need roll rather than a greed roll from the get go.

 

If that's not the case, and you're rolling on them first without an end usage in mind, there's a systemic problem.

[Loendar]

Which ones please?

 

EQ1, EQ2 and I believe GW1 all have mercs/hirelings.

[ferroz]

A group that is getting together to further the agenda of a specific member to the detriment of the others will likely be a pretty small one.

but that's the situation that you're advocating....

[Eldren]

If we're playing the semantics game, as has often been the case in this thread, you're not choosing to do anything with your winnings. You're winning things that you've already chosen what to do with, the preconceived usage driving your decision to make a need roll rather than a greed roll from the get go.

 

If that's not the case, and you're rolling on them first without an end usage in mind, there's a systemic problem.

 

Whether you chose what to do with something before rolling, or rolled then chose, is irrelevant, and splitting hairs so finely I even question whether "semantics" is sufficient to describe it. Either way, you're placing a roll on an item with a priority that matches your desire for the item, and no other player's perspective has the right to determine the fitness of your priority choice.

Edited January 30, 2012 by Eldren

[Loendar]

Yes, playing the martyr when the truth is anything but is extremely absurd.

 

in reality, there's no difference between the two sides, other than you labeling people in a way that is totally detached from reality.

 

No, in both cases, you are being equally self serving.

 

In one case, one member of a group benefits; in the other case, a different member of the group benefits. That's all.

 

You're making the same argument as "it can be used by the healer and the dps, but since the healer is more important to the group he should get the upgrade" ... it's just an elaborate attempt to mask your own self centeredness.

 

Answer this.

 

If I pass on loot that is an upgrade for another member even though it would benefit my companion, how is that selfish?

 

If I roll on everything that any aspect of my character can use to the detriment of other player toons, how is that not selfish?

[Loendar]

but that's the situation that you're advocating....

 

Not even close.

 

My system benefits all players by increasing the odds that they will get an upgrade for their main toon.

 

Your system takes away any such benefit and serves only you.

 

I am actually beginning to think you are trolling this thread because you can't possibly be that thick.

[Grecanis]

Their contribution is irrelevant to the distribution of loot. The player contributed, and what they do with their winnings is no one else's business. And while you've a right to your objection, that objection doesn't obligate another player to change their behavior to submit to your objection.

 

And yes, someone pressing Need mandates others to do the same if they desire an equal chance at something. If they choose Greed, they're acknowledging they're all right with someone else possibly having a higher priority roll on an item, and thus they have no point of contention if someone else wins the item. If they wanted it badly enough to be upset that someone else got it, they had the opportunity to improve their chances at it by choosing the highest-priority roll on the loot.

 

And I have no objection to that. but how does it rise above the needs of a player who was actuallty there.

 

If no-one else needs then ask, greed or pass. It's the respectful thing to do.