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

[crica]

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?

 

If you pass on loot, you give others a better chance to win.

 

If you roll on loot, you give yourself the same chance to win as everyone else.

 

The only player that you can screw over is yourself - by passing on loot.

[Ronamo]

 

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.

 

So how exactly would a roll for an item for which you had no planned usage qualify as a need roll over a greed roll?

[ferroz]

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

eq1 seems a bad example, since afaik you don't manage their gear.

 

of course, I quit playing EQ before they were added, so don't have any direct expenses.

 

Do you have some sort of source that shows that any of your examples use gear? Because if you don't, I'm going to assume they're all invalid, since they don't work the same way as companions do in this game.

 

And even if one of them does work the same... at least 2 of those game weren't designed with them in mind the way that swtor was.

[crica]

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

 

 

Which is fine IF they want gear for their main toon's stats.

 

It is not going to be fine IF they want gear for looks or their companions, so why would they join your group and help you if you are not willing to help them increase the odds that they will get the gear they actually want?

[Loendar]

If you pass on loot, you give others a better chance to win.

 

If you roll on loot, you give yourself the same chance to win as everyone else.

 

The only player that you can screw over is yourself - by passing on loot.

 

If I don't roll on loot that I don't need for my played (in group) character then I am being a good group citizen and furthering the goals of everyone in attendance.

 

If I roll on things that I don't need simply because YOU are doing it then I'm being just as selfish as you are.

[Setanian]

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

 

ok..

 

And here is what you posted prior to me asking the question;

 

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

 

EQ1 did not, does not, have mercenaries that are gearable.

 

EQ2 did not, does not, have mercenaries that are gearable.

 

You 'believe' GW has mercenaries that are gearable? Wrong again, I'm afraid.

 

On eq1/2 you can hire mercenaries that are already fully geared.

 

If you are going state for fact, I am ill-informed you better get your facts correct. Right now, your credibility is on the floor.

[crica]

If I don't roll on loot that I don't need for my played (in group) character then I am being a good group citizen and furthering the goals of everyone in attendance.

 

Did you ask the group if they share your gearing goals?

 

If I only wanted gear for looks or my companion, how would you be furthering MY goals when you roll on loot that I need for looks or my companion?

[Eldren]

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?

 

The problem lies in your assumption that rolling on an item to upgrade yourself (you or a companion) is unnecessarily detrimental to other players.

 

Any time one person gets a piece of loot someone else wanted, the one who loses has experienced detriment. As a result, we have acceptable and unacceptable degrees of detriment. It's acceptable to need on something that upgrades you or otherwise meets one of your goals (specious as it might be, even if you just want to sell it; your goals are as valid as any other player's), so if you win, the detriment experienced by another player is on an acceptable level. They accept that by suborning their personal desires to the impartial distribution of the NBG system. If they're unwilling to accept that system, the alternative is to assemble their own group and set looting on Master Looter, so they have 100% control over how loot is actually distributed.

[Loendar]

eq1 seems a bad example, since afaik you don't manage their gear.

 

of course, I quit playing EQ before they were added, so don't have any direct expenses.

 

Do you have some sort of source that shows that any of your examples use gear? Because if you don't, I'm going to assume they're all invalid, since they don't work the same way as companions do in this game.

 

And even if one of them does work the same... at least 2 of those game weren't designed with them in mind the way that swtor was.

 

I didn't say they were as robust as this game but that wasn't the question. No, they aren't fully on AI companions like SWTOR but the concept of them isn't new to the MMO space.

 

You can currently put gear on your toons in EQ2 for sure but the impact is admittedly neglible. It would be purely cosmetic in most cases - but following the concept laid out here taking good gear from other players to make your companion pretty is a perfectly legitimate choice so there is a direct one-to-one correlation.

[Loendar]

ok..

 

And here is what you posted prior to me asking the question;

 

 

 

EQ1 did not, does not, have mercenaries that are gearable.

 

EQ2 did not, does not, have mercenaries that are gearable.

 

You 'believe' GW has mercenaries that are gearable? Wrong again, I'm afraid.

 

On eq1/2 you can hire mercenaries that are already fully geared.

 

If you are going state for fact, I am ill-informed you better get your facts correct. Right now, your credibility is on the floor.

 

You can put gear on mercs in EQ2 - you are wrong. It doesn't impact their stats but it can happen to make them look different. But given the school of thought that making things look pretty counts in this game it would count there as well.

[Setanian]

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.

 

It only benefits the player that got given the item via the other players passing on their roll. I may want that item for any reason too. If I play with your rules, I have to continually pass it to some other player playing the 'my lewtz' card.

 

My way, I get what I *need* when I need it, taking into account the roll of the dice.

 

The problem isl You are unwilling to to accept, that you got 1 shot at the dice. You want even more.

[Holden_Dissent]

It's common knowledge that you don't roll "need" for alts. Since you don't really even NEED your companions at 50, rolling "need" for them seems a little selfish. It should be an unwritten law that you don't roll need for companions and alts.

 

I never would roll need for stuff I can't put onto my person as an upgrade, and therefore, I'll sleep better at night knowing I did the right thing.

[ferroz]

Not even close.

It still looks exactly the system you're advocating to me...

 

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

False. It benefits players that have a particular loot priority, not ALL PLAYERS.

 

Even in that set of players, it favors certain classes/roles based on the loot tables of the flashpoint and characters that are significantly under geared over ones that are appropriately geared for the content.

 

Your system takes away any such benefit

Correct, but benefit is the wrong word.

 

and serves only you.

False, it serves all players equally instead of giving some of them benefits for arbitrary reasons. It makes things fair.

 

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

Disagreeing != trolling. Disagreeing != being thick.

 

I'm in favor of fairness, plain and simple.

[Eldren]

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.

 

Your companions don't get a loot roll at all, so they aren't surpassing another player, who was present, in rolling priority.

 

You, however, were there, and your claim is equal to another player's who was present. That you choose to take what you won and place it on a companion is an after-the-fact issue. You were present, you rolled, you won, what you do with it at that point is your choice.

 

This belief that we somehow have to justify our motivations for a given loot roll to other players is a fabrication I believe arose because someone got upset that they lost a loot roll. They attempt to skew future rolls in their favor by demanding someone's choice of Need meet their own criteria of acceptability. This just isn't the case.

[Ronamo]

eq1 seems a bad example, since afaik you don't manage their gear.

 

of course, I quit playing EQ before they were added, so don't have any direct expenses.

 

Do you have some sort of source that shows that any of your examples use gear? Because if you don't, I'm going to assume they're all invalid, since they don't work the same way as companions do in this game.

 

And even if one of them does work the same... at least 2 of those game weren't designed with them in mind the way that swtor was.

 

Here's an article referencing the EQ2 mercenary gearing:

 

http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/2/feature/5858

 

...and one regarding Guildwars:

 

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Mercenary_Hero

 

In both cases, the changes are apparently cosmetic only. In GuildWars, they wear what the player was wearing when they registered the mercenary, at least according to the article.

[ferroz]

It is not going to be fine IF they want gear for looks or their companions, so why would they join your group and help you if you are not willing to help them increase the odds that they will get the gear they actually want?

Because they're interested in fairness instead of stacking the deck?

 

Because they want to do the content and have a chance at loot and realize that's fair?

 

Because they aren't self centered, so they're ok with the idea that they might not get loot?

 

Because they need a tank?

 

etc

 

lots of reasons.

[ferroz]

Here's an article referencing the EQ2 mercenary gearing:

 

http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/2/feature/5858

 

...and one regarding Guildwars:

 

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Mercenary_Hero

 

In both cases, the changes are apparently cosmetic only. In GuildWars, they wear what the player was wearing when they registered the mercenary, at least according to the article.

So, none of those are comparable situations to SWTOR and the issue of companion loot... That's kind of what I thought.

[VanorDM]

Since you don't really even NEED your companions at 50

 

Then when people are lvl 50 they shouldn't roll need for companions. Up until that time however they are in fact using companions, and so the gear is useful to them.

 

But honestly, at lvl 50, how much of the gear you got at lvl 25 do you have? Since the answer is zero, other then orange gear... The above point is well and truly pointless, because it simply doesn't matter in this context.

 

If people are rolling need for an item that won't be an upgrade for them, then they are doing something they shouldn't IMO. But that's not what we're talking about here, we're talking about rolling need on an item that will improve us when equipped.

[Setanian]

You can put gear on mercs in EQ2 - you are wrong. It doesn't impact their stats but it can happen to make them look different. But given the school of thought that making things look pretty counts in this game it would count there as well.

 

Oh please do I have to go back and quote what I said. ToR brings a new dynamic into the genre with gear able slots. Anyone with half a brain would accept I was referring to the fact that as you gear the companion it gets better (or worse if you are really bad) as you gear it.

 

So far, you have pulled 'facts' from your *** and when you are shown they are wrong, you bring up some 'well it makes them look pretty'.

 

If you're going to debate with credibility, please use credible facts pertaining to ToR not some other games that you have a limited knowledge of.

[Loendar]

Here's an article referencing the EQ2 mercenary gearing:

 

http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/2/feature/5858

 

...and one regarding Guildwars:

 

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Mercenary_Hero

 

In both cases, the changes are apparently cosmetic only. In GuildWars, they wear what the player was wearing when they registered the mercenary, at least according to the article.

 

And as has been commented ad naseum on this thread - cosmetic changes are just as important for loot rolls as anything else according to a subset of the population. So the same rules could apply to any game that allows the same level of customization.

[SirUrza]

You can roll on it if there's no one in the group that needs it.

 

Such as orange armor dropping for an Imperial Agent (medium cunning armor.) If there are no Agents in the group, anyone else in the group is welcome to roll on it that can wear it.

 

Class > Use > Companion > Vendor

[crica]

Because they're interested in fairness instead of stacking the deck?

 

Because they want to do the content and have a chance at loot and realize that's fair?

 

Because they aren't self centered, so they're ok with the idea that they might not get loot?

 

Because they need a tank?

 

etc

 

lots of reasons.

 

I was talking to the guy saying that he WAS being fair by demanding that no one roll Need on items he wants for his characterif they are going to use it for looks or their companions.

 

I agree with you - he cant see past his own desires, so I was trying to use language he might understand better.

Edited January 30, 2012 by crica

[Eldren]

It's common knowledge that you don't roll "need" for alts. Since you don't really even NEED your companions at 50, rolling "need" for them seems a little selfish. It should be an unwritten law that you don't roll need for companions and alts.

 

I never would roll need for stuff I can't put onto my person as an upgrade, and therefore, I'll sleep better at night knowing I did the right thing.

 

You're making an ad populum argument unsupported by the actual reality. While it's accurate that many people believe you shouldn't roll Need for alts (which is irrelevant on a companion, who isn't an alt, but an active part of your main character's leveling and questing outside the statistical minority of time they're in group content), the assumed weight of "common knowledge" isn't present save in your own perspective.

[Loendar]

So, none of those are comparable situations to SWTOR and the issue of companion loot... That's kind of what I thought.

 

They want to look pretty and can take loot from a player because of it - one to one correlation.

 

I never said they were exactly the same.

[Setanian]

If I don't roll on loot that I don't need for my played (in group) character then I am being a good group citizen and furthering the goals of everyone in attendance.

 

If I roll on things that I don't need simply because YOU are doing it then I'm being just as selfish as you are.

 

What you do with your roll is your business. Don't force it down my throat though. I don't care how you roll. I don't care of you give all your wages to the poor folks home. What you do is your business, what I do, is mine.