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

[Setanian]

What about another button added: need for companion?

This goes before greed and after need. So if no one needs, it goes to companion roll, if no one rolls companion, it goes to greed.

 

Just adds more confusion to an already convoluted argument.

 

Just remove the 'need' button.

[Eldren]

I would just like to say how glad I am that they have Master Looter in the game. Fixes everything.

 

Only if you're in a PUG with people who accept a run on Master Looter. I'm fine accepting that loot setting if it's people I know and trust. With three/seven/fifteen other strangers, however, under no circumstances will I accept Master Looter. I'll just leave and find a different group, because I don't trust strangers to have my best interests at heart in distribution of loot.

 

More than that, it's a control issue for me: I pay $15 a month for my account, I put in the time to level my character and gear up my companions, and I'm not going to surrender 100% of the control over getting loot to someone else. My character, my priorities for loot. It doesn't guarantee me loot in a run, but at least it guarantees that I can roll on loot using my own priority system, and not someone else's. For all the talk of "for the good of others" and "moral high ground" that has gone on in this, the last, and previous threads on this topic, every person sets up a personal loot distribution method that ultimately improves their own chances of getting the loot they want.

 

I fail to understand how there's a difference between someone rolling Need on an item based on their own priorities (whether that's aesthetics, stats or a companion) and myself doing that same thing. If their choice to roll Need is based on optimal stats for their class with no consideration for their companions or aesthetics, that's fine, but their choice doesn't obligate me to use the same priority criteria. They want it to, because they're thoroughly convinced their method is the "only right way", and I can't disabuse them of that notion, all I can do is watch them rage because they want to stop me from rolling Need on my own priorities and they can't.

 

Because we have differing priorities amongst players, we require a system that ignores all player-designed priorities and instead opts for the simplest, least-partial loot distribution system entirely, in the interest of moving things along and letting players complete the content they're in. As with most general systems, there are individual circumstances which might act as legitimate exceptions, but the instant you start making exceptions to a rule, you're weakening the authority base of the rule.

 

Need Before Greed has never been an optimal system, at least as implemented in World of Warcraft, because it inherently tells a given player that their priorities may not be an actual priority. It ignores in that game that a player's desire to do something nice for a friend of a different class is adequate reason to choose a high-priority roll on an item in favor of stopping the flood of complaints into Blizzard's customer service department when a less-mature player loses it because they lost a loot roll and thinks that it was a result of some personal assault against them, which they need the objective third party (Blizzard), and only real authority in that game, to rectify for them.

 

This game is more sensible in its application of Need Before Greed, as it doesn't limit the ability to roll on something by class or party role. You can typically infer what a player's priorities are by what they're rolling Need on.

 

If they're rolling Need:

 

1) On an armor type for their class, with stat weights for their class, they're probably upgrading themselves.

 

2) On an armor type for a different class, with stat weights for that other class, on a BOE item, they're either rolling to equip a companion, help a guildmate/friend, or sell on the GTN

 

3) On an armor type for a different class, with stat weights for that other class, on a BOP item, they're either rolling to equip a companion or sell to a vendor.

 

At the end of it all, it literally boils down to a sense of entitlement, which isn't inherently wrong, but situationally might be. Let's define "entitlement" using the definition from Merriam-Webster's website:

 

Definition of ENTITLEMENT

 

1

a : the state or condition of being entitled : right

b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract

2

: a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program

3

: belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges

 

I think option #3 is most applicable in this scenario. So we now have an objective foundation from which to argue, a universally agreed-upon definition of the term "entitlement".

 

If I go into a Flashpoint and contribute my effort as part of a group endeavor to defeat a boss, then I'm entitled, to a degree equal to my other 3 party members, to the loot that drops. It's a reward for completing the objective of defeating the boss. Since we have four members (in this scenario) with 100% equal entitlement to what the boss drops, some method of arbitration is necessary to disburse the reward, since there isn't enough reward of a given type to meet the goals of each participant. As a result, we have an automated random number generator that works in conjunction with a distribution method: the highest randomly-generated number, ascribed to a given player, causes the distribution method to place the contested item in that person's inventory.

 

If this was the only consideration, the system would be 100% fair and impartial. No one owns the item until it's actually been given to them: it's like being at an auction: the item is held in "escrow", its ownership not yet determined, until a prearranged criterion is met (in this case the highest roll), at which point ownership is determined, and physical possession of the contested item is then transferred from escrow to the actual owner.

 

But we got a fly in the ointment here, ladies and gentlemen. Differing priorities of rolls have been put in the system. Instead of a flat priority where ownership is simply determined by highest roll, we now have a system where someone could roll 98, another person could roll 5, and the person who rolled 5 could be given the item, because they rolled 5 on a higher priority scale than the person who rolled 98.

 

As a result, people start attempting to direct the circumstances under which someone should be able to choose the higher priority rolling scheme. The reality is they don't want someone getting something they want, but as they don't want to appear selfish, they misdirect perception of their motivations, appealing to moral arguments in the hopes that someone who believes differently than they do will somehow accept the morals as a higher authority, and subsequently defer to an argument based on those moral premises.

 

And that's where the final hitch in the smooth road occurs: different people follow different moral compasses. Upset with this, a given party concludes that their moral persuasion is more objectively "right" than someone else's, thus demanding that the person of the less-right moral persuasion should capitulate to their own moral persuasion. If they had the ability to force this scenario they would, but lacking authority to do so, they desperately try to simply sway someone to their side, with varying degrees of success or failure.

 

One group believes it's fine to roll Need on an item because it provides an upgrade for them. The upgrade isn't always for their class: sometimes it's for a companion, sometimes it's an aesthetic upgrade with mods that don't matter to them one way or the other, sometimes it's a single mod out of two or three, with no care for the other mods, and sometimes it's the mods themselves with no consideration for the aesthetics of the item the mods are in.

 

Here's the thing: The reasons don't matter. All that matters is that the player was there in the group, that they helped defeat the boss, and that they want something the boss dropped. Their sense of entitlement, as defined above, is justified.

 

An unjustified sense of entitlement is one that states one player has more right to something than another player. An unjustified sense of entitlement is one that states a player's contribution doesn't determine their right to something, but the subjective observation of another player does, as though that other player were somehow a higher authority than the first player.

 

Such is not the case, no matter how much some may want it to be.

 

I may think what I want is more important than what another player wants, but objectively, what we each want is of equal priority. As a result, we should both (or collectively, with more than two) choose the method that gives us each, as individuals, the best chance at receiving what we want. We wouldn't have to choose varying methods if there was a single priority scheme in place, but there isn't: we have tiered priorities that cause upset when one player claims a priority higher than another player thinks they should have.

 

The resolution at its simplest, easiest-to-implement level, would be to move to a Roll/Pass system. Under such a system, there are no tiers of priority. If you don't want something, you don't roll and have no reason to care who gets it. If you want something, you roll, and your chances of winning that roll are approximately equal to every other claimant's. With the removal of varying priorities in rolling, the playing field is leveled. Someone might still be upset that they lost a roll, but they can't claim favoritism, as their chance was completely equal to that of the one who actually won the item.

 

We can implement more complicated methods from there, the best of the more complicated (to me, at least) being a companion loot box on each boss' loot table, that each player can roll for if they want, and the adjustment of all other loot to have a class requirement preventing someone not of that class from rolling Need on it.

 

But the simplest approach is usually the best: a system that has fewer moving parts has fewer opportunities for having its internal mechanisms compromised. The simplest machine is a lever. You can only keep the lever from working if you remove its fulcrum. If you move from a lever to a pulley system, you can stop the pulley from working by snapping the cable, keeping the fulcrum wheel from turning, or weakening the fastening point on the item being moved. The more complex a system gets, the more opportunities for rendering it ineffectual arise.

 

Roll/Pass removes all arguments, flattens the bell curve on player opportunity for loot acquisition, and would, hands-down, be the best. No favoritism, no priority tiers, flat equal chance at success across all dimensions.

Edited January 29, 2012 by Eldren

[ispanolfw]

Just adds more confusion to an already convoluted argument.

 

Just remove the 'need' button.

 

It also gives the opportunity for some on the other side to be just as selfish as they claim us to be by denying anyone to toll on certain drops for companions since they can need it normally and never let it go to a companion. But hey that CAN'T happen, right?

[Hebrind]

Need = My character needs it for the stats, looks be damned.

 

Greed = I like the look of it, but the stats aren't as good as my current gear. Greed is default if the gear is something not specifically designed for my class (IE a smuggler jacket when I'm playing my guardian.). Also, Greed if I just want to sell the thing.

 

Dissassemble - does what it says on the tin.

[Maccaroth]

ispanolfw - You do have a point. Problem is... that in all my PUGing I met only one person who didn't follow social rules and no one mentioned anything about loot rules. Either I am lucky (and it's just a coincidence to form groups with like minded individuals) or it's common approach to the subject (or it's common on my server).

 

I ask - again - someone in charge here to make a pool for us...

Edited January 29, 2012 by Maccaroth

[ispanolfw]

ispanolfw - You do have a point. Problem is... that in all my PUGing I met only one person who didn't follow social rules and no one mentioned anything about loot rules. Either I am lucky (and it's just a coincidence to form groups with like minded individuals) or it's common approach to the subject (or it's common on my server).

 

I ask - again - someone in charge here to make a pool for us...

 

And don't get me wrong, those who follow some form of view that Class A should get this item for stats before others get the item for looks are very likely a majority. But the thing is, majority is not 100%, and funnily enough even IN that group, not everyone thinks the same way. And why I say those who wish to restrict further should be the ones to speak up is that you want it different than the system as is. Everyone who runs a FP knows how the system works, that's the baseline. If everyone already knows how it works and is fine, there won't be issues in the first place. But if you're NOT fine with it, why should the ones who ARE speak up? You're the one with the objection.

[ispanolfw]

Need = My character needs it for the stats, looks be damned.

 

Greed = I like the look of it, but the stats aren't as good as my current gear. Greed is default if the gear is something not specifically designed for my class (IE a smuggler jacket when I'm playing my guardian.). Also, Greed if I just want to sell the thing.

 

Dissassemble - does what it says on the tin.

 

Unfortunately, no. The system doesn't differentiate between what two players consider a need or greed. You might, but the system does not and as such you trying to push that opinion on others only looks bad on you. If you want to try and convince someone that they should do it this way is fine. But going into a run, not saying you wish to restrict loot further than the system in place and someone rolls on an orange for looks against someone who wants it for stats. The looks guy wins, you rage at him, kick him, blacklist him, berate him in general. Thing is he was just following the system as is, you wanted extra restrictions, but said nothing, and now HE gets to deal with you not speaking up.

[Setanian]

ispanolfw - You do have a point. Problem is... that in all my PUGing I met only one person who didn't follow social rules and no one mentioned anything about loot rules. Either I am lucky (and it's just a coincidence to form groups with like minded individuals) or it's common approach to the subject (or it's common on my server).

 

I ask - again - someone in charge here to make a pool for us...

 

And this is really irrelevant. I have met plenty of peeps who if asked abide by the NBG method. But, then suddenly some awesome piece of loot drops and they need it and 5 minutes later it is for sale.

 

I've also met, group and raid leaders (pug style) with master loot, loot the lot and suddenly disband and be gone.

 

There's an old saying;

 

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. (Bush got it wrong)

 

Anyways, the point being, if something drops and I want it, I roll need. If I don't want it all, I pass and if I think I might make some credits, i'll greed it.

 

No-one has to follow that creed. But I think it's fair.

[Eldren]

Need = My character needs it for the stats, looks be damned.

 

Greed = I like the look of it, but the stats aren't as good as my current gear. Greed is default if the gear is something not specifically designed for my class (IE a smuggler jacket when I'm playing my guardian.). Also, Greed if I just want to sell the thing.

 

Dissassemble - does what it says on the tin.

 

Another player says:

 

Need = My character needs it for the stats, or my character needs it for the looks, or my companion needs it for the stats, or my companion needs it for the looks

 

Greed = I'm more likely to sell it than anything else

 

What makes your criteria more objectively "right" than someone else's?

[Rancorzealot]

Biggest troll thread since my "Girls are to skinny in this game" thread which exceeded 30k views!

[SnoggyMack]

What makes your criteria more objectively "right" than someone else's?

 

Their criteria is more important to them because it's their criteria. And if we can't grasp such a simple concept as that, to them, we're just a bunch of selfish ninja looters.

 

Duh.

[svenholio]

Only if you're in a PUG with people who accept a run on Master Looter. I'm fine accepting that loot setting if it's people I know and trust. With three/seven/fifteen other strangers, however, under no circumstances will I accept Master Looter. I'll just leave and find a different group, because I don't trust strangers to have my best interests at heart in distribution of loot.

 

More than that, it's a control issue for me: I pay $15 a month for my account, I put in the time to level my character and gear up my companions, and I'm not going to surrender 100% of the control over getting loot to someone else. My character, my priorities for loot. It doesn't guarantee me loot in a run, but at least it guarantees that I can roll on loot using my own priority system, and not someone else's. For all the talk of "for the good of others" and "moral high ground" that has gone on in this, the last, and previous threads on this topic, every person sets up a personal loot distribution method that ultimately improves their own chances of getting the loot they want.

 

I fail to understand how there's a difference between someone rolling Need on an item based on their own priorities (whether that's aesthetics, stats or a companion) and myself doing that same thing. If their choice to roll Need is based on optimal stats for their class with no consideration for their companions or aesthetics, that's fine, but their choice doesn't obligate me to use the same priority criteria. They want it to, because they're thoroughly convinced their method is the "only right way", and I can't disabuse them of that notion, all I can do is watch them rage because they want to stop me from rolling Need on my own priorities and they can't.

 

Because we have differing priorities amongst players, we require a system that ignores all player-designed priorities and instead opts for the simplest, least-partial loot distribution system entirely, in the interest of moving things along and letting players complete the content they're in. As with most general systems, there are individual circumstances which might act as legitimate exceptions, but the instant you start making exceptions to a rule, you're weakening the authority base of the rule.

 

Need Before Greed has never been an optimal system, at least as implemented in World of Warcraft, because it inherently tells a given player that their priorities may not be an actual priority. It ignores in that game that a player's desire to do something nice for a friend of a different class is adequate reason to choose a high-priority roll on an item in favor of stopping the flood of complaints into Blizzard's customer service department when a less-mature player loses it because they lost a loot roll and thinks that it was a result of some personal assault against them, which they need the objective third party (Blizzard), and only real authority in that game, to rectify for them.

 

This game is more sensible in its application of Need Before Greed, as it doesn't limit the ability to roll on something by class or party role. You can typically infer what a player's priorities are by what they're rolling Need on.

 

If they're rolling Need:

 

1) On an armor type for their class, with stat weights for their class, they're probably upgrading themselves.

 

2) On an armor type for a different class, with stat weights for that other class, on a BOE item, they're either rolling to equip a companion, help a guildmate/friend, or sell on the GTN

 

3) On an armor type for a different class, with stat weights for that other class, on a BOP item, they're either rolling to equip a companion or sell to a vendor.

 

At the end of it all, it literally boils down to a sense of entitlement, which isn't inherently wrong, but situationally might be. Let's define "entitlement" using the definition from Merriam-Webster's website:

 

 

 

I think option #3 is most applicable in this scenario. So we now have an objective foundation from which to argue, a universally agreed-upon definition of the term "entitlement".

 

If I go into a Flashpoint and contribute my effort as part of a group endeavor to defeat a boss, then I'm entitled, to a degree equal to my other 3 party members, to the loot that drops. It's a reward for completing the objective of defeating the boss. Since we have four members (in this scenario) with 100% equal entitlement to what the boss drops, some method of arbitration is necessary to disburse the reward, since there isn't enough reward of a given type to meet the goals of each participant. As a result, we have an automated random number generator that works in conjunction with a distribution method: the highest randomly-generated number, ascribed to a given player, causes the distribution method to place the contested item in that person's inventory.

 

If this was the only consideration, the system would be 100% fair and impartial. No one owns the item until it's actually been given to them: it's like being at an auction: the item is held in "escrow", its ownership not yet determined, until a prearranged criterion is met (in this case the highest roll), at which point ownership is determined, and physical possession of the contested item is then transferred from escrow to the actual owner.

 

But we got a fly in the ointment here, ladies and gentlemen. Differing priorities of rolls have been put in the system. Instead of a flat priority where ownership is simply determined by highest roll, we now have a system where someone could roll 98, another person could roll 5, and the person who rolled 5 could be given the item, because they rolled 5 on a higher priority scale than the person who rolled 98.

 

As a result, people start attempting to direct the circumstances under which someone should be able to choose the higher priority rolling scheme. The reality is they don't want someone getting something they want, but as they don't want to appear selfish, they misdirect perception of their motivations, appealing to moral arguments in the hopes that someone who believes differently than they do will somehow accept the morals as a higher authority, and subsequently defer to an argument based on those moral premises.

 

And that's where the final hitch in the smooth road occurs: different people follow different moral compasses. Upset with this, a given party concludes that their moral persuasion is more objectively "right" than someone else's, thus demanding that the person of the less-right moral persuasion should capitulate to their own moral persuasion. If they had the ability to force this scenario they would, but lacking authority to do so, they desperately try to simply sway someone to their side, with varying degrees of success or failure.

 

One group believes it's fine to roll Need on an item because it provides an upgrade for them. The upgrade isn't always for their class: sometimes it's for a companion, sometimes it's an aesthetic upgrade with mods that don't matter to them one way or the other, sometimes it's a single mod out of two or three, with no care for the other mods, and sometimes it's the mods themselves with no consideration for the aesthetics of the item the mods are in.

 

Here's the thing: The reasons don't matter. All that matters is that the player was there in the group, that they helped defeat the boss, and that they want something the boss dropped. Their sense of entitlement, as defined above, is justified.

 

An unjustified sense of entitlement is one that states one player has more right to something than another player. An unjustified sense of entitlement is one that states a player's contribution doesn't determine their right to something, but the subjective observation of another player does, as though that other player were somehow a higher authority than the first player.

 

Such is not the case, no matter how much some may want it to be.

 

I may think what I want is more important than what another player wants, but objectively, what we each want is of equal priority. As a result, we should both (or collectively, with more than two) choose the method that gives us each, as individuals, the best chance at receiving what we want. We wouldn't have to choose varying methods if there was a single priority scheme in place, but there isn't: we have tiered priorities that cause upset when one player claims a priority higher than another player thinks they should have.

 

The resolution at its simplest, easiest-to-implement level, would be to move to a Roll/Pass system. Under such a system, there are no tiers of priority. If you don't want something, you don't roll and have no reason to care who gets it. If you want something, you roll, and your chances of winning that roll are approximately equal to every other claimant's. With the removal of varying priorities in rolling, the playing field is leveled. Someone might still be upset that they lost a roll, but they can't claim favoritism, as their chance was completely equal to that of the one who actually won the item.

 

We can implement more complicated methods from there, the best of the more complicated (to me, at least) being a companion loot box on each boss' loot table, that each player can roll for if they want, and the adjustment of all other loot to have a class requirement preventing someone not of that class from rolling Need on it.

 

But the simplest approach is usually the best: a system that has fewer moving parts has fewer opportunities for having its internal mechanisms compromised. The simplest machine is a lever. You can only keep the lever from working if you remove its fulcrum. If you move from a lever to a pulley system, you can stop the pulley from working by snapping the cable, keeping the fulcrum wheel from turning, or weakening the fastening point on the item being moved. The more complex a system gets, the more opportunities for rendering it ineffectual arise.

 

Roll/Pass removes all arguments, flattens the bell curve on player opportunity for loot acquisition, and would, hands-down, be the best. No favoritism, no priority tiers, flat equal chance at success across all dimensions.

 

This is quite probably the best explaination of the looting system. I think this needs a sticky on its own so people will read it rather than skip it in a long forum thread.

 

Arguments ovet loot and who should have "won" it are gone when you accept the fact that if you were involved in the fight, and you want what the boss dropped you should be able to roll for it. Roll/Pass seems like a great system to have in place.

 

I can see a different system needed for Operations, but here you are usually guilded. This is where loot master comes into play. In this instance there is usually prior agreements on who may roll on what. Even on PUG runs for raids/ops loot rules are clearly laid out before hand.

[Grecanis]

If I go into a Flashpoint and contribute my effort as part of a group endeavor to defeat a boss, then I'm entitled, to a degree equal to my other 3 party members, to the loot that drops. It's a reward for completing the objective of defeating the boss. Since we have four members (in this scenario) with 100% equal entitlement to what the boss drops, some method of arbitration is necessary to disburse the reward, since there isn't enough reward of a given type to meet the goals of each participant. As a result, we have an automated random number generator that works in conjunction with a distribution method: the highest randomly-generated number, ascribed to a given player, causes the distribution method to place the contested item in that person's inventory.

 

Again ..no-one (well, almost no-one) is saying you don't have the right to roll the way you like. The question is whether or not you are willing to be conciderate enough to stand aside for your fellow player who may actually need the item to improve thier chance at success in the game?

 

- Do aesthetics make you hit more accurately?

- Do aesthetics make you do more damage?

- Do aesthetics give you more crit?

- Do aesthetics give you more defense?

- Do aesthetics make you run faster?

- Do aesthetics improve your tech or force power?

 

The answer to all those is no. Which in my book puts aesthetics second to stats.

[ispanolfw]

This is quite probably the best explaination of the looting system. I think this needs a sticky on its own so people will read it rather than skip it in a long forum thread.

 

Arguments ovet loot and who should have "won" it are gone when you accept the fact that if you were involved in the fight, and you want what the boss dropped you should be able to roll for it. Roll/Pass seems like a great system to have in place.

 

I can see a different system needed for Operations, but here you are usually guilded. This is where loot master comes into play. In this instance there is usually prior agreements on who may roll on what. Even on PUG runs for raids/ops loot rules are clearly laid out before hand.

 

Yep, but the crux of the problem is that while the system works the way it does, many people want more restrictions based on their morals, opinions or views. Which is fine, but they expect others to follow them blindly without saying anything about it. Which is NOT fine.

[svenholio]

Their criteria is more important to them because it's their criteria. And if we can't grasp such a simple concept as that, to them, we're just a bunch of selfish ninja looters.

 

Duh.

 

Great show of misunderstanding. They both have differing criteria, why is one more favourable than the other?

[ispanolfw]

Again ..no-one (well, almost no-one) is saying you don't have the right to roll the way you like. The question is whether or not you are willing to be conciderate enough to stand aside for your fellow player who may actually need the item to improve thier chance at success in the game?

 

- Do aesthetics make you hit more accurately?

- Do aesthetics make you do more damage?

- Do aesthetics give you more crit?

- Do aesthetics give you more defense?

- Do aesthetics make you run faster?

- Do aesthetics improve your tech or force power?

 

The answer to all those is no. Which in my book puts aesthetics second to stats.

 

In your book, fine. Not in theirs, so don't tell them they cannot roll because they want looks when you want stats. Your Want for stats does not trump their want for looks. If you agree to it before the run, then feel free to kick them, blacklist, whatever you wish. But if you, ie the person with the moral or whatever restriction, do not speak up, you are saying it's ok to roll as the system allows and nothing more.

 

Basically not everyone plays this game to constantly progress. Some play to have fun, and like to look good. It's a different mind set. They usually do progress at some point, but it's not a high priority for them. So they get in a group for a FP, they see the system as allowing anyone who participates being given the same chance to roll and nothing to the contrary is brought up. First item they don't like and they greed, second item though, they like the looks of and roll need and win. They are not badmouthed, called a ninja, kicked, berated, what have you. Except with no prior notice you can only rely on the absolute of what the system is. And yet now they have to deal with harassment.

Edited January 29, 2012 by ispanolfw

[CBGB]

@OP:

If the Need button on your screen asks you to decide what items I need or not, then you get to decide what items I need or not.

 

Other then that, I will be deciding what items I need or not - thanks anyway!

Let's set aside being rude to get back to the point made in my OP. Here it is again: "We're all better off when we act considerately toward our teammates. We do NOT excel when we play 'every Zabrak out for themselves.'"

 

In the nearly 200 pages of posts, not one 'Needer' has addressed the point that we're better off being good to one another, nicely summed up here:

Logically speaking it is better for everyone not to make need all the time.

 

Here's my example in the original post, in more detail to show the value of considering teammates.

 

If we run a FP and a great upgrade drops for you, Sith Marauder, you're in luck with a group running under 'don't roll for items that upgrade another teammate's class more than yours.' You have a 100% chance of improving (assuming no other Marauders in the group).

 

Under 'Press Need for anything, even for items that don't upgrade your primary stats,' your odds drop to 50% when I roll. In this case, the reason I roll - I like the look, I'm short on cash, I want to give it to my companion's girlfriend - doesn't matter, but it's clear that it does not improve my primary abilities.

 

In two runs with drops perfectly suited to each of us, we go from a perfect chance to both upgrade to half as likely, and by half again when others roll, too.

 

That 'greedy' team will end up weaker than the considerate one. Do you really want a 75% cut in the chance of improving everyone's effects?

 

 

I find it hilarious that people who want to restrict people from rolling in order to stack the deck in their favor have the nerve to cry about greed.

Under my suggestion, every player has an equal chance at drops in a run. They simply have a greater chance of getting drops for their class.

 

I'm not asking for a special claim on Marauder or Powertech or Sorceror items with my Agent - you have priority when those items drop. We'll all get the same number of items; what we get by considering each other is the items that improve us most.

 

 

if you don't agree on loot rules before starting the run, then you deserve to get ninjaed.

There are several variations of this, and it's partly right. It is wise to clarify assumptions before you go, and if you find a method that works for you, great.

 

But it is NOT your responsibility to detail all the ways in which your teammates should not act rudely. However you define 'rude,' it'll relate to considering the interests of others - not putting them first, but at least taking them into account. Greedy actions by others aren't your fault just because you didn't stop to list them.

 

all rolls are greed

Not every time you want something is greedy. 'Greed' differs from 'want' by putting excessive weight on your own interests.

 

Posters here seem to have a similar difficulty with - or disregard for - the difference between 'can' and 'may.' 'Can' takes only your only choice into account while 'may' considers others.

 

With loot drops aimed at a particular class, considering your teammates helps you all advance in style. And isn't that one of the great results of playing together?

Edited January 30, 2012 by CBGB

[ispanolfw]

In the nearly 200 pages of posts, not one 'Needer' has addressed the point that we're better off being good to one another, nicely summed up here:

 

Because THAT is the crux of the problem. If all in the group are like minded about progression, your idea works. But the problem is that not everyone is. Some are rather far from it even, prioritizing looks over stats because that's what they enjoy. As soon as you bring your restrictions or opinions into it you cause issues. If you state this before the run, the people who disagree have a chance to leave. They may not like having to leave, but they would like being called a ninja, for no reason mind you, even worse.

[Setanian]

Again ..no-one (well, almost no-one) is saying you don't have the right to roll the way you like. The question is whether or not you are willing to be conciderate enough to stand aside for your fellow player who may actually need the item to improve thier chance at success in the game?

 

- Do aesthetics make you hit more accurately?

- Do aesthetics make you do more damage?

- Do aesthetics give you more crit?

- Do aesthetics give you more defense?

- Do aesthetics make you run faster?

- Do aesthetics improve your tech or force power?

 

The answer to all those is no. Which in my book puts aesthetics second to stats.

 

In your book, you get to choose how to roll. In ours we get to choose too. The problem is, you want me to play with your book.

[Grecanis]

In your book, fine. Not in theirs, so don't tell them they cannot roll because they want looks when you want stats. Your Want for stats does not trump their want for looks. If you agree to it before the run, then feel free to kick them, blacklist, whatever you wish. But if you, ie the person with the moral or whatever restriction, do not speak up, you are saying it's ok to roll as the system allows and nothing more.

 

Basically not everyone plays this game to constantly progress. Some play to have fun, and like to look good. It's a different mind set. They usually do progress at some point, but it's not a high priority for them. So they get in a group for a FP, they see the system as allowing anyone who participates being given the same chance to roll and nothing to the contrary is brought up. First item they don't like and they greed, second item though, they like the looks of and roll need and win. They are not badmouthed, called a ninja, kicked, berated, what have you. Except with no prior notice you can only rely on the absolute of what the system is. And yet now they have to deal with harassment.

 

Please ..go into my profile, look up my posts and find "one" where I stated that someone cannot roll the way they liked. If you find one I'll personally apologise. If you don't I would ask that you find another argument and stop posting falsehoods.

 

Yes, this is just my opinion ..and obviously I feel just as strongly about being conciderate as you do about being selfish.

Edited January 29, 2012 by Grecanis

[Setanian]

Here's my example in the original post. Since it's been quoted a total of zero times by the 'Needers,' I'll try making it even more clear.

 

If we run a FP and a great upgrade drops for you, Sith Marauder, you're in luck with a group running under 'don't roll for items that upgrade another teammate's class more than yours.' You have a 100% chance of improving (assuming no other Marauders in the group).

 

Under 'Press Need for anything, even for items that don't upgrade your primary stats,' your odds drop to 50% when I roll. In this case, the reason I roll - I like the look, I'm short on cash, I want to give it to my companion's girlfriend - doesn't matter, but it's clear that it does not improve my primary abilities.

 

In two runs with drops perfectly suited to each of us, we go from a perfect chance to both upgrade to half as likely, and by half again when others roll, too.

 

The reason it's not quoted anywhere is probably because it is irrelevant. I don't care what your percentages are if you play by your rules. If *you* play by mine, you have a minimum 1 in 4 chance of winning the loot, plus whatever anyone else allows you.

 

You should expect nothing more. That

 

That 'greedy' team will end up weaker than the considerate one. Do you really want to cut the chance of improving my heals by 75%?

 

Your heals are irrelevant after the boss is dead. This is nothing more than a straw man argument used in some vain hope that someone will go "OMG, I'll give him everything cuz his heals suxxorz"

 

Under my suggestion, every player has an equal chance at drops in a run. They simply have a greater chance of getting drops for their class.

 

The chances are the loot is aimed at more than one class, or can be used by more than one class.

 

Is that clear? I'm not asking for a special claim on Marauder or Powertech or Sorceror items with my Agent - you have priority when those items drop.

 

I'm quite happy to accept I lose when I lose. I don't ask for any other benefits or hand me outs.

 

 

There are several variations of this, and it's partly right. It is wise to clarify assumptions before you go, and if you find a method that works for you, great.

 

But it is NOT your responsibility to detail all the ways in which your teammates should not act like jerks. However you define 'jerk,' it'll relate to considering the interests of others - not putting them first, but taking them into account. Greedy actions by others aren't your fault just because you didn't stop to tutor them.

 

I won't be stopping to tutor you guys.

 

 

 

Not every time you want something is greedy. 'Greed' differs from 'want' by putting excessive weight on your own interests.

 

Posters here seem to have a similar difficulty with - or disregard for - the difference between 'can' and 'may.' 'Can' takes only your only choice into account while 'may' considers others.

 

With loot drops aimed at a particular class, considering your teammates helps you all advance in style. And isn't that one of the great effects of teaming?

[owenthorn]

Because THAT is the crux of the problem. If all in the group are like minded about progression, your idea works. But the problem is that not everyone is. Some are rather far from it even, prioritizing looks over stats because that's what they enjoy. As soon as you bring your restrictions or opinions into it you cause issues. If you state this before the run, the people who disagree have a chance to leave. They may not like having to leave, but they would like being called a ninja, for no reason mind you, even worse.

 

again, NO, you go into the group telling people how to roll, I will tell you , NO, you do not make the rules, BW does, if I want it, I roll NEED, if I don't, I roll Greed, if I don't

want it at all, I pass, but you don't make party rules and tell people to leave the group if they don't want to abide by "your" rules, get over yourself, you should be the one leaving

 

If I can roll on it, it is my right to, I was there, I did my part, there is no ninja involved, only your sore behind because you lost a roll on something you "felt" belonged to you, nothing in this game belongs to you, at all, period

[ispanolfw]

Please ..go into my profile, look up my posts and find "one" where I stated that someone cannot roll the way they liked. If you find one I'll personally apologise. If you don't I would ask that you find another argument and stop posting falsehoods.

 

Yes, this is just my opinion ..and obviously I feel just as stronly about being conciderate as you do about being selfish.

 

I can throw this right back at you, where did I say I rolled on everything because I can? I haven't, i've even advocated NOT doing that. I look at who will benefit the most before even touching the roll buttons. But the system is that way. Plus you may have not used the word "cannot" but it's almost the same as if you did. "If you roll on something for looks over someone else rolling for stats, you're selfish" Nothing wrong with feeling that way. However, ANYONE who rolls over another for ANY reason is being selfish. Obviously, they want it for themselves for any number of reasons. So while passing for someone might be "considerate" to you, on the flip side expecting them to pass for the other person is selfish.

[Ronamo]

No.. You got your choice to roll how you want to. If you needed it, you roll need. If not, pass or greed.

 

Just let's make one thing certain here. I don't always roll need. But! I roll how I please at that given moment in time. And no-one, here or anywhere else, has any right to deny me that entitlement. If I *choose* to let you have it, you should be saying thank you.

 

Chaotic Neutrals: You never know who's side they're not going to be on next.

[Setanian]

Please ..go into my profile, look up my posts and find "one" where I stated that someone cannot roll the way they liked. If you find one I'll personally apologise. If you don't I would ask that you find another argument and stop posting falsehoods.

 

Yes, this is just my opinion ..and obviously I feel just as stronly about being conciderate as you do about being selfish.

 

The problem here is you are trying to train track your opinion as the right one. You advocate what you consider as consideration, while the other advocates playing a more fair is fair type game.

 

You are both entitled to your opinion. But it ends right there. You have no right at all to denounce his opinion as label it selfish, just because, you do not agree with it. And by so doing, you are bringing the wrath upon yourself.

 

Had you said, fine, you play your way and i'll play mine, it would all be good. However, you went into insult mode and label lend him selfish.