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

[Grecanis]

Guys. If I were you I would stop posting. You are being trolled by someone who wants you to think they are all anti-establishment. In game you know they are all "Yes Sir. No Sir. I will roll just like you want me to." Don't waste your time.

 

Ahh ..I'm in between paychecks this weekend. I got nothing better to do than attempt my part in undoing the damage from over a decade of 4th place "participation" throphies

[Ronamo]

So...

 

"I will roll need on anything I want to roll need on and you have no say in it. I have an entitlement not to have my chances at loot lessened because you think they should be and you have no right to tell me otherwise!"

 

is different from

 

"You are lessening my chances on loot by rolling need on anything you want to roll need on and I have way to keep you from doing so. I have an entitlement not to have my chances at loot lessened because you think they should be and you have no right to tell me otherwise!"

 

in what way again?

[Setanian]

So...

 

"I will roll need on anything I want to roll need on and you have no say in it. I have an entitlement not to have my chances at loot lessened because you think they should be and you have no right to tell me otherwise!"

 

is different from

 

"You are lessening my chances on loot by rolling need on anything you want to roll need on and I have way to keep you from doing so. I have an entitlement not to have my chances at loot lessened because you think they should be and you have no right to tell me otherwise!"

 

in what way again?

 

Well you can roll need on anything you need. Is that unfair? How is it 'lessening' your chances?

[Maccaroth]

Well you can roll need on anything you need. Is that unfair? How is it 'lessening' your chances?

In "no rules" group all can roll need. 25% that you will win something. Each time. You can end up with everything, nothing, a half or messed up (let's say an Agent is getting Juggernaut gear and vice versa). Yes, it is fair and all. It's also unpredictable.

 

In "social contract" group people roll need only for class items for themselves. Now competition depends on who is in the group and what item is being looted. It'll still be higher (100%, 50%, 33%) than in the first group. Even if you might have to pass on certain items so must the others. Everyone benefits. It didn't really lessen your chances for the loot. It increases them and you know who will get an item.

Edited January 29, 2012 by Maccaroth

[SnoggyMack]

Unless it's gear for you, don't roll, simple. Don't be a jerk. If no one in group wants it, by all means, roll.

 

The Marauder in the original post was rolling on the item to use the item. Well to wear it.

[SnoggyMack]

Most raid gear is BoP. You cannot use it on a different character.

 

The item this thread was about was not BoP.

[Setanian]

Isn't that your line?

 

In "no rules" group all can roll need. 25% that you will win something. Each time. You can end up with everything, nothing, a half or messed up (let's say an Agent is getting Juggernaut gear and vice versa). Yes, it is fair and all. It's also unpredictable.

 

In "social contract" group people roll need only for class items for themselves. Now competition depends on who is in the group and what item is being looted. It'll still be higher (100%, 50%, 33%) than in the first group. Even if you might have to pass on certain items so must the others. Everyone benefits. It didn't really lessen your chances for the loot. It increases them and you know who will get an item.

 

Except, in this 'social contract' thing, the idea of what is and what is not acceptable is blurry at best.

 

The big example being, if I see a nice heal robe that would work great on my companion or a AIM pice for my companion, or a horrible robe with great mods.

 

Everyone has differing ideas of when I can or can't roll need.. So to save confusion, I just roll need on stuff *I* need, for whatever purpose *I* specify.

[ispanolfw]

Again - you have a point (good one). I simply thought it's the minority that should state their loot rules, not the ones who follow social contract which is common (and thus much more widely known). In the end though... Does it matter who state loot rules first? Both groups have to find out after all.

 

And the reason I say the ones with the differing opinion on how loot should be distributed is due to the fact it's different from what the game provides. I can understand wanting the minority to do it, but the thing is, if they are following the system as is, they won't usually think someone else is going to try and restrict them otherwise. So the system gives everyone the same chance, cool. I like this i'll roll, this item is ok, but I don't care a lot, but it's useful, i'll hit greed. And then they win a need for looks or whatever and get berated for following the system in place.

 

It's BECAUSE someone wants it different they need to speak up. If rules are laid out by say bioware, and there is room to restrict more based on preference or whatnot, why should the ones following the rules already present have to say "hey i'm following the rules present"? Versus the ones who want it different than the rules present.

 

I mean you seem to understand what I mean, but it's like an argument. You want to disprove someone else on something. Is it their job to prove that they are right? Or is it your job to prove them wrong, being that you made the claim they are wrong?

Edited January 29, 2012 by ispanolfw

[Maccaroth]

Everyone has differing ideas of when I can or can't roll need.. So to save confusion, I just roll need on stuff *I* need, for whatever purpose *I* specify.

Agreed, people are different and have various opinions.

 

When it is all on you, when you design purpose for which you need an item then it all becomes unpredictable and turns into dice contest where all people can do virtually anything. I can't trust that the other people will be following same pattern as I do (I have my own rules I don't force people to follow, aside from already existing social contract). That's why I need people who I can relay on. It's safer and more beneficial when everything is established.

 

Let's be clear. We both want to gain, but our means are different - I gain by going in with group of like minded individuals, you gain by rolling a dice and trusting the system to point you as a winner. Completely different approaches and different results. That's why we need to stay apart. It's not something we can solve by discussion.

 

I think I'll have to start asking people about loot rules from now on. I didn't do it before, because I thought people are thinking like me and they did (except for the one man in the very first flashpoint who was a typical ninja needing on EVERYTHING) not let me down.

 

I mean you seem to understand what I mean, but it's like an argument. You want to disprove someone else on something. Is it their job to prove that they are right? Or is it your job to prove them wrong, being that you made the claim they are wrong?

There is no right or wrong. (There is only the Force.) It's more question of a method than anything else. My way is more social, established and accepted because it's very pragmatic (and gamers are, in their core, pragmatic beings), yours (well, not yours, but I think you know what I mean) is to give people their own free will because system will tell. In truth there is no way to say you or I are right or wrong. We all have arguments on our sides. If people are angry for free willers it's only because they upset the established order and break efficiency of the social contract. If you're angry it's because you don't want to follow rules of the others.

 

Only thing we can argue about, in reality, is EFFICIENCY of what we do.

Edited January 29, 2012 by Maccaroth

[ispanolfw]

Agreed, people are different and have various opinions.

 

When it is all on you, when you design purpose for which you need an item then it all becomes unpredictable and turns into dice contest where all people can do virtually anything. I can't trust that the other people will be following same pattern as I do (I have my own rules I don't force people to follow, aside from already existing social contract). That's why I need people who I can relay on. It's safer and more beneficial when everything is established.

 

Let's be clear. We both want to gain, but our means are different - I gain by going in with group of like minded individuals, you gain by rolling a dice and trusting the system to point you as a winner. Completely different approaches and different results. That's why we need to stay apart. It's not something we can solve by discussion.

 

I think I'll have to start asking people about loot rules from now on. I didn't do it before, because I thought people are thinking like me and they did (except for the one man in the very first flashpoint who was a typical ninja needing on EVERYTHING) not let me down.

 

And that's the thing, as soon as you mention social contract you bring opinion, views and belief into the discussion. You're welcome to, but it doesn't help when they system in place is agnostic of that.

 

For example, let me ask you this.

 

You're walking along down the street, you pass some random person you have never met and they say something like "How's it going?"

 

Was that person polite? What do you do in response? Why? I can bet you my answer is different and just as valid.

[braydendg]

This thread has so many views, almost more than a sticky.

[gurugeorge]

The only time I might get upset (in as much as I might get upset about loot in a video game) is if someone was repeatedly pressing need on things and then later posting the items on the GTN. If you are going to sell it (or send it to an alt/guildmate/friend), that's what the "greed" button is for.

 

Exactly, but how are you going to be able to tell?

 

Again, people keep missing out on the obvious.

 

Everyone gets a chance to roll, but the person who rolls "Need" gets a higher chance than the person who rolls "Greed", right?

 

Now why on earth would BioWare implement such a system, bearing in mind:-

 

You cannot ensure that whoever has pressed "Need" pressed it HONESTLY and wasn't just taking advantage of the higher chance with a "Need" roll to maximise their chances of getting the item so they can just sell it?

 

But guess what?

 

You can darn well see what class they're playing.

 

The Need/Greed system has a function - otherwise BW could just as easily implement a straight roll in which everybody has the same chance.

 

And that function is (and logically can only be) twofold:-

 

1) to ensure as much as possible in a situation of freedom, but given courtesy and politeness, that classes which benefit from an item of gear are more likely to get that gear, but also

 

2) to enable players to check each others' honesty, and for people who consistently ninja to be identifiable and blackballable on that server.

 

This is why WoW implemented a "hard" Need/Greed system concurrently with the cross-server LFG tool (with patch 3.3):- when you have a cross-server tool, the community-self-monitoring function of the Need/Greed system goes out the window, so you might as well hard-code it that classes can only roll for what they Need, because dishonesty can no longer be monitored by a server's community when people from all servers can just nip in and out and ninja costlessly.

 

IOW, you can be absolutely guaranteed that if BW ever implement a cross-server LFG tool, they will at the same time make "Need" greyed out for non-appropriate classes (or some equivalent mechanism).

 

Now I agree that with a game like this, that Orange gear and Companions do complicate the issue - it's not quite so clear-cut as some of the hardliners here would have it, I agree. Perhaps the system could be cleverer in some ways. It may be that BW haven't quite thought through the ramifications of these two complications yet, as they've had bigger fish to fry to get the game up and running.

 

But it's just not credible to keep claiming that the purpose and function of the Need/Greed system is not obviously (and traditionally) in place to serve the two functions above.

 

Morality is inbuilt into the system, as is further shown by the use of morally loaded words like "Need" and "Greed" to distinguish the choices. The system is all about honesty, civility, courtesy and letting one's greed be subordinate to someone else's need (as per the class they are playing).

[Setanian]

Agreed, people are different and have various opinions.

 

When it is all on you, when you design purpose for which you need an item then it all becomes unpredictable and turns into dice contest where all people can do virtually anything. I can't trust that the other people will be following same pattern as I do (I have my own rules I don't force people to follow, aside from already existing social contract). That's why I need people who I can relay on. It's safer and more beneficial when everything is established.

 

Let's be clear. We both want to gain, but our means are different - I gain by going in with group of like minded individuals, you gain by rolling a dice and trusting the system to point you as a winner. Completely different approaches and different results. That's why we need to stay apart. It's not something we can solve by discussion.

 

I think I'll have to start asking people about loot rules from now on. I didn't do it before, because I thought people are thinking like me and they did (except for the one man in the very first flashpoint who was a typical ninja needing on EVERYTHING) not let me down.

 

That's all fine and acceptable, We just don't group together

 

I'm not happy with the 'ninja' comment though, as it was not ninja'ing at all. But lots of people tent to use that term in many many different ways.

[GavinRuneblade]

What if someone needs that gear for an alternate character?

 

As stated, the original issue is about bind on pickup gear that cannot be traded or sold (except to a vendor). However the guidelines about good sportsmanship do apply even on Bind on Equip rolls.

 

The Marauder in the original post was rolling on the item to use the item. Well to wear it.

 

Not at all, he thought he could strip out the mods on orange gear and sell them on the market. Missing the fact that mods are bound also.

 

The item this thread was about was not BoP.

Is WAS about BoP but has grown into more than that and is certainly relevant to more than just BoP.

 

And I will venture one post into the more direct argument:

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" outs.

Set, that's only a straw man if you're on the very last fight of the raid. On all other fights the gear will impact performance of the group for the rest of the time the group is together. Minor point, but still.

[GavinRuneblade]

Morality is inbuilt into the system, as is further shown by the use of morally loaded words like "Need" and "Greed" to distinguish the choices. The system is all about honesty, civility, courtesy and letting one's greed be subordinate to someone else's need (as per the class they are playing).

 

The thing that makes me chuckle though, is that the people who abuse "need" are being "greedy".

 

I do agree with the points that the game's mechanics, especially the mods and companions make this a more complex issue than others. Personally, I'd prefer they throw out the entire bind on pickup mechanic and call it a day. But I've never been a fan of that mechanic anyway, it is nothing more than a tool to enforce grinding. Which I do understand there is a certain need for. But that discussion would get way off topic.

[Maccaroth]

I'm not happy with the 'ninja' comment though, as it was not ninja'ing at all. But lots of people tent to use that term in many many different ways.

It's not about people like you, who take need when they want. I am sure you do it for the right reasons and are honest while doing so. But I can't describe otherwise a man who need on EVERY item that is looted EVERY time he can do so. That's greed - boosted by the fact that he simply did use need to win items over all other party members - if I ever saw greedy person. While I can respect your opinion I wouldn't respect person like described above.

Edited January 29, 2012 by Maccaroth

[Setanian]

Exactly, but how are you going to be able to tell?

 

Again, people keep missing out on the obvious.

 

Everyone gets a chance to roll, but the person who rolls "Need" gets a higher chance than the person who rolls "Greed", right?

 

Now why on earth would BioWare implement such a system, bearing in mind:-

 

You cannot ensure that whoever has pressed "Need" pressed it HONESTLY and wasn't just taking advantage of the higher chance with a "Need" roll to maximise their chances of getting the item so they can just sell it?

 

But guess what?

 

You can darn well see what class they're playing.

 

The Need/Greed system has a function - otherwise BW could just as easily implement a straight roll in which everybody has the same chance.

 

And that function is (and logically can only be) twofold:-

 

1) to ensure as much as possible in a situation of freedom, but given courtesy and politeness, that classes which benefit from an item of gear are more likely to get that gear, but also

 

2) to enable players to check each others' honesty, and for people who consistently ninja to be identifiable and blackballable on that server.

 

This is why WoW implemented a "hard" Need/Greed system concurrently with the cross-server LFG tool (with patch 3.3):- when you have a cross-server tool, the community-self-monitoring function of the Need/Greed system goes out the window, so you might as well hard-code it that classes can only roll for what they Need, because dishonesty can no longer be monitored by a server's community when people from all servers can just nip in and out and ninja costlessly.

 

IOW, you can be absolutely guaranteed that if BW ever implement a cross-server LFG tool, they will at the same time make "Need" greyed out for non-appropriate classes (or some equivalent mechanism).

 

Now I agree that with a game like this, that Orange gear and Companions do complicate the issue - it's not quite so clear-cut as some of the hardliners here would have it, I agree. Perhaps the system could be cleverer in some ways. It may be that BW haven't quite thought through the ramifications of these two complications yet, as they've had bigger fish to fry to get the game up and running.

 

But it's just not credible to keep claiming that the purpose and function of the Need/Greed system is not obviously (and traditionally) in place to serve the two functions above.

 

Morality is inbuilt into the system, as is further shown by the use of morally loaded words like "Need" and "Greed" to distinguish the choices. The system is all about honesty, civility, courtesy and letting one's greed be subordinate to someone else's need (as per the class they are playing).

 

Nothing but pure speculation and opinion.

 

The purpose of the need/greed is quite obvious. If you 'need' you press need, if you don't 'need' you press greed.

 

Just because you speculate something else, does not make it so.

 

The best option, is to remove the 'need' entirely. And it would be the fairest and easiest to implement. And hurts nobody.

[perato]

Not gonna read all the responses, but wanted to make these points:

 

1. people rolling on other classes' gear when in the same group is just wrong and should not happen. as OP correctly points out, this "prisoners' dilemma" option of screwing the other guy before he screws you actually turns out to be detrimental to all parties involved.

 

2. anyone who says it's okay because it's possible (or possible to merely be able to use the item) is just deluded. it's possible to steal your neighbours' mail and use their new credit card but does that make it okay? we still have moral responsibilities, and just because the game allows you to do something does not mean anything goes.

 

3. if you are the leader of the group you should immediately kick someone who does this. a corollary of this is to form more groups yourself so you have the ability to do this.

 

4. take heart in that it's not so much of an issue pre 50 where u will out-level the gear in a matter of game-hours, while at 50, people who do this will not be tolerated and it won't take long before the rest of the community knows not to group with them or have them in their guild.

[Setanian]

It's not about people like you, who take need when they want. I am sure you do it for the right reasons and are honest while doing so. But I can't describe otherwise a man who need on EVERY item that is looted EVERY time he can do so. That's greed - boosted by the fact that he simply did use need to win items over all other party members - if I ever saw greedy person. While I can respect your opinion I wouldn't respect person like described above.

 

I'll accept this as you say it. It is greed, as one cannot perceive any situation with such random drops, where one person needs the entire loot bag. But it is not 'ninja' and that's the bit that irks me. If we stick to greedy, then I'm all for it.

 

people mis-use the 'ninja' concept far too often. More often than not to cause angst. (not saying you did). But it is a very aggressive term in todays gaming environment.

[Maccaroth]

I thought that "ninja" is another word for someone taking everything. My mistake. It was simply a greedy person then.

[Setanian]

Not gonna read all the responses, but wanted to make these points:

 

1. people rolling on other classes' gear when in the same group is just wrong and should not happen. as OP correctly points out, this "prisoners' dilemma" option of screwing the other guy before he screws you actually turns out to be detrimental to all parties involved.

 

The gear may be suitable for more than one class or companion. Hense in todays ToR, the need button should really be removed. It leads to too many opinions on what is 'need' and what is not.

 

2. anyone who says it's okay because it's possible (or possible to merely be able to use the item) is just deluded. it's possible to steal your neighbours' mail and use their new credit card but does that make it okay? we still have moral responsibilities, and just because the game allows you to do something does not mean anything goes.

 

An opinion at best.

 

3. if you are the leader of the group you should immediately kick someone who does this. a corollary of this is to form more groups yourself so you have the ability to do this.

 

I didn't get the memo saying you spoke for everyone in the community.

 

 

4. take heart in that it's not so much of an issue pre 50 where u will out-level the gear in a matter of game-hours, while at 50, people who do this will not be tolerated and it won't take long before the rest of the community knows not to group with them or have them in their guild.

 

Idle threats serve no purpose to the discussion.

[Setanian]

I thought that "ninja" is another word for someone taking everything. My mistake. It was simply a greedy person then.

 

From my understanding, and I'm open to more clarification, Ninja is to take something you are not entitled to.

 

If you took part and rolled the dice and won, it cannot be ninja to take it. You won it fair and squarely.

 

How-ever, the greedy bit does come into play.

[Maccaroth]

It made me check and I found this:

 

http://www.wowwiki.com/Loot_ninja

 

http://www.wowwiki.com/Greed

 

http://www.wowwiki.com/Need_before_Greed

 

Just for informational purposes.

Edited January 29, 2012 by Maccaroth

[perato]

The gear may be suitable for more than one class or companion. Hense in todays ToR, the need button should really be removed. It leads to too many opinions on what is 'need' and what is not.

 

An opinion at best.

 

 

I didn't get the memo saying you spoke for everyone in the community.

 

 

Idle threats serve no purpose to the discussion.

 

oh so this is the troll thread, that explains why there is so much discussion about something which is pretty much taken for granted in most MMOs, i.e. doing the right thing and having a moral compass which is at least slightly functional.

 

i don't speak for everyone in the community but i think you will find the general consensus to be the same as mine, at least within the real world and within the actual game, not on a forum where people pose contrarian views just for the sake of being heard.

[Ronamo]

It made me check and I found this:

 

http://www.wowwiki.com/Loot_ninja

 

http://www.wowwiki.com/Greed

 

http://www.wowwiki.com/Need_before_Greed

 

That definition of greed, through its narrowness, supports the position that needing on something you want, be it for aesthetics or otherwise, is ok.

Edited January 29, 2012 by Ronamo