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

[Annikhan]

What's even more annoying is Playing a class that uses med armor and having something taken by a class that uses light armor and haveing them tell you they 'need' the cash they get from selling it.

 

Now I wouldn't mind the guy who wants the armor to swap out the mods because some stuff just looks better then others. But when the mods are actually needed by another class in the group well some behavior is just rude.

 

I actully ejected someone from a group in mid run because he stole armor out from under me that I really needed and I keep track of these people and I won't do runs with them again.

 

Would be nice if Bioware put in a filter to prevent guys like this from being able to pull crap like this. Or at least give the option of being able to trade it to people in the group before the Flashpoint or phase ends so you cn give people the option to trade before ejecting them from the group.

 

The only other solution is to only group with people you know.

[Xabos]

First of all, did you not read what gurugeorge wrote? (and trust me, you don't want to argue "social contracts" with that man).

 

You wrote a whole lot of words in defense of Needing for companions who may or may not have been part of the group, but I assure you: the consensus is, if a companion was on the run and helped kill the mobs that dropped that gear, fine. If your companion was not on that run, the companion does not deserve to roll on that drop. I'm sorry you wrote so many words, but that's the consensus. Also - companion doesn't have feelings; person you took gear from is real, and just worked his/her butt off for that gear.

 

Needing on companion gear when your comp wasn't there for the run: indefensible. It's akin to needing for an alt. So not cool.

 

Your consensus means spit. Just your opinion. Everyone has their own. Do what you will and others will do what they want. Paying to play and helping to kill the boss gives people the right to decide what to do. You arguing the moral values of a piece of virtual loot in a video game is laughable. Roll need and let the RNG sort it out.

[face_hindu]

I actully ejected someone from a group in mid run because he stole armor out from under me that I really needed and I keep track of these people and I won't do runs with them again.

 

I would have done the same thing you did, if it wasn't an honest mistake.

[teddy_bear]

On the server I play on i've never seen anyone roll need for a companion or mods. That being said, if someone was to roll for a companion, or to strip an entire item for 1 mod, they would be kicked from the group (assuming someone else could use the item and it wasn't agreed upon before they roll).

 

Ironically our server only has a dozen or so tanks able to run end game content proficiently, so ninja looter will only ever make it into 2-3 groups before they never run a hard mode again.

 

Companions didn't help in the flashpoint/ops therefore they cant roll, and you as a player shouldn't roll for them. Think of 8 people doing a job, then someone takes a portion of another workers paycheck for a friend or family member. Simply put rolling for companion gear is stealing.

 

Rolling for mods/oranges is much they same, but its more like shoplifting, a lesser offence. This is because typically because a portion of the mods/orange armor are still usable. However, often times you will end up taking away an upgrade from someone else. So two people have worked for an hour, and should make 10$ each. One person has an opportunity to make 5$ more, the catch is if they decide to make 5$ more the other worker will receive 5$ less.

[Bowlan]

Video games are serious business.

[LogicalPremise]

All I know is there are 14 people on my "don't group with list". And anyone who uses need in a manner from which I don't agree are going on it as well.

 

If the majority of the community is against this sort of thing, eventually it will begin to show it's effects. If the majority of the community doesn't care, then it will basically be those who are fine with doing their thing and those who aren't doing there own thing.

 

Pretty much none of the top raiding guilds are going to go for this because of the very nature of that type of group. On the other hand, most of the very casual players with many alts who are sort of playing this as KOTOR 3 will have no problems with it.

 

As far as the OP goes : I have no problems with a person needing something for their char, be that looks, stats, or mods, as long as you can actually use it now. Don't loot for a companion you are getting in 10 levels. Don't loot for an enhancement when the rest of the piece is heavy armor and you wear light and have no intentions of using anything but that enhancement.

 

Also, most of the orange gear from the FP is neat looking and will start fights. Agree on firm loot rules in the beginning and you will have less problems.

[face_hindu]

Your consensus means spit. Just your opinion. Everyone has their own. Do what you will and others will do what they want. Paying to play and helping to kill the boss gives people the right to decide what to do. You arguing the moral values of a piece of virtual loot in a video game is laughable. Roll need and let the RNG sort it out.

 

Yes, everyone has their own opinion, you are correct.

 

Yours is that of the minority.

[CeiLican]

I think looting processes should be as follows.

 

If your character IN THE GROUP present at that time of looting can use the item as it is a direct upgrade then any players in that group to whom that item applies role need, all others pass/greed.

 

If all four can use it, then greed it.

 

Really loot should be class specific to begin with to avoid the unnecessary drama.

 

All gear for companions and alts is superfluous and up to the player to obtain on their own time.

 

Personally there shouldn't be a need/greed option.

 

I miss the days of party treasure. To be divided post instance. This "bound" crap is simply absurd. Either class or not class, if MMOs want to limit classes.

 

Frankly I don't like that you can't have Str and Wpw, or Cunning and Aim together among other stats.

 

All characters on some level have all those stats.

 

The irony I find amusing is that Force users use force powers right? So how is it Willpower specced to only one force using class? Really?

 

meh anyway...off to kill ****.

[Maccaroth]

Other players, unwilling to accept how things are, attempt to place additional rules on top of the existing system. They claim they're being altruistic, they claim they're working for the "betterment of the community", the reality is this: they're trying to, in some fashion, insure a greater chance of them getting the loot they want from a given boss' drops.

You're saying what I already has been posting all the time...

 

You can go with the logic that you can roll anything on anything. It's a solid argument in itself.

 

Social contract is completely informal. You can or not go with its rules. People simply follow it because it's beneficial for all those involved when it comes down to rolling for specific items. If someone thinks otherwise - and (s)he has right to do so - then it can cause problems.

 

Why, you will ask? Because when I know that someone will play by the rules we all know then there is no problem - we all know where we stand and I can trust that the other people in my group will do the same. People taking need for a companion over another player or for looks are unpredictable. You can't tell if (s)he will take need, greed or pass on the loot.

 

It's best to avoid that kind of people if you're not fine with their actions. There are no rules other than dice roll with them (because they'll make claim on anything they see fit) and I'd rather like to go with someone who accept social contract. I know what to expect and there is bigger chance for me to get items that suit my class.

[DarthKhaos]

So passing because you want it for looks or a companion or the mods so someone else gets a better chance is the only way to make it respectful or courteous? Really? So that means the person who is going for stats has a sense of entitlement since he feels he should have a better chance at it rather than taking his chances with the dice, just like the person who would want it for looks does. Being courteous varies based on the person. For example, I feel it's DIS Courteous to just say "hi" or "how's it going" to a random stranger you walk past. Does that mean i'm right or wrong, no. That's just my opinion.

No it is courteous because you do not NEED it to improve your character's ability in combat. It is courteous to ask if it is cool for you to roll need on an item that utilizes stats that your class does not need. A simple "Hey that thing would look hawt on me I'd like to roll need on it and swap the mods out with ones for my class.

 

It is sad these things have to be explained to you.

[Ambrogino]

Oh quit the grief guys, it doesn't matter to me if you need or not!

 

Not that I have done this, but If gear drops that a companion I have can use, why should I care about you! Companions are a focal point of gameplay and not a choice, BTW, so you guys need to get out of your old thinking patterns. Whether it be modable gear or mods in gear, if I have a companion that can use it why should I be restricted to your "mains" needs. BW should have thought about that when they created this game and created a better loot system.

 

Also, if you establish loot rules ahead of a PUG whats the issue?

[Revenaught]

First of all, did you not read what gurugeorge wrote? (and trust me, you don't want to argue "social contracts" with that man).

 

You wrote a whole lot of words in defense of Needing for companions who may or may not have been part of the group, but I assure you: the consensus is, if a companion was on the run and helped kill the mobs that dropped that gear, fine. If your companion was not on that run, the companion does not deserve to roll on that drop. I'm sorry you wrote so many words, but that's the consensus. Also - companion doesn't have feelings; person you took gear from is real, and just worked his/her butt off for that gear.

 

Needing on companion gear when your comp wasn't there for the run: indefensible. It's akin to needing for an alt. So not cool.

 

No its not the consensus as these multiple threads on this issue prove.

[sjmc]

I think we need a new category, "Need for Companion/Appearance" for "secondary" upgrades that should be prioritized behind "need" and ahead of "greed".

 

It is not greedy to want to improve the appearance of your character or to ensure your companions are geared, but most people don't want to grab good gear for secondary purposes that would be a major upgrade for someone else (both because they are nice people and because they don't want to start an hour of loot drama).

 

However, under the current system, if you don't press need, there is a good chance that the item will just get vendored, because everyone else will press Greed. Having a second category would let people that can make the best use of it get priority, while those that can make some use of it will still be ahead of people that don't care and just want the credits from whatever is left over.

 

Companions/Orange gear just don't fit comfortably under "Need" or "Greed", no matter how much people want to insist that they do. Orange gear can be used until the end of the game, while most loot will be outleveled in a few days. It is arguable in this case that appearance is in fact more important than stats. Companions use the same gear as the rest of us and, for at least some people, keeping their gear up-to-date is vital. They are part of your character and are necessary for the leveling process (unless you group or PVP all the time).

 

The three buttons could be labelled "Need" "Need for Companion/Appearance" "Need for Credits", or even something as simple as "Need" "Want" "Don't Care".

[face_hindu]

No its not the consensus as these multiple threads on this issue prove.

 

Count the posters on each side. The overwhelming majority believe that needing on gear you can't use, but someone else can, is not cool.

 

NO ARGUMENT YOU HAVE WILL CONVINCE ME TO BECOME AN IGNORANT, THIEVING, GREEDY LITTLE NINJA LOOTER. END. OF. STORY.

[sjmc]

The overwhelming majority believe that needing on gear you can't use, but someone else can, is not cool.

I agree. The discussion is about what "can't use" means.

 

- If my companion can use it, "I" can use it

- If I can wear the armor, "I" can use it.

 

In any case, it isn't about "can use", it is about "is it an upgrade?". If it isn't an upgrade to you or your companion, you shouldn't roll need. Does upgrading appearance count? Under discussion.

 

On orange armor, taking the armor mod out of your current piece and inserting it in the new piece fixes the stat problem. However, A +Cunning person that wants a non-orange +Aim item to wear himself should probably press Greed.

 

Whether or not you agree on pressing need for orange/companions, doesn't change the fact if the roll is won, these items will certainly "be used". The question is whether it is an allowable use.

Edited January 28, 2012 by sjmc

[face_hindu]

I agree. The discussion is about what "can't use" means.

 

- If my companion can use it, "I" can use it

- If I can wear the armor, "I" can use it.

 

In any case, it isn't about "can use", it is about "is it an upgrade?". If it isn't an upgrade to you or your companion, you shouldn't roll need. Does upgrading appearance count? Under discussion.

 

On orange armor, taking the armor mod out of your current piece and inserting it in the new piece fixes the stat problem. However, A +Cunning person that wants a non-orange +Aim item to wear himself should probably press Greed.

 

Whether or not you agree on pressing need for orange/companions, doesn't change the fact if the roll is won, these items will certainly "be used". The question as to whether it is an allowable use.

 

It's really simple if you're not a complete moron. Use = my character can use it. Can't use = my character can't use it. If you still have questions, I don't have answers for you.

[Revenaught]

Count the posters on each side. The overwhelming majority believe that needing on gear you can't use, but someone else can, is not cool.

 

NO ARGUMENT YOU HAVE WILL CONVINCE ME TO BECOME AN IGNORANT, THIEVING, GREEDY LITTLE NINJA LOOTER. END. OF. STORY.

 

You dont have near enough numbers for this "overwhelming majority" you are trying to claim.

Also you dont need to yell, I'm not trying to convince you to become anything. Not a ninja looter nor a person who realizes that this game differs from others and those other standards have no place in this game.

In short you dont have to worry about me at all as I will never bow to your attempts to decree how I do or don't play this game so I will never participate in a group you are in. Frankly I don't need you and therefore have no reason to put up with your childishness.

[face_hindu]

You dont have near enough numbers for this "overwhelming majority" you are trying to claim.

Also you dont need to yell, I'm not trying to convince you to become anything. Not a ninja looter nor a person who realizes that this game differs from others and those other standards have no place in this game.

In short you dont have to worry about me at all as I will never bow to your attempts to decree how I do or don't play this game so I will never participate in a group you are in. Frankly I don't need you and therefore have no reason to put up with your childishness.

 

Ah, I see it now, you're a troll. Of course, I should have seen it earlier. I feel stupid for feeding the troll. Go away, troll.

[HoneyBoy]

Ah, I see it now, you're a troll. Of course, I should have seen it earlier. I feel stupid for feeding the troll. Go away, troll.

 

Who is the troll here?

 

The person you quoted who was pointing out that you have no objective statistics to claim any kind of "majority"?

 

Or the person who completely disregarded their message and attacked them with an ad hominem? (Hint: You did this)

[face_hindu]

Who is the troll here?

 

The person you quoted who was pointing out that you have no objective statistics to claim any kind of "majority"?

 

Or the person who completely disregarded their message and attacked them with an ad hominem? (Hint: You did this)

 

Yes, but I do have objective statistics. On the last large thread about this topic, I stopped counting at 100-10. If you think "Need" and "Greed" are open to such wide interpretations, you should probably consider why then is it a mechanic in this game, and why the game never actually explains what those terms mean.

[AsheraII]

I think we need a new category, "Need for Companion/Appearance" for "secondary" upgrades that should be prioritized behind "need" and ahead of "greed".

 

It is not greedy to want to improve the appearance of your character or to ensure your companions are geared, but most people don't want to grab good gear for secondary purposes that would be a major upgrade for someone else (both because they are nice people and because they don't want to start an hour of loot drama).

 

However, under the current system, if you don't press need, there is a good chance that the item will just get vendored, because everyone else will press Greed. Having a second category would let people that can make the best use of it get priority, while those that can make some use of it will still be ahead of people that don't care and just want the credits from whatever is left over.

 

Companions/Orange gear just don't fit comfortably under "Need" or "Greed", no matter how much people want to insist that they do. Orange gear can be used until the end of the game, while most loot will be outleveled in a few days. It is arguable in this case that appearance is in fact more important than stats. Companions use the same gear as the rest of us and, for at least some people, keeping their gear up-to-date is vital. They are part of your character and are necessary for the leveling process (unless you group or PVP all the time).

 

The three buttons could be labelled "Need" "Need for Companion/Appearance" "Need for Credits", or even something as simple as "Need" "Want" "Don't Care".

Let's say, we invent a button "Need for appearance", and put it right below the "need" button. If a player rolls a higher "Need for appearance" than any "need" roll, the following happens: the player receives the item, but the mods are automatically stripped out and sent to the player with the highest "need" roll.

 

Need roller gets the stats, appearance roller gets the appearance. I really can't see anything wrong with this logic. Except maybe the cries from some of the self entitled need-for-stat rollers who will now claim they wanted both and never had an opportunity to aquire an orange chestpiece before (which might actually be half true in BT/Esseles).

 

But such a system is simply too complicated for this game, especially considering the people without MMO experience here.

 

Ah well, if I think a piece of equipment is an upgrade to my character, I will roll NEED anyway. And that will always be a cosmetic upgrade, since unlike some horribly slacking people, I actually do my best to keep my stats topped up, instead of replacing perfectly good and long lasting pieces of equipment with the "drop of the day".

Needing on orange gear is ALWAYS a cosmetic need, or you're terribly behind on your gear and got dragged through the content so far, in which case those who actually did all the work deserve it more.

[face_hindu]

Who is the troll here?

 

The person you quoted who was pointing out that you have no objective statistics to claim any kind of "majority"?

 

Or the person who completely disregarded their message and attacked them with an ad hominem? (Hint: You did this)

 

And the person I quoted is a troll, by definition. They posted to disagree with me just to disagree, without having any facts, discounting my position without offering a counter, then saying they didn't really belong in the thread anyway. That is actually the definition of a troll. It is not a word I use lightly, but that person with the green text is seriously trolling.

[ispanolfw]

And you fail to understand the purpose and function of a Need/Greed system.

 

And I say this as someone to whom appearance is almost as important as stats, etc.

 

The word "Need" doesn't apply to you, the player, in vacuo, it applies to you the player as the player specifically in control of the the class that you are playing that helped your team win the instance or down the boss.

 

The stats on the item are either "needed" by the class you are playing or not. There is no "if","and"or "but" about it - it is pure numbers, pure logic, it's absolutely inexorable, there's no way of squirming out of it.

 

IOW, you should not (if presented with a Need/Greed roll) be asking yourself "Do I as a player of SWTOR Need this?" But "Does this character's class that I'm playing Need this?"

 

If it doesn't, then all the thousands of other reasons why you might want the item - companion, appearance, selling, etc., come under the heading of "Greed."

 

Well, I amend that slightly, there's some wiggle room for Companions in a game like this in which Companions feature so heavily. If you use a companion in the instance (i.e. if it was 3 players plus your Companion), then I think it's tolerable to have an option for "Companion Need".

 

Unfortunately the system is designed in such a way to give everyone the same chance to roll on something. Yes it's called need, do you get to determine what constitutes need for everyone? Does Random Joe over there who thinks he should get everything? No, neither of you do. That's why the system is impartial. Anything in this game is pretty much a "want" The only reason they usually have need/greed is that they leave it up to the players to decide, and I mean decide, not force upon others. So if you feel you are going to use it for whatever, or if you feel you aren't, you have the choice to roll how you like.

 

And as stated who knows how many times. If your opinion on who should be allowed to roll on what differs from the impartial system currently in place, speak up or as they say, forever hold your peace.

[face_hindu]

And as stated who knows how many times. If your opinion on who should be allowed to roll on what differs from the impartial system currently in place, speak up or as they say, forever hold your peace.

 

The onus is on the player who intends to steal gear from a group member. If that player says "Hey, I'm going to need on gear that I can't use, is that cool?" and everyone's cool... cool. If theat player doesn't say that, and needs on something his character can't use, but a group member can, then it's insta-kick/ignore/blacklist with guild and alliances. I wouldn't personally call someone out on General for it, but I've seen it done, and have noted the person being called out as a ninja looter.

 

So, if you want to find groups and have a reputation as a stand-up player, don't ninja. If you want a reputation as a ninja looter, that's your doing.

[ispanolfw]

And the person I quoted is a troll, by definition. They posted to disagree with me just to disagree, without having any facts, discounting my position without offering a counter, then saying they didn't really belong in the thread anyway. That is actually the definition of a troll. It is not a word I use lightly, but that person with the green text is seriously trolling.

 

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

 

And as to one of your other posts, yes Need and Greed are very widely interpreted. Still doesn't give you the right to force your interpretation on another.