Please, Don't Roll on Items for Another Class in Your Team

[Varghjerta]

This is the heart of the matter. I'm not TAKING anything from you. We both fought and have an equal right to whatever drops. I'm simply rolling and hoping to win, JUST LIKE YOU!!

 

Exaplin to me why you feel you have a higher right to it than I do. Why is me rolling "taking" it from you?

 

Actually no actually you are taking something from a group content based encounters to use for purely when you are solo play there is a big difference there.

 

If you personally could use it in a group later on doesnt matter see it like this

 

Main specc == youre character (not companion) can/will use it

 

OS = youre companion can use it

 

if MS will use the item then you greed it

 

But as you do now is i can use so i roll MS on everything .

[crica]

So, let me get this straight. You guys start a thread, but want no actual debate to take place in it? It seems like once someone posts something that is the opposite of what you agree with in this thread, you either attack the person (like whatisname is doing as we speak) or you claim "why are you here?" I'm here because this can affect me too if someone with like mind to you gets in my group. That's how it affects me. However, if there was any way to separate the two groups, like with the dungeon finder, then I would love that. I'm not begrudging you of how you want to get gear for companions, even though I don't agree with it whatsoever, so long as we can find a way to make us all happy.

 

I've realized that none of you want to hear any argument on this matter, so are y'all at least willing to start up a suggestion for a little check-box in the upcoming LFG tool for this?

 

If I want to use the same gear you want to use and we decide to run the FP together we both will roll Need on the gear we both want to use if it happens to drop to see who has to run the FP again.

 

If you tell me only you can roll Need on the same gear we both want to use - why would I run the FP with you?

 

That is all that would affect you by telling anyone who wants to use the same gear you want to use that they can't roll Need on it - they wouldn't want to run the FP with you because they wouldn't get the same chance to win the gear they want to use as you do.

Edited January 31, 2012 by crica

[Hatslinger]

But here is where you argument breaks down. If I win a piece of loot, what I do with that loot is none of your business. Likewise, what you do with yours, is none of mine.

 

You are falling prey to the ideal that you have some say about loot you did not win. You don't. The only say you have, is the choice of button you select at tool time. After that, you win, or you lose.

 

That would be correct if everyone shared your sentiment. Problem is, once your way of looting is practiced with a group, someone nearly always speaks up in party chat over it, and there are many people in-game that would agree with the person that just started the argument. The argument that "the loot system has no bias" does not work because the people it rolls for have them. This bias is pretty divided along a line, so why not just take that line and turn it into a prerequisite for a group in an LFG tool? Way I see it, is that we are never going to agree on this, so why not, not group with each other?

[Creed_Buhallin]

So, let me get this straight. You guys start a thread, but want no actual debate to take place in it?

To be fair, the people disagreeing with you are not the ones who started the thread. Not that I agree with the "Just go away" argument, it's really no better than the "Everyone agrees with me so hush" that people like face_hindu spout.

[Eldren]

So, let me get this straight. You guys start a thread, but want no actual debate to take place in it? It seems like once someone posts something that is the opposite of what you agree with in this thread, you either attack the person (like whatisname is doing as we speak) or you claim "why are you here?" I'm here because this can affect me too if someone with like mind to you gets in my group. That's how it affects me. However, if there was any way to separate the two groups, like with the dungeon finder, then I would love that. I'm not begrudging you of how you want to get gear for companions, even though I don't agree with it whatsoever, so long as we can find a way to make us all happy.

 

I've realized that none of you want to hear any argument on this matter, so are y'all at least willing to start up a suggestion for a little check-box in the upcoming LFG tool for this?

 

You shouldn't have been attacked, Hatslinger. The person who did so should apologize to you. I'm fine with going for the throat on someone's view, but that doesn't mean I have to go for their throat because they hold it. This thread is bound to continue to have spikes in passion because we're in the second continuation (both previous threads hit their 1000 post cap), and some folks are getting frustrated.

[Shadowkai]

It's best to just set the rules before the FP begins. If you find you are grouped with one of the companion ninjas (there are lots in this thread), say "No thanks!", and find a new group. If ninjas want to group with ninjas, that's alright with me!

 

That said, I've only encountered this once in all of the FPs I've ran (needing for companion over a real group member that needed the upgrade). Every other PUG I've run with has been great (and respectful of the usual need before greed [ask before needing for companion] rules).

 

/shrug

[Setanian]

That would be correct if everyone shared your sentiment. Problem is, once your way of looting is practiced with a group, someone nearly always speaks up in party chat over it, and there are many people in-game that would agree with the person that just started the argument. The argument that "the loot system has no bias" does not work because the people it rolls for have them. This bias is pretty divided along a line, so why not just take that line and turn it into a prerequisite for a group in an LFG tool? Way I see it, is that we are never going to agree on this, so why not, not group with each other?

 

Oh I won't group with people that want to dictate how I play. The debate is about should there even be players dictating at all.

[crica]

You shouldn't have been attacked, Hatslinger. The person who did so should apologize to you.

 

No way am I going to apologize to someone who told me I was a waste of their time before I ever went off.

[Hatslinger]

No you have it wrong. I've no problem if you are here to debate. But, you are not. You continually 'tell' us how it should be. You 'tell' us not to loot for our companions, you 'tell' us to go buy or farm them ourselves. And in each case, you are completely wrong.

 

You have no right what-so-ever to dictate to anyone, what they roll, how they roll, what they do with loot they win.

 

What you are seeking is so form of dictator role in that you get to tell players how they should roll. I'm sorry, but that's just wrong, and dare I say, a little selfish.

 

No, you are doing it wrong. Have you taken college level English? If you have, then you need to remember that when you are writing an opinion essay (which is essentially this topic) then you do not have to state that this is your actual opinion within the writing. That is always assumed and should not be done because it lowers the quality of writing.

 

So, just because I have neglected to state that this is my opinion, does not mean I am "telling" you anything. It seems like you are only trying to use the excuse that I'm apparently a dictator to attempt to get me to back down from the argument. Sorry, but I can get stubborn.

Edited January 31, 2012 by Hatslinger

[BigBadEdward]

Actually no actually you are taking something from a group content based encounters to use for purely when you are solo play there is a big difference there.

 

If you personally could use it in a group later on doesnt matter see it like this

 

Main specc == youre character (not companion) can/will use it

 

OS = youre companion can use it

 

if MS will use the item then you greed it

 

But as you do now is i can use so i roll MS on everything .

 

Who made up this rule? Since when do you get to dictate how I, or anyone else for that matter, uses a piece of gear?

 

This is the fallacy here. You believe you get to set the rules on a piece of gear we both fought for. Does that not strike you as a bit conceited?

[Hatslinger]

To be fair, the people disagreeing with you are not the ones who started the thread. Not that I agree with the "Just go away" argument, it's really no better than the "Everyone agrees with me so hush" that people like face_hindu spout.

 

Thank you. I have no problem with debating, but people just need to realize that I'm not getting angry about this, so they don't have any reason to do so either, to be honest.

 

You shouldn't have been attacked, Hatslinger. The person who did so should apologize to you. I'm fine with going for the throat on someone's view, but that doesn't mean I have to go for their throat because they hold it. This thread is bound to continue to have spikes in passion because we're in the second continuation (both previous threads hit their 1000 post cap), and some folks are getting frustrated.

 

I am under no illusion that that person will apologize to me. Thank you for saying so, but they are purposely misinterpreting me, so nothing to do about that but ignore them.

 

However my idea about separating our two groups still stands. What do y'all think about it? It's nothing personal, but I cannot see us grouping together with no issue as it stands. We just have different viewpoints on companions and I'm willing to acknowledge that. Separating through the LFG tool could eliminate many problems and it seems like we both have enough people that agree with either side to make it work.

[utio]

No, you are doing it wrong. Have you taken college level English? If you have, then you need to remember that when you are writing an opinion essay (which is essentially this topic) then you do not have to state that this is your actual opinion within the writing. That is always assumed and should not be done because it lowers the quality of writing.

 

So, just because I have neglected to state that this is my opinion, does not mean I am "telling" you anything. It seems like you are only trying to use the excuse that I'm apparently a dictator to attempt to get me to back down from the argument. Sorry, but I'm I can get stubborn.

 

Ok I'm confused. Are you now saying it isn't your opinion that people shouldn't roll need for companions?

I love this thread, it's just going on and on and on and on, with no sign of ending. It's like 2 kids, yes it is, no it's not, yes it is, no it's not.

[Creed_Buhallin]

So, just because I have neglected to state that this is my opinion, does not mean I am "telling" you anything. It seems like you are only trying to use the excuse that I'm apparently a dictator to attempt to get me to back down from the argument. Sorry, but I'm I can get stubborn.

Actually, you need to understand the context that a lot of this discussion is taking place in.

 

Many of the people sharing your view in this thread are doing so with threats of retaliation - kicking people from groups, blacklisting them, spamming fleet chat about what a ninja you are, essentially doing everything they can to ruin someone's play experience if they don't follow their rules.

 

Now, that may not be what you're doing here, but you need to appreciate that very little of this discussion is occurring as friendly opinion debates without telling people anything.

[Eldren]

Actually no actually you are taking something from a group content based encounters to use for purely when you are solo play there is a big difference there.

 

If you personally could use it in a group later on doesnt matter see it like this

 

Main specc == youre character (not companion) can/will use it

 

OS = youre companion can use it

 

if MS will use the item then you greed it

 

But as you do now is i can use so i roll MS on everything .

 

That's fine if it's how you want to play, but just because you consider companions to be a Greed roll doesn't mean another player is obligated to, and their perspective is as valid as yours. If they want their companions to have Flashpoint-quality gear, there's nothing wrong with that. They can roll on the gear, and give it to their companions. What a player does with their winnings is their business and no one else's.

 

No one owns, or has more right, to a piece when it drops. It's only owned after the rolls are chosen and take place, and once the item is in the winner's inventory. Prior to that, it's in "escrow" in effect: it's being held by a neutral third party who will give it to the person who's supposed to receive it, and that choice is made by the rolling mechanic.

[Eldren]

Thank you. I have no problem with debating, but people just need to realize that I'm not getting angry about this, so they don't have any reason to do so either, to be honest.

 

 

 

I am under no illusion that that person will apologize to me. Thank you for saying so, but they are purposely misinterpreting me, so nothing to do about that but ignore them.

 

However my idea about separating our two groups still stands. What do y'all think about it? It's nothing personal, but I cannot see us grouping together with no issue as it stands. We just have different viewpoints on companions and I'm willing to acknowledge that. Separating through the LFG tool could eliminate many problems and it seems like we both have enough people that agree with either side to make it work.

 

I'm still not convinced a LFG Tool is a good idea unless it's implemented on a per-server basis only. Cross-server LFG is only going to exacerbate the existing looting contentions, and complicate things til BioWare implements something similar to WoW not because it's actually the best idea (because such things should be left to players in my opinion), but just to get people to shut up about it.

 

Implementing intentional segregation in a LFG Tool would likewise just unnecessarily complicate things. Let each person roll as their personal conscience dictates, and the playing field stays level.

[ThiborF]

Actually no actually you are taking something from a group content based encounters to use for purely when you are solo play there is a big difference there.

 

If you personally could use it in a group later on doesnt matter see it like this

 

Main specc == youre character (not companion) can/will use it

 

OS = youre companion can use it

 

if MS will use the item then you greed it

 

But as you do now is i can use so i roll MS on everything .

 

I guess hoping that arbitrary MS>OS crap stayed in WoW was too much to ask for. Can't say I'm surprised.

 

Still boggles the mind that after hundreds of posts of circular debate that so many of you can't see the simplicity of realizing a) not everybody thinks like you and b) it saves so much aggravation by having a simple conversation with the group before the run starts to get everyone on the same page.

[Varghjerta]

Who made up this rule? Since when do you get to dictate how I, or anyone else for that matter, uses a piece of gear?

 

This is the fallacy here. You believe you get to set the rules on a piece of gear we both fought for. Does that not strike you as a bit conceited?

 

Actually then i do suggest you do join with youre companion and solo that group content if you want to take gear that you only will and can use for soloing.

 

 

And yes both did the encounter but in youre case why do you think need/greed buttons is there for ?

Following that same logic everyone should just use need all the time

Edited January 31, 2012 by Varghjerta

[Creed_Buhallin]

However my idea about separating our two groups still stands. What do y'all think about it? It's nothing personal, but I cannot see us grouping together with no issue as it stands. We just have different viewpoints on companions and I'm willing to acknowledge that. Separating through the LFG tool could eliminate many problems and it seems like we both have enough people that agree with either side to make it work.

I'd have two problems with this.

 

The first is that I'm not generally in favor of mechanical implementations which could be just as easily handled by social means. It takes coding time and effort away from far more universal issues.

 

Second, and more importantly, I believe it would be a detriment to the community. The level of threats and outright hate directed at anyone who tries to think about this in anything but the last-gen manner has been staggering. I'll freely admit I'm going to be very careful about this going into groups, because I've been outright intimidated by many of the responses. I'm sure the people making the threats consider that a win, and that I'm now just conforming to the "norms", but I think it's sad. The reality is that this discussion has, more than anything, made me increasingly reluctant to group with anyone I don't know.

 

If we're going to disagree, fine, but I really don't need the level of drama people are threatening to inflict over such a minor disagreement over how I'm going to use a virtual toy. It's honestly rather frightening.

[Hatslinger]

Actually, you need to understand the context that a lot of this discussion is taking place in.

 

Many of the people sharing your view in this thread are doing so with threats of retaliation - kicking people from groups, blacklisting them, spamming fleet chat about what a ninja you are, essentially doing everything they can to ruin someone's play experience if they don't follow their rules.

 

Now, that may not be what you're doing here, but you need to appreciate that very little of this discussion is occurring as friendly opinion debates without telling people anything.

 

But I'm not debating with them, so you need to understand that you are arguing with an entirely different person.

 

Depending upon how hostile the person becomes when I object to their need over mine (which I will, not like throwing a fit or anything, just a simple objection. One needs to stand up for oneself in their life) then I will stay with the group so as not to harm it in its entirety if I leave. Or I will leave if they become belligerent. I will not stay in a group with someone that gets rude. In my experience, they will continue to bring the matter up throughout the entire flashpoint. I'm not into blacklisting. Let everyone determine who is not grouping material for themselves. I just won't group with that person again. If they didn't get angry, then it's nothing personal. I just realize that we don't agree on loot rules, so there is no reason to group with them again.

[Hatslinger]

I'm still not convinced a LFG Tool is a good idea unless it's implemented on a per-server basis only. Cross-server LFG is only going to exacerbate the existing looting contentions, and complicate things til BioWare implements something similar to WoW not because it's actually the best idea (because such things should be left to players in my opinion), but just to get people to shut up about it.

 

Implementing intentional segregation in a LFG Tool would likewise just unnecessarily complicate things. Let each person roll as their personal conscience dictates, and the playing field stays level.

 

Oh no, I'm am not supportive of a cross-server LFG tool at all. That will only invite more problems to groups....

 

I don't know if it will create more problems, but I think it's something to consider as a community. I'd like to see what others think about it, but your concern is a valid one.

 

I'd have two problems with this.

 

The first is that I'm not generally in favor of mechanical implementations which could be just as easily handled by social means. It takes coding time and effort away from far more universal issues.

 

Second, and more importantly, I believe it would be a detriment to the community. The level of threats and outright hate directed at anyone who tries to think about this in anything but the last-gen manner has been staggering. I'll freely admit I'm going to be very careful about this going into groups, because I've been outright intimidated by many of the responses. I'm sure the people making the threats consider that a win, and that I'm now just conforming to the "norms", but I think it's sad. The reality is that this discussion has, more than anything, made me increasingly reluctant to group with anyone I don't know.

 

If we're going to disagree, fine, but I really don't need the level of drama people are threatening to inflict over such a minor disagreement over how I'm going to use a virtual toy. It's honestly rather frightening.

 

It could be handled through talking, but I believe it would make it easier. The thing is, right now, it is difficult to create a group. If we disagree with the loot rules in the beginning of a flashpoint and decide to leave, then how long will it take to find a new one? If the LFG tool is completely automated, then this might not be an issue, unless you have bad luck. However, if it's not, then I think it's something to consider. It would make grouping more streamlined and we wouldn't be under the threat to agree with the majority of the group or leave and suffer a penalty of waiting potentially a long while for a new one.

 

For what it's worth, I don't think people are as hostile as on this forum. When I've come across this in-game, people on your side generally ask before rolling. I have no problem with that. If they don't ask, or bring up the matter at all, then we have a problem. However, the problem is not so big to create hostilities over, but that's just me. I'd think that there are others that agree with me over this in-game.

Edited January 31, 2012 by Hatslinger

[Creed_Buhallin]

But I'm not debating with them, so you need to understand that you are arguing with an entirely different person.

I understand that, but you likewise have to appreciate that you're not entering into a vacuum here. All I'm saying is to appreciate that very little of this debate has been staged as anyone's "opinion" from your side of things - it's been (and still is, if you read concurrent posts) all placed in the context of threats and intimidation. You may intend yourself to be a shining beacon of not in the middle of all that, but you're not that isolated

 

I have no problem with the idea of not grouping with someone who disagrees with me on loot rules - we all play the game for different reasons, and I'd equally not group with someone who wanted to skip every conversation, because that's an important part of it to me (the first 5-6 times, anyway ). And if it were just that (as you're advocating) I don't think there would be a problem.

 

But it's not just that. It's a horribly aggressive, honestly scary intimidation campaign directed at anyone who might think differently - whether it's a different view on companions and their place, whether it's a different idea of who has earned what, or just someone like me who's trying to adapt the loot standards to this game rather than basing it on the last, the prevailing commentary on your side of things is not "Go our separate ways and live and let live".

[Whillwynn]

The way I see it, in a game where companions are not used in full-group content, companions should automatically be second-tier in priority for gear from group content. Simple as that. You can get gear to solo in just fine from questing and crafting, or form groups to farm your companion's gear with that stated purpose.

 

That said, people in these games are self-centered and couldn't care less about one another. So the best you can do is state loot rules immediately as the leader to weed out these people; if they disregard written rules and ninja the gear for their companion, you might have a case with a GM to get the item removed (at least you would in other games).

 

A more elegant solution would be to have a Player > Companion > Greed loot option that a party leader can toggle. If gear does not have your primary stat, you can only roll Companion Need, or Greed on it. Don't want that system? Find a group that doesn't use it... at least then, they'll know where your priorities lie right off the bat and you'll be amongst like-minded fellows.

[Eldren]

The way I see it, in a game where companions are not used in full-group content, companions should automatically be second-tier in priority for gear from group content. Simple as that. You can get gear to solo in just fine from questing and crafting, or form groups to farm your companion's gear with that stated purpose.

 

That said, people in these games are self-centered and couldn't care less about one another. So the best you can do is state loot rules immediately as the leader to weed out these people; if they disregard written rules and ninja the gear for their companion, you might have a case with a GM to get the item removed (at least you would in other games).

 

A more elegant solution would be to have a Player > Companion > Greed loot option that a party leader can toggle. If gear does not have your primary stat, you can only roll Companion Need, or Greed on it. Don't want that system? Find a group that doesn't use it... at least then, they'll know where your priorities lie right off the bat and you'll be amongst like-minded fellows.

 

You're not the first to suggest this, but the problem is the instant you institute a third option that doesn't result in destruction of the item (such as reverse engineering), that third option becomes the default "greed" as it takes higher priority than actual greed. I still think it's best, and simplest, to just stick with NBG and let each person roll according to their conscience.

 

Even more optimal, since so much of this drama is sourced in different priorities of rolls, is to move to a Roll/Pass option. If you want it, you roll for it, if you don't, you don't. Simple, elegant, and 100% impartial/fair.

[Varghjerta]

I guess hoping that arbitrary MS>OS crap stayed in WoW was too much to ask for. Can't say I'm surprised.

 

Still boggles the mind that after hundreds of posts of circular debate that so many of you can't see the simplicity of realizing a) not everybody thinks like you and b) it saves so much aggravation by having a simple conversation with the group before the run starts to get everyone on the same page.

 

Actually i do agree that loot rules if they differ from normal group loot is should be discussed on beforehand.

 

Meaning normal loot rules is this

 

You roll need on what you join for as need not actually what you can use.

Otherwise state it beforehand or ask in the chat if that player that joined as <insert role> needs the item

 

 

In soloing groups cant see youre companions gear.........

 

Meaning without rules need becomes the new greed

Edited January 31, 2012 by Varghjerta

[daemian]

Actually i do agree that loot rules if they differ from normal group loot is should be discussed on beforehand.

 

Meaning normal loot rules is this

 

You roll need on what you join for as need not actually what you can use.

Otherwise state it beforehand or ask in the chat if that player that joined as <insert role> needs the item

 

If everyone agreed that's what the 'normal' rules are, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But, that's not the case, so it's up to us to have a conversation with our groupmates, or risk having a disagreement later.

Edited January 31, 2012 by daemian