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

[Setanian]

Let's see who cares to engage this scenario:

 

 

Player A, B, C and D plan to run 8 man zones all night (using their companions to full out the rest of the Ops group), culminating in a very, very difficult zone to finish the night. A, B, C and D are all different classes.

 

Throughout the night, which method of loot distribution gives them the BEST chance to complete their very difficult, final zone of the night:

 

A. Personal Need > Companion Need > Greed

B. Need on anything that is an upgrade for you or your companions > Greed

 

 

 

The answer is undoubtedly A.

 

So, the simple fact is, if you wanted to play optimally, if you wanted to achieve, if you wanted to do what is best for the success of your group and for YOU, you would adhere to loot distribution A.

 

If you don't value any of those things, that's ok. But this is WHY people feel strongly about it. Because it is the optimal distribution to ACHIEVE and KILL MORE BOSSES.

 

That is all.

 

 

So, prove it now. You made the claim as fact. I'd like to hear the facts supporting it.

 

Consider this; I might be healing my companion, who needs an upgrade more than I do. Likewise for the others.

 

But let's hear the proof first.

[VanorDM]

1) Restrict need rolls to Armor type + primary stat.

 

Which will allow Troopers and Bounty Hunters to roll need for most of their companions, but will prevent everyone else from doing it.

 

Plus, then there's no way to roll need on an item for my companion, even though everyone else in the group said it was ok if I did so.

 

So yeah, that's not a very good fix at all.

[JediMasterShake]

Option A is optimal if you stay within the group solely. If you never use that gear outside that group, then yes, Option A.

 

That isn't the reality. In reality, those four players are going to likely go their separate ways once the Op is over, at which point the gear they won benefits no one but themselves til the next group (of a different constituency most likely) forms.

 

In such a broader scenario, then Option B is more optimal.

 

 

Ah... ok.

 

You leave your group of 3, done for the night. The next day you find three more random folks. Would you rather that they had just finished grouping with people adhering to method A or B? Which would give night #2's group a better chance for success? (Not to mention, which would give you a better chance in that night's Warzone? Or Ops group where people weren't using their companion? But those are just bonuses in our scenario...)

[Halinalle]

You seem to be assuming that not rolling Need on something not explicitly for one's own class is an unwritten rule. I'd say we have enough posts in the threads on this issue on these forums to indicate a good chance of that not being true.

 

It has been like that for years. For those who have only played WoW it's a surprise.

[ferroz]

There is no argument we can come up with that will cause them to relent in thier very liberal definition of "need". With this in mind I offer that there is no way for either side to convince the other of anything.

 

We do have solutions tho..

1) Restrict need rolls to Armor type + primary stat.

2) Remove the need button.

The first is biased toward your definition of need; so it's not actually a solution.

 

the second doesn't actually solve anything; it just changes the argument of "no you're not allowed to hit need" to "no you're not allowed to hit roll"

 

so, neither of those are actually solutions.

Edited February 1, 2012 by ferroz

[Creed_Buhallin]

We do have solutions tho..

1) Restrict need rolls to Armor type + primary stat.

In other words - remove the wonderfully flexible system that Bioware developed, because you can't handle it?

 

That's the thing that gets me the most about all this. The entire system - companions, mods, custom items - is all a wonderfully flexible, dynamic system, and people are actually advocating ditching it and pigeonholing it into every item being targeted at one and only one class. Because the idea of someone else trying to get something they think is theirs, of having to actually risk RESPECTING another person, is too overwhelming.

 

Screw that. I love the orange armor system. I love mods, and I love companions. If you can't wrap your brain around the implications of that, for loot or otherwise, that's your problem.

[JediMasterShake]

So, prove it now. You made the claim as fact. I'd like to hear the facts supporting it.

 

Consider this; I might be healing my companion, who needs an upgrade more than I do. Likewise for the others.

 

But let's hear the proof first.

 

If I have to prove this to you, you either:

 

- Are simply being argumentative, knowing that the answer is obviously A.

- Honestly aren't sure whether or not the answer is A or B. In which case, your level of knowledge of TOR, and MMOs in general invalidates your opinion. (hint - player characters dominate companions in terms of output)

 

EDIT: It doesn't invalidate your opinion, I retract that - but... it makes me not care what you think.

Edited February 1, 2012 by JediMasterShake

[ferroz]

It has been like that for years. For those who have only played WoW it's a surprise.

or people who played EQ for nearly a decade, and happened to do open rolls in most pug groups

[ferroz]

If I have to prove this to you, you either:

 

- Are simply being argumentative, knowing that the answer is obviously A.

- Honestly aren't sure whether or not the answer is A or B. In which case, your level of knowledge of TOR, and MMOs in general invalidates your opinion. (hint - player characters dominate companions in terms of output)

No, the answer is obviously "none of the above"

 

the loot system that gives the best chance at winning the last encounter is a purely masterloot system that weigh's the contributions of the individuals in that last fight (some roles and even classes, or even companions will be more important than others) and awards items based on that; it also weighs in the drops that you may potentially see in the remaining content before you get to that last boss, as well as the gear pieces that people can get via tokens due to completing the content that you're doing (possibly awarding a companion a drop if someone else can get an upgrade via tokens or another drop).

Edited February 1, 2012 by ferroz

[Eldren]

Ah... ok.

 

You leave your group of 3, done for the night. The next day you find three more random folks. Would you rather that they had just finished grouping with people adhering to method A or B? Which would give night #2's group a better chance for success? (Not to mention, which would give you a better chance in that night's Warzone? Or Ops group where people weren't using their companion? But those are just bonuses in our scenario...)

 

Too many variables in this addendum, to be honest. It may be irrelevant for them to have just finished grouping with either type, as they may be min/max players who insure they have BiS gear before running any Ops (ignoring that BiS is most likely to be obtained in said Ops, but still...)

 

Either way, my approach operates from the assumption that you spend most of your play time in the game solo with a companion, with detours for Flashpoints and Operations. As a result, it's best to insure you and your companion are well-geared. If you prioritize aesthetics, you're going to go for a piece based on its looks instead of stats, at least as far as oranges go that you can still make optimal for your class. As a result, if these are your priorities, you should roll Need on items that meet those priorities' goals.

 

If you have different priorities, roll according to those priorities.

 

This is what "my camp" has been advocating through several threads and thousands of posts now.

[Skapek-Skocap]

Unfortunately, that's how MMO's work. People can roll "need" one whatever they want, but not really "need" it.

 

Overall, most people aren't ***** like that, but you should clear that up before you go into the FP. If you agree and the person does it anyway, blacklist them. Spread their name around.

 

Other than that, just don't run with people that have done that in the past and hope you outroll them.

[Halinalle]

or people who played EQ for nearly a decade, and happened to do open rolls in most pug groups

 

EQ wasn't first one, in case you wanted to play "I was there" card.

[Grecanis]

The first is biased toward your definition of need; so it's not actually a solution.

 

the second doesn't actually solve anything; it just changes the argument of "no you're not allowed to hit need" to "no you're not allowed to hit roll"

 

so, neither of those are actually solutions.

 

I suspect very few people would argue against a players right to roll on any drop they helped create. To further the right the devs could print the rule as:

 

"Every player in the instance has the right to roll on any drop. Or they may pass if they like."

 

This is absolutely fair and unbiased.

 

Add a 60 minute trade window for BoP's you want to pass to those who actually needed the item.

[Setanian]

If I have to prove this to you, you either:

 

- Are simply being argumentative, knowing that the answer is obviously A.

- Honestly aren't sure whether or not the answer is A or B. In which case, your level of knowledge of TOR, and MMOs in general invalidates your opinion. (hint - player characters dominate companions in terms of output)

 

EDIT: It doesn't invalidate your opinion, I retract that - but... it makes me not care what you think.

 

I think, I may be wrong, that you are assuming the gear that drops first is best for the players and not the companions. I can readily see (and contrary to your belief I have more years than you online) that an armor may drop that would be better for one of the companions than a player.

 

All things being equal, the players (limited to the point that they intend to stay all night with the same players) should gear first. And I say this, because they all know, they will get gear through out the night.

[Revenaught]

Honest question... You just finish up a tuff boss that took two goes to down. You were tanking as shadow and you had a commando healing. If a AIM piece drops, which your companion tank can use, you'd seriously need it and not feel bad at all that the commando that just healed you through the fight may end up losing the loot? Is putting others needs before your own really such a foreign concept now?

 

Lets reverse that. The healer I just tanked for rolls need on a piece of tank gear for his tank companion that I also rolled need on for myself. Neither one of us could have taken the boss down by ourselves so I have no problem with rolling with him for it.

 

If he wins and I still need that bit of gear for myself i'll probably send him a tell saying "Hey, that was fun. Wanna run it again with me so I can get another shot at that item?"

 

I just might come out of it with a new friend for life who becomes part of my guild because I wasnt selfish and stingy with the loot drops.

[Setanian]

Unfortunately, that's how MMO's work. People can roll "need" one whatever they want, but not really "need" it.

 

Overall, most people aren't ***** like that, but you should clear that up before you go into the FP. If you agree and the person does it anyway, blacklist them. Spread their name around.

 

Other than that, just don't run with people that have done that in the past and hope you outroll them.

 

Show me one post where someone has stated that they are rolling 'need' on something they don't really need?

[ferroz]

I suspect very few people would argue against a players right to roll on any drop they helped create.

we've had several hundred pages of people doing exactly that...

 

"Every player in the instance has the right to roll on any drop. Or they may pass if they like."

They can do that now, without removing the need button.

 

arguably, they HAVE done that implicitly with the design, and people are insisting on adding rules on top of it (and even assuming that they're universal)

 

This is absolutely fair and unbiased.

I didn't say that it wasn't, just that it doesn't solve anything.

 

Add a 60 minute trade window for BoP's you want to pass to those who actually needed the item.

that's actually quite abusable; it basically gives someone who comes into an instance with friends multiple rolls.

 

Don't get me wrong; I'm in favor of it, since I'm convinced that it fixes more problems than it creates... just that you shouldn't think of that as a problem free addition.

Edited February 1, 2012 by ferroz

[Grecanis]

In other words - remove the wonderfully flexible system that Bioware developed, because you can't handle it?

 

That's the thing that gets me the most about all this. The entire system - companions, mods, custom items - is all a wonderfully flexible, dynamic system, and people are actually advocating ditching it and pigeonholing it into every item being targeted at one and only one class. Because the idea of someone else trying to get something they think is theirs, of having to actually risk RESPECTING another person, is too overwhelming.

 

Screw that. I love the orange armor system. I love mods, and I love companions. If you can't wrap your brain around the implications of that, for loot or otherwise, that's your problem.

 

So do I ..which is why I do lot of farming for mats and build my own gear. Unless it's something very specific drops that I've been looking for ..it's all just gravy

 

I could take just about everything you wrote there and use it to support my position. Which is why this issue will never get resolved in here.

 

You say I can't handle it, and I say you're just afraid to lose the edge your more liberal definition provides you.

[ferroz]

Show me one post where someone has stated that they are rolling 'need' on something they don't really need?

there are a couple of one-off troll posts where people did that.

 

Mostly, people just argue against that because it's easier than arguing against the stances that most of the folks in here are actually taking.

[Setanian]

EQ wasn't first one, in case you wanted to play "I was there" card.

 

What's the point? EQ1 was probably the most successful MMO in the western hemisphere, before Warcraft.

 

EQ1 method of loot rolling was /random! That's it.

[JediMasterShake]

Too many variables in this addendum, to be honest. It may be irrelevant for them to have just finished grouping with either type, as they may be min/max players who insure they have BiS gear before running any Ops (ignoring that BiS is most likely to be obtained in said Ops, but still...)

 

Either way, my approach operates from the assumption that you spend most of your play time in the game solo with a companion, with detours for Flashpoints and Operations. As a result, it's best to insure you and your companion are well-geared. If you prioritize aesthetics, you're going to go for a piece based on its looks instead of stats, at least as far as oranges go that you can still make optimal for your class. As a result, if these are your priorities, you should roll Need on items that meet those priorities' goals.

 

If you have different priorities, roll according to those priorities.

 

This is what "my camp" has been advocating through several threads and thousands of posts now.

 

 

"Too many variables..."

 

There are many variables, indeed. But all other things being equal, which loot system would you rather have those players come from? I would have assumed you would take that as a given if you were engaged in good faith in this discussion.

 

The answer again, is clearly A. It is a more efficient distribution of loot for grouping.

 

Now, let's take it a step further.

 

Your point is more than valid - your primary objective and priority is solo play. You want to do as much output as you possibly can between you and your companion.

 

Here is the following hypothetical loot for a 4 man group with 4 bosses.

 

1 Aim piece of gear

1 Str piece of gear

1 Willp piece of gear

1 Cunn piece of gear

 

You have one of each class in your group. Under method A you receive 1 upgrade for your character EVERY TIME when this loot drops.

 

Now let's look at it under method B, when everyone is rolling on every piece, since everyone can use all the gear for at least one of their companions.

 

The expected value of the loot you will receive is as follows:

 

.25 of a Aim piece of gear

.25 of a Str piece of gear

.25 of a Willp piece of gear

.25 of a Cunn piece of gear

 

Now, and hopefully you've followed this far, if you assume that an upgrade to YOU is more

beneficial than an upgrade to YOUR COMPANION, then on average, you, as a character/companion duo, are worse off under Method B.

 

Again, it won't always be the case, but all things being equal, on average, an upgrade to your character is more valuable than an upgrade to your companion. This is true.

 

Follow the logic.

 

 

YOU YOURSELF ARE WORSE OFF UNDER METHOD B.

 

Edited to add this:

 

A = Player Upgrade

B = Companion Upgrade

 

A > B

A > .25A + .75B

Edited February 1, 2012 by JediMasterShake

[Setanian]

there are a couple of one-off troll posts where people did that.

 

Mostly, people just argue against that because it's easier than arguing against the stances that most of the folks in here are actually taking.

 

So his entire argument is based on a couple of trolls?

[ferroz]

"Too many variables..."

 

There are many variables, indeed. But all other things being equal, which loot system would you rather have those players come from?

Free open rolls, unrestricted by anything but their personal definition of need.

 

Here is the following hypothetical loot for a 4 man group with 4 bosses.

Your oversimplifying so much that your conclusions are rather meaningless.

 

YOU YOURSELF ARE WORSE OFF UNDER METHOD B.

No, I'm better off.

[JediMasterShake]

Free open rolls, unrestricted by anything but their personal definition of need.

 

Your oversimplifying so much that your conclusions are rather meaningless.

 

No, I'm better off.

 

Unfortunately it seems you are here solely to argue and promote your way of thinking, not to engage in an intellectual, logical discourse.

 

Have a nice night. If you care to engage the argument I'm making, one that is based in logic, with a very few simple assumptions, then I'll be happy to respond to you further.

Edited February 1, 2012 by JediMasterShake

[ferroz]

EQ wasn't first one, in case you wanted to play "I was there" card.

I didn't say that it was... just that it was another possibility other than "came from wow"

 

 

What's the point? EQ1 was probably the most successful MMO in the western hemisphere, before Warcraft.

 

EQ1 method of loot rolling was /random! That's it.

actually, it was "whoever loots it first gets it" even including people who weren't in the group that killed it (ie REAL ninja looters)

 

And it was definitely the most successful mmo prior to wow; I think it had more than half again as many players as the next bigger mmo before wow was released.