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

[ispanolfw]

I give my old gear for my companions if they can use it or if it's upgrade for them. You also pick up a lot of gear not meant for your class when you do "solo" content.

 

From random drops, sure, but not from missions. Missions give you items based on your class. And yes, you can pick up commendations and use those, but the selection is still limited, and something in an FP might be better. Not saying I would or wouldn't roll, but not saying others cannot.

Edited February 2, 2012 by ispanolfw

[JediMasterShake]

You're trying to hinge your statistics on a known agreement. Which I already have stated works. However, that rarely happens in pugs. So my point still stands. If I stuck to rule of law and needed everything, I could, win everything. Not something I'd do, but random is random.

 

 

Your argument is so specific as to guarantee each player an item, so of course it is better. But, MMOs pugs don't run like that.

 

The argument is a fruitless exercise.

 

 

So, to clarify, you admit that given the two choices at the beginning of a 4/8 man zone:

 

A. Player Need > Companion Need > Greed

B. Player or Companion Need > Greed

 

You would pick A?

[Halinalle]

If your content in keeping your companion in old outdated gear thats fine. Its your companion and your choice.

 

Please dont ask me to limit myself similarly.

 

No, I'm not saying you should. I just say it's possible to get level 47-49 for your companions even from random drops.

 

Edit: And I'm not against needing for companion. Especially if said companion was in party when boss died.

 

From random drops, sure, but not from missions. Missions give you items based on your class.

 

Exactly. For example I've got a lot of blue drops from normal mobs, that's right those weak ones, during last few days. Don't know how that's even possible.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Halinalle

[Setanian]

So, to clarify, you admit that given the two choices at the beginning of a 4/8 man zone:

 

A. Player Need > Companion Need > Greed

B. Player or Companion Need > Greed

 

You would pick A?

 

With all your proviso's yes.

[JediMasterShake]

With all your proviso's yes.

 

So it's really a function of the unknowns of the game, or maybe even not trusting the other group members that leads you to Need for other gear you might want for companions?

[Setanian]

So it's really a function of the unknowns of the game, or maybe even not trusting the other group members that leads you to Need for other gear you might want for companions?

 

I have stated this all along;

 

Personally, if I feel I can trust everyone to stay etc and do the NBG thing, I'll follow suit.

 

If it's some casual pug, and something drops that upgrades my companion, I'll roll need.

[ispanolfw]

No, I'm not saying you should. I just say it's possible to get level 47-49 for your companions even from random drops.

 

Edit: And I'm not against needing for companion. Especially if said companion was in party when boss died.

 

 

 

Exactly. For example I've got a lot of blue drops from normal mobs, that's right those weak ones, during last few days. Don't know how that's even possible.

 

Which puts you in the group that separates the companion from the character. Even though it's still technically part of your character.

[Eldren]

No, I'm not saying you should. I just say it's possible to get level 47-49 for your companions even from random drops.

 

Edit: And I'm not against needing for companion. Especially if said companion was in party when boss died.

 

 

 

Exactly. For example I've got a lot of blue drops from normal mobs, that's right those weak ones, during last few days. Don't know how that's even possible.

 

I fail to see what difference it makes if a companion is in the group at the time loot drops or not. The player who equips the companion is there, and the player is the one who puts gear on the companion. The companion accepts whatever gear they're given. They don't say "That isn't good enough for me" or "That's too good for me", they don't say anything in fact. They stand meekly there while you shove a chestpiece on them, stick their legs in some leggings/skirt, their feet in some boots, their hands in some gloves, some implants in their cortexes, and some doodads on their ears. They'll even let you shove a helm on their head and stick one to two weapons in their hands. Then they'll proceed to do what they know they're best at. Using the Sith Warrior as an example, that means Jaesa's going to pull out her double-bladed lightsaber and go to town on things. Vette's going to hang back and do the same. Broonmark's going to charge in there, Pierce is going to hang back, and Quinn is going to heal you. If you equip him, the droid from your ship will heal you and annoy the piss out of you while he's at it.

 

The companions don't even care about the quality of gear they're wearing. They don't care if you bought it with commendations, took it off random mob drops, got it as a reward for a quest, or if it dropped off a boss it took anywhere from 4 to 16 people to kill.

 

Which means it all hinges on the player. I'm the player. I was in the Flashpoint or Operation. I choose to put my companions in the best gear I can get for them, and am unwilling to accept "just good enough" unless I have no other option. In short, I want them in gear I get from Flashpoints and Operations, and not just in quest drops and random world drops and purchases from the GTN.

 

Though to be fair to the GTN, I keep my eye out for nice oranges that are appropriate for my companions. My end goal is to have my companions in all oranges. Then, I don't have to roll on actual equipment drops in Flashpoints or Operations, unless those drops have mods in them that I want to slot into one of my companions' orange pieces. Once I reach that point of pure-orange companions, I won't be rolling on gear for them at all, I'll just be taking the necessary steps to keep them in optimal mods.

 

The end result of this is simple: I, the player, was in the group. I, the player, helped defeat the boss. I, the player, saw something drop that would be an upgrade. I, the player, am not obligated to tell any other players whether the upgrade is for me or a companion, though as a Sith Marauder, if I'm rolling Need on a heavy armor piece with Aim, it's fairly obvious I'm equipping Pierce and not myself. The point is this: no one owns a piece of gear that drops until the rolls are done and the piece is in their inventory. They may think they should have it more than anyone else in their group, but that doesn't mean it's actually theirs until, yep, you guessed it, it's in their inventory.

 

If I go to the book store and purchase a book, no one else gets to tell me what I can do with that book. The assumption is I'll read it, but I can choose to set it on fire, throw it at someone/something, give it to someone else, or just let it sit in a bag in a corner somewhere, unread and unused. The point is it's mine, and I'm the only one who decides what to do with my property. That's the primary benefit of ownership: the sole right of decision regarding subsequent use.

 

I could win a jacket on an auction on Ebay. I might wear it. I might give it away to charity. I might have bought it for my girlfriend. I might intend her to wear it 'cause it's cold, or I might have a weird fetish and want her to wear it while we're being intimate. I might want her to wear it once and then I might want to have it to please myself while she's out of the house and I can't be with her, knowing it's hers. I might want it to do the same with because I saw a hot woman downtown wearing one like it, and I want to "take care of business" with her image in my head.

 

Yes, I know, TMI. Weird examples there. Not even actually rooted in reality. The point is this: I own it, it's mine to do with as I please, and no one else can tell me what to do with it.

 

It's the same scenario with gear in this game. If I win the roll for it, it's mine. I can destroy it. I can reverse engineer it. I can sell it on the GTN if it isn't bound. I can sell it to a vendor whether it's bound or not. I can put it on a companion. I can put it on myself. No matter what, it's mine, no one else gets to decide what I do with it.

 

What I plan on doing with it is what motivates the priority of roll I choose. If I plan on selling a BOE, I'm going to roll Greed. If I plan on reverse engineering it, I'm going to roll Greed. If I plan on putting it on myself or a companion, I'm going to roll Need. If I plan on stripping mods out to put in my existing orange gear, I'm going to roll Need. If I plan on stripping mods out to replace them with my own mods, whether for me or a companion, I'm going to roll Need.

 

Those are all valid needs, and no one but me gets to determine their worthiness. The end result is the same: what any one of us does with an item we actually own is our business. We decided to stake a claim to it for our own purposes, purposes which do not, nor should, require the approval of anyone else.

[Halinalle]

Using the Sith Warrior as an example, that means Jaesa's going to pull out her double-bladed lightsaber

 

And gets aggro from two groups at the same time and gets herself killed in process.

[Eldren]

And gets aggro from two groups at the same time and gets herself killed in process.

 

Brother, you're tellin' me... I've talked and talked with her about it. She just stares blankly at me then says, "Go kill more now?"

 

Dumb broad.

[Creed_Buhallin]

Yes I'd do the same, except that your definition is much more liberal than mine, and many others. So when you press need with that more liberal need. you have just taken an edge over those who would have not rolled on your definition. Thus because you would roll on more things than others would, you stand to gain more than others.

 

Pressing need gives a greater chance of winning an item. That's the edge. When you press it you're not looking for an equal chance.

So, wait... Let me make sure I understand you.

 

We're looking for an edge... because we're taking advantage of our different views of what qualifies as need... while we're here arguing that you should broaden your view of need?

 

I think my head just exploded.

 

If any of us were arguing that we should be allowed to keep our more expansive view of need while you had to stick to your class-only roll, then you might have a point. But we haven't. I've done by best to convince everyone through the last 300 pages that SWTOR is a new game, with broader possibilities that everyone should grow to understand. I've crafted example after example to try and help people realize the greater possibilities, and I've said more than once that I fully expect that people will grow into a more expansive view of need as they come to embrace and understand the broader potential for use of so many items in this game.

 

How any of that jives with me trying to get an edge by rolling on more things than you is beyond me - apparently I just can't keep up with my own evil genius.

[Creed_Buhallin]

Your scenario is not instructive, and you've made it clear you're not here to engage in an honest discussion.

Funny, I was thinking exactly the same thing about your scenario.

[Halinalle]

If any of us were arguing that we should be allowed to keep our more expansive view of need while you had to stick to your class-only roll, then you might have a point.

 

How it's "more expansive" view when you don't think about other people in your group?

[Grecanis]

So, wait... Let me make sure I understand you.

 

We're looking for an edge... because we're taking advantage of our different views of what qualifies as need... while we're here arguing that you should broaden your view of need?

 

I think my head just exploded.

 

If any of us were arguing that we should be allowed to keep our more expansive view of need while you had to stick to your class-only roll, then you might have a point. But we haven't. I've done by best to convince everyone through the last 300 pages that SWTOR is a new game, with broader possibilities that everyone should grow to understand. I've crafted example after example to try and help people realize the greater possibilities, and I've said more than once that I fully expect that people will grow into a more expansive view of need as they come to embrace and understand the broader potential for use of so many items in this game.

 

How any of that jives with me trying to get an edge by rolling on more things than you is beyond me - apparently I just can't keep up with my own evil genius.

 

Just what is it about losing the need button that concerns you then? ...why would you miss it if you were just wanting the same chance as everyone else?

Edited February 2, 2012 by Grecanis

[Creed_Buhallin]

Just what is it about losing the need button that concerns you then? ...why would you miss it if you were just wanting the same chance as everyone else?

Nothing, honestly. My only issue with dropping the NBG for simple Roll/Pass is that I don't think it would fix anything. Most of the terminology in this discussion uses "roll" and "roll need" interchangeably.

 

The entire debate here is about people trying to control who gets what. The name of the roll that does that is irrelevant. You can believe if you want that people like Galbatorrix would accept anyone choosing Roll without questioning why because it doesn't say "Need". I'm far more skeptical about it.

 

Out of curiosity, what have I said that makes you think I'd actually miss it?

 

How it's "more expansive" view when you don't think about other people in your group?

<sigh> This is really getting old.

 

I DO think about people in the group. All of us do. I think about them more than Galbatorrix does. He'll let you roll need if it's your armor type and main stats. I'll let you roll for the stats, or if you need if you like the look, or want one of the mods, or have been struggling with your tank companion as a Sniper and want to upgrade her chestpiece. I TRUST YOU. I trust you to make that decision for your character, without worrying about keeping score or who's getting out with more or whether you're going to waste those awesome stats because you thought it LOOKED GOOD or how much time you're going to spend solo'ing and whether or not that's going to result in the optimal advancement for all four of us over the next 9.2 hours of play until we hit the next Flashpoint. And I'm certainly not going to tell you that you're sending the game into a death spiral of failure where no tank will ever be able to complete a Flashpoint because your greedy butt thought that jacket was purdy!

 

I'm really, truly sorry that you find that concept so insulting, but the caricature of anyone who disagrees with you on this has got to stop. None of us have advocated rolling need on everything no matter what (although you wouldn't know that, for as often as it gets flung about), none of us have said anything but that we consider every person's need to be equal, without judging what that need is. On the other side, a number of people have admitted that it's intended to weight the outcome to their playstyle alone - generally stats-based progression - regardless of what anyone else might want. But WE'RE the ones who aren't thinking of anyone else in the group? Truly?

 

Sorry, but no. If that's your version of being considerate to your group, you can keep it.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Creed_Buhallin

[Harower]

If it can be done I will do it.

 

If said available options causes reactions to occur then that would just be an added bonus.

[Grecanis]

Nothing, honestly. My only issue with dropping the NBG for simple Roll/Pass is that I don't think it would fix anything. Most of the terminology in this discussion uses "roll" and "roll need" interchangeably.

 

The entire debate here is about people trying to control who gets what. The name of the roll that does that is irrelevant. You can believe if you want that people like Galbatorrix would accept anyone choosing Roll without questioning why because it doesn't say "Need". I'm far more skeptical about it.

 

Out of curiosity, what have I said that makes you think I'd actually miss it?

 

Terminology aside. If you're advocating that everybody ascribe to a more expanded definition of the term "need" then in essence you are giving everyone license to come up with whatever plausable justification they can to roll need. If that is the case I say that three choices are absolutely unecessary and one should be removed. I don't really care what you want to call the one that remains.

 

If you like to think that people are trying to control you that's fine, but that's not what the debate is about.

 

Lastly, it was hypothetical in nature ..and is still unanswered.

[Creed_Buhallin]

Terminology aside. If you're advocating that everybody ascribe to a more expanded definition of the term "need" then in essence you are giving everyone license to come up with whatever plausable justification they can to roll need. If that is the case I say that three choices are absolutely unecessary and one should be removed. I don't really care what you want to call the one that remains.

 

If you like to think that people are trying to control you that's fine, but that's not what the debate is about.

 

Lastly, it was hypothetical in nature ..and is still unanswered.

Unanswered? So "I wouldn't miss it and don't really care about it" wasn't answer enough?

 

Do I see a major functional difference between Need/Greed/Pass and Roll/Pass? Not especially, but I do have a personal restriction relating to Greed. I do think that the utility gained from vendoring bound items is so tiny that it's essentially taking the item and destroying it. So, that's my definition of Greed - selling it. Which, incidentally, matches up to both the original definition and the one I can find on most archives and sites.

 

So I believe there is usefulness in that distinction, even if I wouldn't throw someone out of the group for breaking that distinction. Which is the part that so many of you can't seem to wrap your brains around - there's a difference between what I would do, and what I'd find acceptable for others to do. For all the "You just want to need on everything!" that gets flung about, many of us have said we don't intend to do that. I do believe in the original, old-school definition of Need: I'm going to use it. If I'm not going to use it, I'm going to sell it, and I roll Greed. Pretty much always, honestly, because who couldn't use more credits?

 

So would I cry if things went to only Roll/Pass? Not especially. But I do think there is benefit in that unique class of "Sell it for credits". And yes, someone could potentially say "I need this to sell for credits" at which point I'd probably offer them creds to stop rolling, and everyone would come away happy. I've said that repeatedly. I don't fear the coming union of cats and dogs the way some seem to. The concept of Need Before Greed (the original version, not this twisted abomination people here are defending) evolved long before there were buttons to pick one or the other and the item dropped into your inventory. Somehow, MMO communities survived. I believe they'll somehow manage to again, even if custom items means someone might decide to roll Need for their appearance.

 

In the end, I respect what other players believe they need for their game. Honestly, for all the "It's just the young'uns who are all self-centered and don't get it!" thrown at us, for me it's quite the opposite. I've played most MMOs, and I've dealt with most every playstyle, from hardcore RP to uberexplorer to three-times-a-week raider. Mine isn't more important than any of them. I'm still baffled that saying "You should respect your fellow groupmates enough not to tell them how they should play" is translated by some to "You don't think about your group, you selfish bastard."

 

Edit: And just to be clear, for us, the Greed option is a time-saver more than anything. Nobody in my guild would throw a fit over someone wanting something for appearance, or a companion. "Greed" pretty much means that it's just going to get vendored. The greed roll distributes that quick and easily, which is something we wouldn't have with just Roll/Pass. Oh, nobody wants it, everyone passed, now someone has to grab it or we all have to do a secondary roll or track a round robin or something. So I see a benefit in how I, personally, use the Greed option which saves us time and effort. But it's not really about deciding who gets what in any sort of scorekeeping sort of way.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Creed_Buhallin

[Grecanis]

Unanswered? So "I wouldn't miss it and don't really care about it" wasn't answer enough?

 

The caveat that followed suggests otherwise.

[sjmc]

The basic issue I have with the "restrictive" NBG theory is that for many people, all they are looking for is class gear. If they don't want gear from other classes (because they don't care about appearance and don't use their companions very much -- or are happy with their quest companion gear), then restrictive NBG works very well.

 

They commit to passing on gear that they don't want in order to guarantee that they get the gear that they don't want. They lose nothing, because they didn't want the non-class gear anyways.

 

For those people that do sometimes want gear that might be useful to other classes (because it is orange or because their companions need it), the deal means that they get a 0% chance of getting what they want. They may get 100% chance on their own class gear, but maybe they don't want gear for their class (because they have a nice fully-upgraded orange set). In this case, the deal looks more like: "you pass on what you want while I pass on what I don't want so that gear we both want will always go to me". I can see how that might seem fair to you.

 

With companions and orange gear, many people will want more than just gear that benefits their main class, which wasn't the case in previous games (that didn't have companions/orange gear). You can argue over the meaning of want and need but I see them as pretty much interchangeable -- its a game and you don't really "need" anything to progress before level 50, since there are always other options available.

 

Maybe it would help to change the names of the buttons to something less provocative ("I'm not greedy, so that button is not the one that applies, so I should press "need"). How about "Will Use" "Will Vendor" "Don't Want"?

Edited February 2, 2012 by sjmc

[ferroz]

Nobody's said you cannot roll. They have asked you do dial back your definition of need.

Don't be absurd; that's the same thing. "Dial back your definition of need" = "you don't get to roll on that because it doesn't jibe with my definition of need"

 

I mean, it's even in the current thread title; it was even more explicit in the old thread title ("No you may not roll on that to strip the mods out or it" or something like that)

 

lots of people have said that I cannot roll on that.

 

People have conflicting interpretations of it's implimentation.

yes, because it's implicit rather than explicit. Implicit statements cause people to have differing interpretations.

 

I'd say that hardly makes it "implicit" ..by my interpretation it means class only.

No, the system doesn't enforce that, so your interpretation ignores the actual system design, which implies that need is not class only.

 

certainly, it wouldn't hurt for them to state that explicitly... but that really has nothing to do with removing the current need button

 

It removes all the differing interpretations and sets us all firmly on the same ground.

No, removing the button doesn't remove the differing interpretations, nor does it set us all firmly on the same ground. In and of itself, it doesn't solve anything.

 

Even an explicit statement from BW about the ability to press roll (or need) on anything you think you need won't do that.

 

 

I've heard many on your side argue that one can do whatever they want with their winnings ..I'm glad you approve.

Like I said, I'm fine with it... and I'd prefer that to be added, since I think it fixes more problems than it cause. I'm just saying that you shouldn't think that it comes with no additional problems. Edited February 2, 2012 by ferroz

[ferroz]

Shouting. That's why nobody takes you seriously. It indicates something else too but I don't want to go that far yet.

um... what?

 

Point is that EQ wasn't first.

No one said that it was. Are you trying to argue with a straw man?

[SajPl]

I made an imp character, found 3 other people for a flashpoint (Talon) :

1st imp rolls need for an item for my class -he got it- says sorry im a noob

2nd imp -same- says sorry i made a mistake

3rd imp -same- I ask why do they keep rolling on things for my class and mister smartmouth says stop hining and deal with it.

Smartmouth gets removed from the group and kicked from the flashpoint, then he cries why have I done it, answer : deal with it.

[ferroz]

Keep reading into my second post for an explanation of why you and your companion are WORSE off when everyone rolls Need on everything.

except that I'm not. I'm better off when everyone rolls need on everything than when I'm not allowed to roll on things. At least then I have a chance to get the stuff I want, instead of just the stuff that you think I should be allowed to have.

[ferroz]

Why do you want to run FP with people who will quit after you finish it?

Because I enjoy running flashpoints...

 

Why wouldn't I want to run it with them?

Edited February 2, 2012 by ferroz