crica Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) How it's equal if you choose Greed or RE and everyone else chooses Need? Because I have the same opportunity as everyone else to decide for myself if I roll Need or if I roll Greed or if I roll Pass based on my own loot priorities. What someone else values or not has nothing to do with what I value or not. I don't roll Need because you value the loot to be a need for me - I roll Need because I value the loot to be a need for me. Edited February 1, 2012 by crica Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Setanian Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 How it's equal if you choose Greed or RE and everyone else chooses Need? There are 4 of you in the group. You each get to roll. You each get to choose. If you decide to choose greed, that is your choice, not mine not anyone else's, just yours. Please don't come here and say if I choose need and you choose greed and I win (obviously) I am somehow cheating you. You lost by your own choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldren Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 There are 4 of you in the group. You each get to roll. You each get to choose. If you decide to choose greed, that is your choice, not mine not anyone else's, just yours. Please don't come here and say if I choose need and you choose greed and I win (obviously) I am somehow cheating you. You lost by your own choice. ^^ This Really, folks: you don't own the loot until it's in your inventory, and prior to that, no one owns it. It's in escrow, it's being held til its owner is determined. If you want it, roll Need; no one can trump your roll. If you're fine with your roll being trumped, roll Greed. If you don't want it, pass. Not hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjmc Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 If the item is something that you are going to be upset over not winning, you should not be pressing greed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maccaroth Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) Sorry, I have no idea what you mean. Simply that we are in agreement. There is no "their part" of the loot. Do I really have to state "according to the social contract" in my examples everytime we discuss? We talk together so much that I thought we understand each other without reminding that each post... It's their share following the social contract. If there are no rules (or default rules, as crica said) then this will belong to those who win roll for it. Edited February 1, 2012 by Maccaroth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halinalle Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 There are 4 of you in the group. You each get to roll. You each get to choose. If you decide to choose greed, that is your choice, not mine not anyone else's, just yours. Please don't come here and say if I choose need and you choose greed and I win (obviously) I am somehow cheating you. You lost by your own choice. In case you didn't know: Greed > Need. So if you're only one who chooses Greed you always win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crica Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 "according to the social contract" Unless you speak up and inform me you wish to have a "social contract" with me about loot in a group we are in together, then I have no "social contract" with you - I only have an obligation to play by the default rules of the game we both signed up to play together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halinalle Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Unless you speak up and inform me you wish to have a "social contract" with me about loot in a group we are in together, then I have no "social contract" with you - I only have an obligation to play by the default rules of the game we both signed up to play together. Why do you group up with people if you don't want to interact with them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Setanian Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Simply that we are in agreement. Do I really have to state "according to the social contract" in my examples everytime we discuss? We talk together so much that I thought we understand each other without reminding that each post... It's their share following the social contract. If there are no rules (or default rules, as crica said) then this will belong to those who win roll for it. WHat social contract?? I never agreed any social contract with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Setanian Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 In case you didn't know: Greed > Need. So if you're only one who chooses Greed you always win. You know what? Now I know you are just trolling. If you have something constructive to add to this, post it. Anything else I'll ignore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crica Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Why do you group up with people if you don't want to interact with them? I don't mind interacting with anyone I group with. If you are asking me to interact first, I will if I have a reason to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldren Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Why do you group up with people if you don't want to interact with them? That isn't what she's saying at all. She's saying no social contract exists until it's spoken of and agreed to. In short, if someone wants the people in their group to choose secondary priority options for companions/aesthetics/whatever, they need to say so at the start, so that people can agree or disagree. This isn't hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maccaroth Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Unless you speak up and inform me you wish to have a "social contract" with me about loot in a group we are in together, then I have no "social contract" with you - I only have an obligation to play by the default rules of the game we both signed up to play together. I posted a few times here that I ask people about loot rules before doing flashpoint... WHat social contract?? ... We talked about this some time ago and I thought we understood each other just fine. Don't you remember? I never agreed any social contract with you. We two didn't. That's not the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldren Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 I posted a few times here that I ask people about loot rules before doing flashpoint... ... We talked about this some time ago and I thought we understood each other just fine. Don't you remember? We two didn't. That's not the point. The point he's making is that there's no objective social contract in place that it should be assumed people are agreeing to unless said otherwise. In fact it's the opposite: unless someone says something to initiate a small-scale social contract (everyone in the party agrees, for example), one shouldn't assume one is in place, and one should proceed with what the default rules of the game allow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FenraelWolfmien Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 If I group with strangers and they roll need on everything I just kinda go with the flow and do the same thing. I get that it can be frustrating but it's not like they're stealing my homebrew. Now that I will f*^&^*ing kill you over the internet for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halinalle Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Group leader sets loot rules. If you don't agree with him/her, you get kicked. Yeah, great system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crica Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) Group leader sets loot rules. If you don't agree with him/her, you get kicked. Yeah, great system. Why would you want to play the game with someone who does not want to play the game with you, anyway? A bit masochist, are we? Are you saying players who do not want to play with you should be forced to play with you? That is a bit sadistic, don't you think? Trying being a group leader yourself if you think it should work that way - force yourself to play with players that you do not want to play with. There, now you have no problem. Edited February 1, 2012 by crica Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maccaroth Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Eldren - Explain to me then why all people I met with BEFORE asking about loot rules had no problems following unwritten, unspoken social contract without me telling them about its existence and now that they are asked about it they respond to those having different approach (the one I call "no rules") as "a few bad apples"? Coincidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halinalle Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Why would you want to play the game with someone who does not want to play the game with you, anyway? Where you got that idea from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cioran Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) Group leader sets loot rules. If you don't agree with him/her, you get kicked. Yeah, great system. TBF, sometimes you're stuck w/ninjas and don't won't to kick during an FP because you can't 3 man it and the server is dead. You just have to start need-rolling everything, too. It's disgusting but it works. It gets hilarious when the ninja complains that you're ninja'ing him. And this is why you join guilds, people. Ever notice an unguilded high level (35+) player - he's probably a ninja or antisocial. I think the game should only allow BOP stuff to be rolled on by classes who can wear/use it, but that's me. It annoys me to no end when someone ninjas BOP stuff they can't even wear. I think Mac's right too. Beyond about lvl 25 (where you may encounter people on their 2nd FP after Esseles) you do not have to explain the loot rules. You need roll on things you need for your class yourself. Esseles, I do for Social Points, so I'll often explains the rules to non-alts lowbies. I pass on everything when I do SP runs. Edited February 1, 2012 by cioran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crica Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 all people I met with BEFORE asking about loot rules had no problems following unwritten, unspoken social contract without me telling them about its existence Wow.. lol.. Connecting dots where there are none. Players choose to decide to roll Need or Greed or Pass based on their OWN value of loot. Just because it happens to match YOUR value of loot does NOT mean they have ESP and agreed to a social contract with you in their mind before you ever asked them to agree. It just means they happen to value loot the same way you do and enjoy playing the game the same way you do. That is what is known as a "coincidence". IE: "what a coincidence, we happen to enjoy playing the game the same way, yay! Let's play together again sometime!" It is also how alot of in game friendships are formed - by meeting players who enjoy the same things in the game as you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Setanian Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 We two didn't. That's not the point. The point is, that everyone should, start off as if there is no social contract of any form. If you start at that known point, then the rules are simple. You need what you need, you greed what you greed and you pass what you pass. Now moving along, people want to impose the old NBG system from Wow and other games. But by default, it just will not work on ToR, because we have things that those other games did not. Primarily, the companions. Companions are a very in-depth part of everyone character, they are need to get to max level. Everyone must gear those companions. Because we haven't played another game with such a dynamic, so the old ways won't work. Attempting to impose one's own interpretation of the old social contract might work, if everyone knows before hand you are imposing it, and they agree to it. The issues go a lot deeper, in that no-one has the right to impose anything on another player. They can surely ask, but what we see is imposition by threat. "if you don't agree to my rules, I'll kick you from the group". This is bullying. But then you ask, wait, it's his group, s/he can do whatever they like. And that's true they can, but it is still bullying. It is forcing the group leaders wishes on all members, with the threat of being kicked if you don't agree. The bottom line is, you can agree or you can seek another group. But, as can be seen on WoW, you will get the kids blaring out your name as not wanting to conform and you group wishes for that night is over. And this is why, it is so wrong. The best thing to do is form your own group and state you are playing a no loot rules run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crica Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) Where you got that idea from? From your post. you get kicked. Yeah, great system. Edited February 1, 2012 by crica Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irusan Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 This thread makes me feel like I'm taking crazy pills. I refuse to "agree to disagree" with the Entitled Generation here. If you are really that convinced that you are right and see nothing wrong with the "I roll need because I can, for any reason" mantra, then there is too far a gap between us as human beings to ever be bridged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Setanian Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 TBF, sometimes you're stuck w/ninjas and don't won't to kick during an FP because you can't 3 man it and the server is dead. You just have to start need-rolling everything, too. It's disgusting but it works. It gets hilarious when the ninja complains that you're ninja'ing him. And this is why you join guilds, people. Ever notice an unguilded high level (35+) player - he's probably a ninja or antisocial. I think the game should only allow BOP stuff to be rolled on by classes who can wear/use it, but that's me. It annoys me to no end when someone ninjas BOP stuff they can't even wear. Please get your facts straight before you post. Nothing you have mentioned implies or states a ninja action. If you win something, you sure as hell didn't ninja it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts