Selecting need for loot

[psandak]

I did not read all 28 pages, but here's my 2c...

 

This argument boils down to unwritten rules/conventions and a general lack of communication.

 

As others have said, the unwritten rule is that you click need if it is an upgrade for your character and greed for upgrades for your companions. Further, if you REALLY want a piece of gear as an upgrade for a companion, you ask the group; all it takes is the question, "may I need this for my companion?" And 99.99999999999999999% of the time when the rest of the group clicks greed or pass the general response will be, "go for it." If another group member has clicked need then you should let them have it because 95% of the time they need it as an upgrade for their character (the other 5% are being jerks/ninjas/etc).

 

One can also announce at the start of an FP, "I am looking for upgrades for my companion(s). I will be clicking need on any item that is an upgrade for my companion(s)." Most likely, the vast majority of the time, the rest of the group won't care. If one or more do care, then you will get a response asking you not to or to wait until everyone else has clicked greed before clicking need.

 

In short, TALK TO YOUR GROUP, don't just assume it is OK to click need for companion upgrades.

[BobaScott]

You want to use the "this is how the community works in this game" argument. This may only be a game, but here's a real life example of how "this is how society works and don't buck it or you can expect consequences" attitude can be wrong, just as that same attitude in game may not always be right.

 

60 years ago, African Americans weren't allowed to eat at certain establishments, drink from certain fountains and in general had almost all of their rights as human beings taken away from them because that was how society worked. If you chose to buck society's convention, you did so at your own risk. There would be consequences, some of them fatal to the offender. The fact that "everyone does it, that's just how it is" makes it no less wrong.

 

I know there will be massive amounts of "you can't compare that real life situation with a dumb video game" outcries, but each and everyone who threatens consequences for a person exercising his right to roll on loot he helped to produce in favor of "the social convention" is attempting to take away the rights of another. I know that the vast majority of players will flame me, but that does not change what is. If the players threatening consequences actually took a step back and looked the situation objectively, they might see the forest instead of just the trees.

 

Wow.

 

That is way over the top and likely to get this thread closed. The only thing missing is a reference to a certain German leader in the 30's.

 

Yes it is a game, an mmo to be exact. And in mmo's you do not need on your pet over a team mate who actually needs it. You certainly have the right to do so, just as the team has the right to kick you if you do that. You both have your rights, so why the extreme verbiage?

[Lostpenguins]

I was eased up. Until undeserved crap was hurled my way then I answered in kind. To address your point here civilly I may not change anything by discussing it. But I guarantee that there is no chance of it ever changing if I accept it when people tell me that's just the way it is you'll just have to deal with it.

Okay, but you spewed your venom at me unjustly.

 

In regards to your second point, sure, change only comes from recognizing a desire of some people to want it to change. But now we're getting into viewpoints of why you think it should change. And this is where I disagree with you. It shouldn't. I'm not going let some sorc take an upgrade for my marauder because their companion can use it. Companions are pets, and thus relegated to 2nd tier. They didn't do the FP with me, and there's no immediate upgrade to the group. It's an upgrade to a person who will use it in solo play. That is why I'll never get behind your viewpoint. That's probably whey the majority won't either.

[CelCawdro]

You want to use the "this is how the community works in this game" argument. This may only be a game, but here's a real life example of how "this is how society works and don't buck it or you can expect consequences" attitude can be wrong, just as that same attitude in game may not always be right.

 

60 years ago, African Americans weren't allowed to eat at certain establishments, drink from certain fountains and in general had almost all of their rights as human beings taken away from them because that was how society worked. If you chose to buck society's convention, you did so at your own risk. There would be consequences, some of them fatal to the offender. The fact that "everyone does it, that's just how it is" makes it no less wrong.

 

I know there will be massive amounts of "you can't compare that real life situation with a dumb video game" outcries, but each and everyone who threatens consequences for a person exercising his right to roll on loot he helped to produce in favor of "the social convention" is attempting to take away the rights of another. I know that the vast majority of players will flame me, but that does not change what is. If the players threatening consequences actually took a step back and looked the situation objectively, they might see the forest instead of just the trees.

 

Comparing the status quo to the Civil Rights movement is pretty much one step away from Godwin'ing this thread. Quite frankly, I agree with an above poster who talked about supermarket rules. Rolling on loot for your companions isn't demanding equality for these virtual entities - it's simply being obnoxious and butting in line simply because the rules aren't written down somewhere.

Edited March 19, 2013 by CelCawdro

[ZionHalcyon]

I was holding a rational discussion on the topic. You pop in and tell me to drop the bullcrap and mire or less accuse me of being a selfish greedy bastich even tho I never claimed to have needed for a comp in game regardless of my opinions on it and I'm the jerk?

 

You know Zion I used to respect you. These days I'm wondering how you so completely pulled the wool over my eyes.

 

I am who I am. And I don't give a poop whether you respect me or not.

 

All I did for starters was point out that you were using a faulty premise. I then spoke in general of my feelings on that.

 

From there, you got bent out of shape, so yeah, its easy to come to the conclusions I came to.

 

And for the record, watching you in this and other threads, you come off a bit self-entitled so whether someone who acts that way respects me or not doesn't even show up on my radar of self-worth.

Edited March 19, 2013 by ZionHalcyon

[CelCawdro]

I was eased up. Until undeserved crap was hurled my way then I answered in kind. To address your point here civilly I may not change anything by discussing it. But I guarantee that there is no chance of it ever changing if I accept it when people tell me that's just the way it is you'll just have to deal with it.

 

This is where things got ugly:

 

How about enough of your bullcrap!

[Lung_Tien_Lien]

I know full well that when I choose to roll greed because the item is not a direct upgrade for my character, that one of the other players may choose to roll need. By rolling greed, I am CHOOSING to take my chances, not ASSUMING that the rest of the group will roll greed. We all know what happens when you assume.

 

As to your question, and how it fits in with my personal views on the loot system, here is my answer. The need roll is for a direct upgrade-either for your character or your companion, while the greed roll would apply if the item dropped is not a direct upgrade for your character or your companion. You may not agree with it, but it does answer your question.

 

An example would be if a shadow is running Esseles and a cunning chest piece drops. Neither the shadow nor Qyzen (likely the shadow's only companion, at that point) use cunning as a primary stat. The shadow rolls greed. The next boss drops a pair of boots with aim. The shadow rolls need because the boots are an upgrqade for Qyzen.

 

Indeed. That's the thing, though - you, personally, roll greed as well as need. But if someone were to stick to the mindset you are defending (i.e. rolling need on whatever is perceived as being 'needed' by that person), it would soon create the scenario I've been describing of people getting frustrated by the lack of consensus and rolling need on everything.

 

Thank you for your answer, and no, I never expected to agree with it. I think it's a sub-optimal solution since I don't consider companions as important as the main character, but that's a matter of opinion. (As is this entire argument, of course, but it's an opinion I can understand even if I disagree.)

 

My main issue really is that you don't seem to mind someone defining when they can roll need for themselves wihout any sort of justification. In fact, it appears you are against people wanting everyone to stick to a more or less generally accepted set of rules. I'm not really closer to understanding why now that we've been exchanging views a couple of times. The only explanation I can find is that you don't want anyone to be forced stick to rules they don't like (even if you yourself don't seem to have any problem sticking to them even though you don't seem to perceive them as 'fair').

 

It does seem to me as though we're at an impasse. I doubt anything else I could say would change your mind and I also doubt you're going to change mine. Unless you'd like to keep this discussion going, thank you for taking the time to explain yourself and keeping your tone pleasant in spite of getting a lot of opposition.

 

Edited for better wording.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Lung_Tien_Lien

[SWGEvictee]

This is where things got ugly:

 

No that was my reply to ugly thrown at me first. I was perfectly civil before that.

[Elyssandra]

Even if you found yourself grouped with me, you'd probably never even know it, as I do choose to roll greed if it is not a direct upgrade for my character.

 

Are you lying?

Or if the above is true, do you like arguing for the sake of arguing?

 

my personal views on the loot system...The need roll is for a direct upgrade-either for your character or your companion, while the greed roll would apply if the item dropped is not a direct upgrade for your character or your companion.

 

Or... do you lack the spine to do what you believe so vehemently about, that you've been posting for 26 pages?

[ZionHalcyon]

This is where things got ugly:

Quote: Originally Posted by SWGEvictee View Post

 

How about enough of your bullcrap!

 

 

Yep, right there, you nailed it.

Edited March 19, 2013 by ZionHalcyon

[CelCawdro]

No that was my reply to ugly thrown at me first. I was perfectly civil before that.

 

There was nothing uncivil about what he stated. If you took offense to it, that was your own prerogative. Nothing there was directed at you.

[Elyssandra]

Ratajack, why not tell us your char names and your server?

 

 

What's the worst that can happen?

People who don't agree with your loot rules can avoid you.

People who agree with your loot rules can party on with you.

 

Win, win for all, no?

 

Also that way those of us who would rather not have the pleasure of your charmingly argumentative self and who would rather not have the pleasure of running partway into some content, kicking you, finding another replacement, etc can just add you to our ignore lists and the game will save us all that trouble

[ZionHalcyon]

There was nothing uncivil about what he stated. If you took offense to it, that was your own prerogative. Nothing there was directed at you.

 

Precisely.

 

In fact, when someone takes offense to another person speaking generally on a subject, isn't that what you call incriminating yourself?

[Ratajack]

Wow.

 

That is way over the top and likely to get this thread closed. The only thing missing is a reference to a certain German leader in the 30's.

 

Yes it is a game, an mmo to be exact. And in mmo's you do not need on your pet over a team mate who actually needs it. You certainly have the right to do so, just as the team has the right to kick you if you do that. You both have your rights, so why the extreme verbiage?

 

There's no extreme verbiage that I'm aware of. I simply used a real life situation in which "social convention" was used as justification for taking away another person's rights. Isn't that what is happening with regards to loot? People expect the "social convention" of need is for character only to trump another person's right to roll on loot he helped produce. In addition, people are threatening consequences if someone actually has the stones to stand up for their rights and roll need. I've seen mention of consequences ranging from the offending party being yelled at and insulted to being "named and shamed" on fleet in the hopes that no one will group with the offending party.

[Lostpenguins]

There was nothing uncivil about what he stated. If you took offense to it, that was your own prerogative. Nothing there was directed at you.

Precisely.

 

In fact, when someone takes offense to another person speaking generally on a subject, isn't that what you call incriminating yourself?

I disagree, it started with:

So there is no reason to buck the social convention and need on comp gear without asking permission first other than to be a selfish arrogant self-entitled jerk. And if you are that, then buck up when you reap the whirlwind of consequences instead of whining that no one likes you.

Even if you're not saying it against a particular person, it's still labeling and offensive. It's like saying, "If you like blue then you're a terrible person". If someone gets upset by that statement because they like blue, the OP can't say, "Hey, I wasn't directing it at you."

 

No, you weren't, you were throwing a blanket insult onto an entire group of people. That's offensive.

 

Even though I disagree with this guy's viewpoints, he's right to say that civility ended the moment someone made that statement.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Lostpenguins

[CelCawdro]

I simply used a real life situation in which "social convention" was used as justification for taking away another person's rights. Isn't that what is happening with regards to loot?

 

No.

[Ratajack]

Okay, but you spewed your venom at me unjustly.

 

In regards to your second point, sure, change only comes from recognizing a desire of some people to want it to change. But now we're getting into viewpoints of why you think it should change. And this is where I disagree with you. It shouldn't. I'm not going let some sorc take an upgrade for my marauder because their companion can use it. Companions are pets, and thus relegated to 2nd tier. They didn't do the FP with me, and there's no immediate upgrade to the group. It's an upgrade to a person who will use it in solo play. That is why I'll never get behind your viewpoint. That's probably whey the majority won't either.

 

You seem to be missing the fact that the PLAYER is in the instance with you. The PLAYER has the right to roll on the loot. This game is designed with the companions being an integral part of the game and an extension of the PLAYER'S character. I find this desire to separate the PLAYER from the companion to be nothing more than an attempt to justify denying another PLAYER the option to roll need for a given piece of loot.

[CelCawdro]

I disagree, it started with:

 

Even if you're not saying it against a particular person, it's still labeling and offensive. It's like saying, "If you like blue then you're a terrible person". If someone gets upset by that statement because they like blue, the OP can't say, "Hey, I wasn't directing it at you."

 

No, you weren't, you were throwing a blanket insult onto an entire group of people. That's offensive.

 

Even though I disagree with this guy's viewpoints, he's right to say that civility ended the moment someone made that statement.

 

Even so, there was no reason to take a generalized statement, take it personally, and begin hurling his own vitriol. Civility is a two-way street.

[Lostpenguins]

Even so, there was no reason to take a generalized statement, take it personally, and begin hurling his own vitriol. Civility is a two-way street.

Correct, he didn't need to respond in kind. I'm not condoning his actions, but saying he's correct in the age-old argument of "who started it".

[ScarletBlaze]

How about two more examples.

 

Player A Shadow tank

Player B Vanguard DPS

Player C Sage DPS

Player D Scoundrel healer

 

Aim chest piece with shield and absorb rating drops. It would be a huge upgrade for Corso. Who gets to roll need?

 

 

Player A Guardian tank

Player B Sentinel DPS

Player C Gunslinger DPS

Player D Sage healer

 

Heavy armor chest piece drops with DPS stats- strength, endurance and power, but no shield and no absorb rating. Who gets to roll need?

 

Example One: I would say Player B unless he doesn't need it. Ask him first before you roll need for any companion. Players should always have first choice on need before any companion.

 

Example Two: I would say Player A first as that player can use the item and if then Player B as the mods can be used for their upgrades. The rest should choose greed.

[Urael]

OK we all know how much I "love" PUGs but, tbh this "age old" argument of who is entitled to what gets old.

 

Before your start your PUG agree to the ground rules up front. If it's going to be a FFA for loot then just man the heck up and accept the RNG.

 

Best bet is to go into the whole thing just hoping you make enough bank to cover your repair bills and get a little something extra for your trouble. If you win that "gear roll" then so much the bonus.

 

So much drama over something that one really has no control over.

 

TBF to us gamers and a glare at game developers, this is an old issue that could be fixed by having another way to prioritize loot drops "prior" the start of an encounter in an "instanced" driven encounter. Have presets for priorities for certain types of gear ( generic to the MMORPG ) and agree to the loot order/priority as part of choice to PUG or not. All I am saying is that it's all math and pixels and can be manipulated in such a was as to not have this "stupid" daily agrument every day in every MMORPG under the virtual sun.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Urael

[Lostpenguins]

You seem to be missing the fact that the PLAYER is in the instance with you. The PLAYER has the right to roll on the loot. This game is designed with the companions being an integral part of the game and an extension of the PLAYER'S character. I find this desire to separate the PLAYER from the companion to be nothing more than an attempt to justify denying another PLAYER the option to roll need for a given piece of loot.

I'm going to stop you right there. Companions are an integral part to A PART of the game. And that's really solo play.

 

But are they integral to FP's? No. FP's were designed for group content, which is 4 players. When 4 players are grouped, you cannot summon companions. Thus, if companions take a back seat during group play, then the same goes for loot for them as well. In fact, you can't queue for the LFG tool WITHOUT 3 other players, thereby the LFG is putting you into a system where, once again, your companion takes a back seat.

 

Operations are larger group play and you can't even summon a companion during operations. So, by extension, no loot for companions.

 

You cannot assume that your solo play gives you priority for loot that is obtained in a group setting. If so, then it can be easily justifiable for someone to take an item as they "need the credits" to sell it to buy better upgrades for their character on the GTN. Yet, that's a clearly a greed roll even though it's just as justifiable according to your statements.

 

If you want to use that loot for solo play, then solo those instances.

 

In the end, you and I clearly believe the other person is wrong. And that's fine. I'll go back to my original point: It doesn't matter how you feel here. You're in the minority and if you choose to act the way you seem to feel, then you're just setting yourself up to be ostracized by the community. And that's that.

[SWGEvictee]

There was nothing uncivil about what he stated. If you took offense to it, that was your own prerogative. Nothing there was directed at you.

 

He quoted me directly in the post where he told those who have a different opinion to drop the bullcrap and then accused those who don't agree of being greedy and selfish. If your gonna make general statements not aimed at anyone in particular don't make them in a post where you directly quote someone. I thought that unwritten forum rile would be pretty widely known and accepted.

[Vember]

Needing on loot for your companion is grounds for kicking as far as I'm concerned.

[Taminy]

I haven't heard one "need for companions" player state they have the balls to ask if the group is ok with it before clicking need. This seems more like the type of thing someone does and hopes no one cares or notices but if caught they try to justify it after the fact.

 

If you want to need for companions, say up front and let others need for their companions too.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Taminy