Selecting need for loot

[CelCawdro]

We've been suggesting a "Companion" roll button since the Need-Greed system was ported over here. Edited March 19, 2013 by CelCawdro

[Urael]

We've been suggesting a "Companion" roll button since the Need-Greed system was ported over here.

 

That would be a good fix.

 

So order of precidence would be:

 

Need

(Need off spec for future dual AC)

Companion

Greed

 

?

 

Edited March 19, 2013 by Urael

[CelCawdro]

That would be a good fix.

 

So order of precidence would be:

 

Need

(Need off spec for future dual AC)

Companion

Greed

 

?

 

 

Exactly. Gear is SW:TOR is wonderfully multi-purposed, but they borrowed the group loot options of a game with drastically fewer options.

[Emencie]

Maybe I should have used the word option, since that it really what it is. We all have the option to roll need, roll greed or pass. The OPTION to roll need is what some wish to deny others, without whom there would be no loot. In that vein, I will continue to defend the entire party's OPTION to roll need if they so choose, even though I will continue to roll greed on items that are not a direct upgrade for my character. If I am the only one rolling greed, and the rest of the party rolls need, then so be it.

 

I have a few questions for you on this front.

 

The OP stated that both parties set ground rules for him around the rolling. (party wide rules that effect everyone.)

 

Should the OP abide by those rules?

Should the party hold the OP to those established rules?

Should the party have the option to remove the OP should he not abide by those rules?

[Lostpenguins]

You obviously cannot or will not read the entirety of my posts. If you did, then you would know that there would be no need for me to advise the group that I plan to roll need for my companions. As I have repeatedly stated, I choose NOT roll need for companions, but I will defend your option to do so.

No, I read them, but I don't get why you're defending them. You either agree with people like me which means you're defending people who are in the wrong (if we both agree), or you agree with the OP and you're defending his viewpoint (thus my statement holds true in that as long as you don't break the rules of etiquette, I could care less what you feel).

 

So... who's the one with the reading comprehension problem now?

[ZionHalcyon]

Of course I am. So are you and everyone else. That fact alone means nothing.

 

One correction tho. I am not justifying my behavior. I am discussing why I believe this behavior should be acceptable. I have stated before that I understand and abide by the current majority opinion on this when playing in groups.

 

Lol, so your response is to globalize your behavior and therefore in your mind it makes it acceptable.

 

Laughable and sad at the same time.

[ZionHalcyon]

Exactly. Gear is SW:TOR is wonderfully multi-purposed, but they borrowed the group loot options of a game with drastically fewer options.

 

Whats to stop people from rolling need anyway even if it is for a comp? Jerks are jerks. Convenience for the rest of us isn't going to dissuade their asinine behavior.

[LadyKohastFel]

The basic rules for the priority for loot are as follows.

 

1: Actual players

2: Companions

3: Alts

4: Sell the item on the GTN

 

This is how I distribute loot in raids when I play MMOs (adapted a bit for SWTOR).

 

Firstly if I am raid leader and I have organized the raid I have master loot on at the beginning and tell everyone the loot rules so that anyone who disagrees can leave before we begin.

 

Basically actual players get first priority for loot that is a genuine upgrade on their existing gear (if 2 or more people have a need that gear they can roll for it or come to an agreement amongst themselves) , then if nobody needs the item for themselves they can put their hand up for taking it so that they can equip a companion with it, then if nobody wants it for a companion players can then roll for it so that they can pull the mods out of it and send it to an alt in a piece of legacy gear. And finally if nobody wants it to use everyone can roll for it just to sell or to use as a costume piece that has no use other than looking nice (this only really applies to characters that can equip any armor).

Edited March 20, 2013 by LadyKohastFel

[ZionHalcyon]

The way I look at it, flashpoints are where you cut your teeth in learning how to raid.

 

If you can't follow simple conventions in a flashpoint, good luck to ya, because try that crap in a raid and you'll not only be kicked off the raid team immediately but if its a guild run you'll be kicked out of the guild faster than you can say "jawa juice".

Edited March 20, 2013 by ZionHalcyon

[nateslice]

Ratajack, I'm disgusted at your invocation of the civil rights movement to justify this.

 

You're equating...

 

"I frickin' died because they weren't allowed to treat my grievous injuries at the white people's hospital!"

 

...with...

 

"These people don't want to play with me anymore because I took a chestpiece the tank wanted for my companion!"

Edited March 20, 2013 by nateslice

[ZionHalcyon]

Ratajack, I'm disgusted at your invocation of the civil rights movement to justify this.

 

You're equating...

 

"I frickin' died because they weren't allowed to treat my grievous injuries at the white people's hospital!"

 

...with...

 

"These people don't want to play with me anymore because I took a chestpiece the tank wanted for my companion!"

 

sick people will go to the most ridiculous lengths to justify their own ignorance.

[Ratajack]

I have a few questions for you on this front.

 

The OP stated that both parties set ground rules for him around the rolling. (party wide rules that effect everyone.)

 

Should the OP abide by those rules?

Should the party hold the OP to those established rules?

Should the party have the option to remove the OP should he not abide by those rules?

 

If the ground rules were established beyond question BEFORE the run began, then the OP has the options to choose to abide by those ground rules or to leave the group, I agree. If the group establishes ground BEFORE the run begins, then if the OP chooses to remain in the group, he should abide by those ground rules and should expect to be removed from the group if he does not abide by those established ground rules.

 

If the group does not take the time to discuss and establish those ground rules prior to beginning the FP, then no member of the group should simply assume that "social convention" takes precedence. If the group does not take the time to establish ground rules BEFORE the run begins, then the OP should not be removed from the group for not abiding to "assumed" ground rules when no ground rules were actually established.

 

I see nothing in the OP's original post indicating that any ground rules were established before the run began, only that he was talked down to and kicked AFTER he rolled need. I may have missed it in the original post, or the OP may have mentioned in a subsequent post. From what I read in the original post, the OP did nothing except exercise his option to roll need for his companion, thereby violating only "social convention" and not ground rules established BEFORE the run began.

[jovianus]

I see nothing in the OP's original post indicating that any ground rules were established before the run began, only that he was talked down to and kicked AFTER he rolled need. I may have missed it in the original post, or the OP may have mentioned in a subsequent post. From what I read in the original post, the OP did nothing except exercise his option to roll need for his companion, thereby violating only "social convention" and not ground rules established BEFORE the run began.

 

And?

 

Why is it okay for the OP to violate the 'social convention', but wrong for the rest of the group to get angry at him for doing so. Social conventions are just that, a generally accepted community standard, why is it on the other players to explain it it to him at the beginning of every run, rather than on him to ask before hand whether it's ok to do something different?

 

I take it as a given every time I group that we're operating under that standard, even if gear drops that isn't appropriate for any of the classes in the current group I'll still ask before needing for a companion.

Edited March 20, 2013 by jovianus

[nateslice]

Careful, Jovianus; Ratajack speaks for the right of imaginary people like Corso and Kaliyo to be better geared than we are. He's like a modern-day Frederick Douglass!

[Ratajack]

No, I read them, but I don't get why you're defending them. You either agree with people like me which means you're defending people who are in the wrong (if we both agree), or you agree with the OP and you're defending his viewpoint (thus my statement holds true in that as long as you don't break the rules of etiquette, I could care less what you feel).

 

So... who's the one with the reading comprehension problem now?

 

Where we disagree is in the statement that people that do not choose to adhere to unwritten "social convention" and sacrifice their right (or option) to roll need on loot they helped to produce are "in the wrong". I do not have agree with their views in order to respect and defend them, nor do I have to agree with your views in order to respect and defend those views. I see validity in both sides of this debate, and while I choose to tailor my actions toward one side of the debate, that does not imply that those on the other side are "in the wrong".

 

Let me try to explain a little more clearly, if I can.

 

Camp A

 

Need is for character only and only if a direct upgrade. A player cannot roll need for loot for their companion. This is denying a person the right (or option) to benefit from their efforts. The loot would not exist without the efforts of the entire group.

 

Camp B

 

We all worked to produce this loot. It is an upgrade for your character and my companion. Let the dice decide. No one is being denied the chance to roll need in this situation. No one is being told that they cannot roll need for their character because it is an upgrade for someone companion. There may be those who CHOOSE not roll need, but that right (or option) is not being taken away from them.

 

 

Camp A has valid points. I know how frustrating it can be to see an upgrade drop and losing it to another player. I choose to roll need for direct upgrades for my character and greed for my companions and if I plan to vendor the item. That said, camp B also has valid points. As I said, that shiny would not exist if not for the efforts of every member of the group. This means that every player should have the right (or option) to roll need if they so choose, whether or not the rest of the group chooses to exercise that right (or option).

 

If camp C tried to declare that player X could not roll need for their character because it is an upgrade for player Y's companion, I would defend player X's option to roll need for his character just as vehemently.

[nateslice]

No, Ratajack; you straight-up stated that those in Camp A are equivalent to Jim Crow, George Wallace, and Bull Connor. Edited March 20, 2013 by nateslice

[XuShaBi]

If the ground rules were established beyond question BEFORE the run began, then the OP has the options to choose to abide by those ground rules or to leave the group, I agree. If the group establishes ground BEFORE the run begins, then if the OP chooses to remain in the group, he should abide by those ground rules and should expect to be removed from the group if he does not abide by those established ground rules.

 

If the group does not take the time to discuss and establish those ground rules prior to beginning the FP, then no member of the group should simply assume that "social convention" takes precedence. If the group does not take the time to establish ground rules BEFORE the run begins, then the OP should not be removed from the group for not abiding to "assumed" ground rules when no ground rules were actually established.

 

I see nothing in the OP's original post indicating that any ground rules were established before the run began, only that he was talked down to and kicked AFTER he rolled need. I may have missed it in the original post, or the OP may have mentioned in a subsequent post. From what I read in the original post, the OP did nothing except exercise his option to roll need for his companion, thereby violating only "social convention" and not ground rules established BEFORE the run began.

 

Practically, what you propose has been carried out in OP's group. The group presented the benefits and consequences for OP to keep the needed loots than suppose to give to someone as an upgrade. The OP chose to disagree, hence practically, it's equivalent for OP refusing to abide to the ground rules presented BEFORE the run begins. Hence the outcome is the same.

 

OP is arguing group not having the RIGHT to establish such convention but he/she has the right to OVERRIDE any convention setup by the group, through democracy. You are arguing about a completely different thing.

Edited March 20, 2013 by XuShaBi

[Ratajack]

And?

 

Why is it okay for the OP to violate the 'social convention', but wrong for the rest of the group to get angry at him for doing so. Social conventions are just that, a generally accepted community standard, why is it on the other players to explain it it to him at the beginning of every run, rather than on him to ask before hand whether it's ok to do something different?

 

I take it as a given every time I group that we're operating under that standard, even if gear drops that isn't appropriate for any of the classes in the current group I'll still ask before needing for a companion.

 

If the group did not take the time to establish ground rules BEFORE the run began, then why should the OP be bound to rules that were NEVER established, but that you only ASSUMED to be in effect? If no ground rules are established BEFORE the run begins, then the OP has every reason to believe that there are no ground rules.

 

Some people may not think the same as you do. Some people think that off spec should be a greed roll only, and some think that off spec is a valid need roll. Some people think that if a heavy armor DPS piece with strength drops it is ok for a medium armor wearing strength user to roll need since he can rip out the mods to put in his medium armor and some think that the heavy armor wearing strength using tank has priority.

 

Does it really take that much effort or time to actually establish ground rules BEFORE the run begins?

[nateslice]

And some people don't want to play with people who take their loot for companions.

 

My desire not to play with a particular person trumps any right he might have to take my gear for his companion. Otherwise, there'd be no such thing as an Ignore List.

Edited March 20, 2013 by nateslice

[Ratajack]

Practically, what you propose has been carried out in OP's group. The group presented the benefits and consequences for OP to keep the needed loots than suppose to give to someone as an upgrade. The OP chose to disagree, hence practically, it's equivalent for OP refusing to abide to the ground rules presented BEFORE the run begins. Hence the outcome is the same.

 

OP is arguing group not having the RIGHT to establish such convention but he/she has the right to OVERRIDE any convention setup by the group, through democracy. You are arguing about a completely different thing.

 

In this case, the group attempted to change the rules in mid-instance. That's sort of like changing the rules in the middle of a game because you don't like the fact that the rules set (or not set) at the beginning of the game do not favor you enough.

[Ratajack]

And some people don't want to play with people who take their loot for companions.

 

And I will not attempt to take that option away from you, although I will attempt to prevent you from vote kicking a player who rolls need for his companion by voting no. If the vote kick does not pass, then I will not prevent you from leaving the group if you choose not to play with a player who rolled need for his companion. If the vote kick passes, you will have to replace two players, one of whom could be your tank or healer. I have characters for all three roles.

[nateslice]

Wrong; you're clearly trying to shame us into not exercising that option, by comparing us to Jim Crow.

[nateslice]

By the way, Ratajack, you're far from the only one here who has characters for all three roles. Don't act like that makes you indispensible. This game has four basic classes, and at least a million players.

[shadowrouge]

NOT going to a mitzvah in a Nazi costume is common sense. Its the real world. Something I would not do.

It has real world effects. It has real world consequences. I would not seek to offend someone for the sake of offending them so your comparison is asinine.

 

 

How is choosing to roll a decision forced on the entire group? Im not forcing them to click need or greed or pass. The roll makes the decision, not me, i only choose to roll for a chance for the item which means i have an equal chance same as anyone else does who chooses to roll need for it.

 

I think its damning to attempt to enforce some standard or principle on someone else that restricts their freedom of choice. You say its about the group and yet only one person benefits from that item. Not all 4 so stating that one person in particular cannot roll on the item because of some unwritten rule that the others believe is their right and not the other persons is blatant double standards. You say im forcing it onto others by stating that I believe in my freedom of choice? I believe its YOU who are forcing your beliefs onto me by restricting my freedom of choice

 

You say its far from fair and equal? The roll of the die makes the choice, and everyone has a chance. Thats fair, thats equal, not someone throwing their weight around saying "I deserve this more than you!"

 

Did you ask the group first if it was ok that you make need rolls for your comp? No. Did you inform them from the start that you would be doing this? No. So yes you FORCED the entire group to accept YOUR play style. Do you have the right to make these rolls? YES. Yes you do. Every one has that right regardless of reason.

 

But so that they can do the same you should have a) informed the group before the flashpoint began that you would be doing so. Its the mature and sociable thing to do. or b) asked before doing so. Doing one of these simple things is common courtesy.

 

Rolling on anything that drops is your right yes. But letting others know HOW you intend to roll is your responsibility. You should not call others en titlist for booting you when YOU FAILED to let them know how you roll on items.

[Ratajack]

Did you ask the group first if it was ok that you make need rolls for your comp? No. Did you inform them from the start that you would be doing this? No. So yes you FORCED the entire group to accept YOUR play style. Do you have the right to make these rolls? YES. Yes you do. Every one has that right regardless of reason.

 

But so that they can do the same you should have a) informed the group before the flashpoint began that you would be doing so. Its the mature and sociable thing to do. or b) asked before doing so. Doing one of these simple things is common courtesy.

 

Rolling on anything that drops is your right yes. But letting others know HOW you intend to roll is your responsibility. You should not call others en titlist for booting you when YOU FAILED to let them know how you roll on items.

 

Did the group take the time to establish ground rules BEFORE the run began? Is it not EVERYBODY'S responsibility to let the rest of the group know HOW they will be rolling?