Selecting need for loot

[slafko]

The rules have been established more than a year ago. Please learn how to troll properly, this is just sad.

[AlrikFassbauer]

Me, I won't argue against rolling for a Companion.

 

There are people out there who believe that rolling for Companions should NOT be allowed EVEN for droid parts.

Out of principle : No rolling for Companions allowed !

 

Personally, I just cannot understand this rule.

Because a player can NEVER play a Droid !

[CelCawdro]

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.

 

Not if you straight up cannot need on out-of-class equipment. Jerks are still going to be jerks, sure. But this would give them less power, and less excuses, to be act such.

[BaronV]

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?

 

if you were a foreigner visiting the UK or USA or Australia, would you walk up to a stranger and just start speaking your own language? No? Why not? Its absolutely your right to do so isnt it?

 

But you would at least TRY to say something in english because it is understood that the general population speaks english in that country. It is understood and implied that you would be speaking english.

 

Similarly the general consensus by the SWTOR gaming community (and MMO gamers in general) is that you select NEED only for loot which directly benefits your character and only your character. Greed is chosen for every other purpose. THAT IS THE CONSENSUS and you cant even deny knowledge of it as you clearly know it and understand it.

 

So no. the rest of the group do not need to define how they will be rolling because they are following the consensus. Just as a someone in the UK is not expected to let you know or ask your permission if he can speak to you in english, the group members do not need to state "I will be rolling according to the consensus" because that is the NORM and it is implied that you are following the norm UNLESS YOU STATE OTHERWISE.

 

As I said before nothing we say will change your mind that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Just tell us your server and character names so that we will be spared the trouble of grouping with you.

 

When you knowingly select need without first letting the other group members know that you are needing for your companions you are not "Rolling for a fair chance at the loot" as you claim. You are simply TAKING the loot and denying others their fair chance at the loot. You are STEALING the loot.

 

The fact that this has been explained over and over again to you and you refuse to acknowledge this means that you do not have the excuse of ignorance. You are being a ninja - plain and simple. The fact that you KNOW that people will most likely be choosing Need only for their companions (since they have not said otherwise) means that you do it INTENTIONALLY - That is the act of a ninja and TROLL

[SWGEvictee]

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.

 

 

No my response was to show that trying to dismiss my comments because they were doing the same thing everyone else was to support them was hypocritical. As are you for trying to defend his attempt.

[Emencie]

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.

 

No, The ground rules were not stated at the beginning of the FP run as stated by the OP however The OP did state that the first group told him not to do it and why, then he did it again and was kicked. The OP went on to say that the second group told him not to do it and why and he once again ignored the rules and was again kicked.

 

Now there are 36 pages of (and forgive me if I missed someone.) But every single person in this thread seems to conform to those rules weather or not they like them. They follow them Even you yourself have said this. And yes, everyone does assume everyone else knows this. However if they dont Even by the OPs own words about the 'bad group' he had, the players will take the time to tell someone who apparently doesn't know to not do it again and why.

 

Isn't this including his experiences, the community giving him the standardized loot rolling rules accepted by every group, before the flashpoint? In other words does the OP have the excuse of ignorance to the social standard anymore?

 

I ask this because clearly in the second FP group the OP did know exactly what he was doing. Knew it was against the grain to do such a thing and was even told after he did it once. I have to agree with another poster here and say that is outright under handed and close to stealing the loot. If you know that everyone will roll greed, if you know that everyone did roll greed and if you know that it is expected of you to also roll greed and you hit need after all those things. You also know that you are going to get the loot, and it is 100% against the fairness of the rules set forth by the community right? Just because you didn't know you had to wait in line in the theme park does not mean you should cut in every line still after you were told that should should not, since that social standard was not told to you at the beginning... right?

 

In essence the community has spoken and his teammates have spoken. Told him the rules he should abide by, and I wonder if you agree that he should now that he knows.

[Ratajack]

if you were a foreigner visiting the UK or USA or Australia, would you walk up to a stranger and just start speaking your own language? No? Why not? Its absolutely your right to do so isnt it?

 

But you would at least TRY to say something in english because it is understood that the general population speaks english in that country. It is understood and implied that you would be speaking english.

 

Similarly the general consensus by the SWTOR gaming community (and MMO gamers in general) is that you select NEED only for loot which directly benefits your character and only your character. Greed is chosen for every other purpose. THAT IS THE CONSENSUS and you cant even deny knowledge of it as you clearly know it and understand it.

 

So no. the rest of the group do not need to define how they will be rolling because they are following the consensus. Just as a someone in the UK is not expected to let you know or ask your permission if he can speak to you in english, the group members do not need to state "I will be rolling according to the consensus" because that is the NORM and it is implied that you are following the norm UNLESS YOU STATE OTHERWISE.

 

As I said before nothing we say will change your mind that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Just tell us your server and character names so that we will be spared the trouble of grouping with you.

 

When you knowingly select need without first letting the other group members know that you are needing for your companions you are not "Rolling for a fair chance at the loot" as you claim. You are simply TAKING the loot and denying others their fair chance at the loot. You are STEALING the loot.

 

The fact that this has been explained over and over again to you and you refuse to acknowledge this means that you do not have the excuse of ignorance. You are being a ninja - plain and simple. The fact that you KNOW that people will most likely be choosing Need only for their companions (since they have not said otherwise) means that you do it INTENTIONALLY - That is the act of a ninja and TROLL

 

To use your own example of languages, in the US the official language is English. That is the established norm for the country, set forth by the government. There are however some areas where English has become a second language and many of the people in those areas claim that they do not speak English. The CONSENSUS in those areas is that a language other than English is the preferred language. If I walk into that area and no one advises me as to what the CONSENSUS is, then I can reasonably expect that English will be the preferred language as that is the official language as set by the government. However, if someone advises me that English is not the preferred language in those areas, then I can bring a translator. Even if I do not agree with English being supplanted as the preferred language, I can still accommodate local practices.

 

In the game, the devs(government) established rules for looting by implementing the need before greed system. The devs (government) did NOT set any qualifications as to what constitutes need and what constitutes greed. This is the official method (language) set forth by the devs (government). If a person walks into an instance and no ground are established BEFORE the run begins, then why should that person expect that the official method has been supplanted by local practices ("social convention"). If the group establishes ground rules BEFORE the run begins, then people have the option of accommodating local practices or finding another group.

[Risq]

To use your own example of languages, in the US the official language is English. That is the established norm for the country, set forth by the government.

{Snip}.

 

Uhhhmmm, no.

 

In the US only 28 of 50 states have ever come out and said that "English" is their official language. The last time they tried to decide on an official language for the country "German" almost won out over English.

 

But as it stands, on a National or Federal level there isn't an official language, only an "unofficial" or "de facto" one.

 

Look it up if you don't believe me

[BaronV]

Uhhhmmm, no.

 

In the US only 28 of 50 states have ever come out and said that "English" is their official language. The last time they tried to decide on an official language for the country "German" almost won out over English.

 

But as it stands, on a National or Federal level there isn't an official language, only an "unofficial" or "de facto" one.

 

Look it up if you don't believe me

 

agreed "English as the national language" is one of those hot button no-winners political issues that the major parties generally stay away from

[BaronV]

T If a person walks into an instance and no ground are established BEFORE the run begins, then why should that person expect that the official method has been supplanted by local practices ("social convention"). If the group establishes ground rules BEFORE the run begins, then people have the option of accommodating local practices or finding another group.

 

The official method has not been "supplanted" by the social convention.

 

Social conventions exist to fill in gaps in official laws or to explain grey areas.

 

This is one of those gaps in the "law" set forth by your "government".

 

Take public decency/morality laws for instance. Most countries/states (including the US) do not explicitly define ambiguous terms like public decency or morality. But social convention typically agrees that includes nudity (to various degrees - some only specific body parts, others entire areas).

 

And courts accept these social conventions as legitimate grounds for charging the individual where "ignorance is not an excuse"

[Risq]

agreed "English as the national language" is one of those hot button no-winners political issues that the major parties generally stay away from

 

Yep I know. I lost this bet a long time ago. I bet that English had always been the national language, and someone bet me that German was the closest they ever came to setting a standard. And I was a history major at the time and I didn't know this little known fact.

 

So yes, I remember stuff like this, especially when you lose a bet like this in front of a large group of people

[Ratajack]

No, The ground rules were not stated at the beginning of the FP run as stated by the OP however The OP did state that the first group told him not to do it and why, then he did it again and was kicked. The OP went on to say that the second group told him not to do it and why and he once again ignored the rules and was again kicked.

 

Now there are 36 pages of (and forgive me if I missed someone.) But every single person in this thread seems to conform to those rules weather or not they like them. They follow them Even you yourself have said this. And yes, everyone does assume everyone else knows this. However if they dont Even by the OPs own words about the 'bad group' he had, the players will take the time to tell someone who apparently doesn't know to not do it again and why.

 

Isn't this including his experiences, the community giving him the standardized loot rolling rules accepted by every group, before the flashpoint? In other words does the OP have the excuse of ignorance to the social standard anymore?

 

I ask this because clearly in the second FP group the OP did know exactly what he was doing. Knew it was against the grain to do such a thing and was even told after he did it once. I have to agree with another poster here and say that is outright under handed and close to stealing the loot. If you know that everyone will roll greed, if you know that everyone did roll greed and if you know that it is expected of you to also roll greed and you hit need after all those things. You also know that you are going to get the loot, and it is 100% against the fairness of the rules set forth by the community right? Just because you didn't know you had to wait in line in the theme park does not mean you should cut in every line still after you were told that should should not, since that social standard was not told to you at the beginning... right?

 

In essence the community has spoken and his teammates have spoken. Told him the rules he should abide by, and I wonder if you agree that he should now that he knows.

 

Here is the original post.

 

Came across two flashpoints yesterday where I was verbally talked down to by a gamer each time for winning loot for my companion. I dont understand the big deal. Why the sense of entitlement over another gamer? If I see an item that would be needed for my companion to equip im going to roll for it. If someone else wins it, cool, good for them as far as im concerned. If i win it f, suddenly there are problems.

First flashpoint came across an item, i passed as neither i nor my companions needed it, Second one selected need for my tank. Got it. Third one, great for my tank, selected need, got it again. Then got told I was scum and voted off.

Second one, passed on two items, third one great for my tank, selected need and was told I had no right if it was for my companion and that I cant select need. I say why not? Out of 13 loot drops in that flashpoint i chose need on 2. How is that greedy?

 

As far as im concerned, im a paid subscriber. Why should some other gamer dictate to me what I can or cannot do to benefit them? If someone wants help on a mission or flashpoint and asks me, ill have no problem helping them but if i see something my tank needs, im selecting need. Im certainly not going to cry over it if someone else wins it. This sense of entitlement over someone else is baffling. There is no rulebook in the game that states that you cant do it and everyone who rolls for it has an equal chance

 

If you notice in the first group, the OP passed on the first drop, rolled need on the second and third. After rolling need on the third item he was called scum and vote kicked. Nowhere does it say that the group said a word to him about "social convention" after he rolled need on the second drop-the first time he rolled need. It also does not say that he was told why he was called scum and vote kicked. Did anyone even bother to tell him about "social convention". From reading the original post, it does not appear that anyone did. From reading the post, it appears that the first time anyone even said a word about "social convention" was in the second instance AFTER he had rolled need on the THIRD drop, having passed on the first two drops.

 

If no one in the first group explained the "social convention", then how can you assume that the OP knew about it in the second group? All the OP knows is that he was called scum and vote kicked. He does not know the reason he was called scum and vote kicked.

 

Notice also that the OP is not rolling need on everything, only those items that are an upgrade for his companions, an extension of his character and an integral part of the game.

 

Had someone explained the "social convention" before the first or even the second run began, the drama could have been avoided.

[Vandicus]

The last time they tried to decide on an official language for the country "German" almost won out over English.

 

 

Look it up if you don't believe me

 

This is entirely inaccurate.

[Risq]

This is entirely inaccurate.

 

Ok, I kinda mispoke (or mistyped), when I said how they voted.

 

What i was trying to get at was the only time that I've ever seen that congress voted on a "language" was in the 1700 when German citizens petitioned to have laws published in German, in addition to the de facto way the laws were published in English.

 

English was just "accepted" as offical before that.

 

But then this was the first time anyone had questioned or requested anything other than what was just accepted. Nothing was ever set in the books during the creation of the constitution that stated what the official language was, thus the confusion around why laws couldn't be printed in other languages, and thus the federal request. Unlike other countries where there "is" a set national language.

 

And to the best of my knowledge, and everything I researched, that was the only vote on a language on the Federal level , but I may be mistaken. I've not shifted through every federal record since 1776 either

 

As far as English being the "Official" language of the Nation, nope on that front completely. Its only on a state level at present:

Is English the official language of the US

 

Trying to avoid getting into history so early in the morn, but sure I'm game

[cidbahamut]

All I'm taking away from this thread is that the community consensus is that a player is not entitled to loot in exchange for their contributions to clearing a flashpoint.

[Risq]

All I'm taking away from this thread is that the community consensus is that a player is not entitled to loot in exchange for their contributions to clearing a flashpoint.

 

Hmmm, that's not what I get I guess.

 

If you're character is there, and is healing as a Commando for example, and you see some gear that drops with Cunning on it. You can't immediately put it on and heal better to continue helping the group. At best you suddenly heal worse.

 

But if you have a healing Companion that uses it "they" might heal better.

 

Here's another way of looking at it. Most everyone would like to gear their companions better. And if given the chance would do so. But if you roll need on it, they assume you're actually going to wear it on the character your playing with.

 

Other wise everyone should know up front you're rolling need for your companion so that "they" can roll need for their companions as well.

 

If you don't say "I'm rolling need for my companions" and then you do, you've robbed them of a chance to also roll need for their companions.

 

That's where the idea of ninja'ing loot comes from.

[scarlet_magpie]

I just ask if it's ok if I need for my companion. If they say no, I keep my fingers crossed on a greed roll. Simple.

[ZionHalcyon]

I just ask if it's ok if I need for my companion. If they say no, I keep my fingers crossed on a greed roll. Simple.

 

That's how its done. Much appreciated.

[ZionHalcyon]

No my response was to show that trying to dismiss my comments because they were doing the same thing everyone else was to support them was hypocritical. As are you for trying to defend his attempt.

 

Nice try but no. There's no rationalizing it, even if you try to globalize it and then follow it up with a straw man argument.

[Ocho-Quatro]

Generally... If something is an upgrade for me on the current character I am playing, I roll NEED.....

 

If it's for vanity purposes, or companion, or for an alt character, I roll GREED.

 

There are exceptions to that rule, but in a PuG I typically ask "Hey, does anyone mind if I take X?" and I will act accordingly.

 

for example... I typically play pubside, so purple color crystals are quite rare. However, I very much desire to have a pair of them for my sentinel, so when I raid Impside, I am always looking out for certain Columi Mainhands/Offhands to be able to legacy transfer those crystals. The last imp story mode KP i did, an Agent mainhand dropped off Karagga. I had passed on every single roll in the entire Op, because the toon I was playing was in full 61s.... But, I rolled NEED on the mainhand because I really want the crystal. (it was selfish, I know)... However, after I won it, the operative on the team, whispered me and asked if he could have it, because it was an upgrade for him, and I gladly met him on Fleet and traded it to him. I suppose I could have been a real jerk and just ignored him and kept it, but, I know how upset I would be if someone did that to me, and I just couldn't do it.

 

What I am trying to get at is..... Social conventions and unwritten looting rules aside, at the end of the day, it comes down to "How much of a ***** are you?"... Rolling need on something you WANT instead of actually NEED, doesn't make you a jerk. Choosing to keep it, or raise an argument when someone questions it because they actually NEEDED the piece, DOES make you a jerk.

Edited March 20, 2013 by Ocho-Quatro

[cidbahamut]

Hmmm, that's not what I get I guess.

 

If you're character is there, and is healing as a Commando for example, and you see some gear that drops with Cunning on it. You can't immediately put it on and heal better to continue helping the group. At best you suddenly heal worse.

 

But if you have a healing Companion that uses it "they" might heal better.

Here's the other side of that scenario:

I run through a flashpoint on my Sorc and no Sorc gear drops. There's some sweet gear upgrades for Khem that drop, but I'm not allowed to take them so I walk away from the flashpoint completely empty-handed.

[SWGEvictee]

Nice try but no. There's no rationalizing it, even if you try to globalize it and then follow it up with a straw man argument.

 

Attempt to deny all you want. Telling one person he is wrong for doin exactly what everyone else is while claiming everyone else is ok is utter hypocrisy.

[jsmithh]

Why is greed there in the 1st place anyway ? I mean, wouldn't it better if the dropped item would be greyed out if the main stat doesn't correspond to your character ? Sure, you might want to sell it and make money but there are already tons of ways to make money already.......

Not trying to be a douche, just asking what would be the advantages/disadvantages of such a system.

[Jedlosson]

How hard can this be to understand?

 

If your character needs it, select NEED

If your companion needs it or you intend to vendor the item, select GREED

If you do not want the item to spam your inventory, select PASS

 

If you do not accept this social convention, good luck finding a group after a while, you are gonna be in most peoples' ignore list.

 

There is one way around it however: If you see an item you want for your companion, you can ask if you can select NEED for this particular item. If other people agree with it, then by all means, select need.

Edited March 20, 2013 by Jedlosson

[Emencie]

Here is the original post.

 

 

 

If you notice in the first group, the OP passed on the first drop, rolled need on the second and third. After rolling need on the third item he was called scum and vote kicked. Nowhere does it say that the group said a word to him about "social convention" after he rolled need on the second drop-the first time he rolled need. It also does not say that he was told why he was called scum and vote kicked. Did anyone even bother to tell him about "social convention". From reading the original post, it does not appear that anyone did. From reading the post, it appears that the first time anyone even said a word about "social convention" was in the second instance AFTER he had rolled need on the THIRD drop, having passed on the first two drops.

 

If no one in the first group explained the "social convention", then how can you assume that the OP knew about it in the second group? All the OP knows is that he was called scum and vote kicked. He does not know the reason he was called scum and vote kicked.

 

Notice also that the OP is not rolling need on everything, only those items that are an upgrade for his companions, an extension of his character and an integral part of the game.

 

Had someone explained the "social convention" before the first or even the second run began, the drama could have been avoided.

 

You circumvented all my questions there getting caught on the semantics of one line I typed "The OP did state that the first group told him not to do it and why, then he did it again and was kicked." I meant the second group, my assumption on the first was because like most groups do, they gave the OP 2 chances.

Second one, passed on two items, third one great for my tank, selected need and was told I had no right if it was for my companion and that I cant select need. I say why not?

My point was that in the second FP group the OP did know exactly what he was doing. Knew it was against the grain to do such a thing and was even told after he did it once. It seems you agree with that. My point was that (and I thought I summed it up pretty good at first.)

 

The OP and anyone reading this thread at this point knows the social convention. While you may argue that it's not fair to assume everyone knows it right off. It is also completely arguable that everyone should know it (though incorrect) because this has been an MMO standard for some time. But either way once the OP was told, he now knows the social standard and is choosing to ignore it for personal gain right?

 

Not only that. but by acknowledging that this is how the social standard works, and confirming it in a group that abides by these standards. And then going against it the OP or anyone who uses it is able to gain a 100% chance on loot knowing well that they are cheating the other players out of the loot right?

 

Considering that my question was, do you think the OP and anyone else should abide by the community standards?

Edited March 20, 2013 by Emencie