Selecting need for loot

[ZionHalcyon]

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.

 

You are free to share your opinion. We are free to say you are a jerk for support needing on items for your comp when there are other people in your group who need it for their main toons.

 

What's hypocritical is you having a fit over people calling you out on that yet you want to be able to express your own asinine opinion with no social repercussion whatsoever.

[SWGEvictee]

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.

 

The fact that you are putting placing the item on a companion thereby benefiting my ability to proceed through leveling content at the same level as someone who merely wants to vendor it off.

 

Until end game content is reached player character and companions should take precedence over vendoring off an item.

[Lostpenguins]

The fact that you are putting placing the item on a companion thereby benefiting my ability to proceed through leveling content at the same level as someone who merely wants to vendor it off.

 

Until end game content is reached player character and companions should take precedence over vendoring off an item.

Yes, because with vendoring you get credits. Credits you can then go buy better mods and such from the GTN. Mods that can benefit your actual toon and not your companion so this will help you ALL the time unlike your companion who only helps you through part of the game.

 

Therefore, by this logic, vendoring is better than giving to your companions!

 

...

 

It doesn't matter if it benefits you better with leveling. Your companion did nothing in the flashpoint, therefore your companion gets no priority on loot. I just find it funny that you want to take group-earned loot, take it, and use it in a way that only benefits solo play. Rather silly.

[TUXs]

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

 

People like you are why they added the vote to kick option I support any group who opts to use it on you.

[SWGEvictee]

You are free to share your opinion. We are free to say you are a jerk for support needing on items for your comp when there are other people in your group who need it for their main toons.

 

What's hypocritical is you having a fit over people calling you out on that yet you want to be able to express your own asinine opinion with no social repercussion whatsoever.

 

so what I'm taking from all this is that if I dare to hold a differing opinion I am a jerk and should merely sit quietly and accept uncivil behavior toward me even though I did not attack anyone with my initial statements.

 

And I am a hypocrit for being upset about you being upset that I dare to hold a differing opinion.

 

Really?

[Beaunidle]

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.

 

That's how it goes sometimes, tough luck.

 

If there was Heavy Str/End gear dropping it means you had at least 1 Juggernaut in the group who can use it on his/her actual character. By rights and common convention it's theirs unless they chose not to roll for it. You couldn't have seen the "sweet gear for Khem" drop if it wasn't for that group member being there.

[Ratajack]

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.

 

This is where the root of the problem lies. What happens when you assume? If people took a couple of minutes before the run begins and decide as a group how loot will be divided, there would be no need to make assumptions. If the group does not agree on loot rules, then if you choose to roll greed, you may lose to someone rolling need. Losing a roll is not ninja'ing.

[SWGEvictee]

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.

 

The fact that you are putting placing the item on a companion thereby benefiting my ability to proceed through leveling content at the same level as someone who merely wants to vendor it off.

 

Until end game content is reached player character and companions should take precedence over vendoring off an item.

[Icestar]

Interesting to see this discussed here aswell, we have several threads discussing this topic in the Flashpoints, Operations, and Heroic Missions forum.

 

Anyway, all Bioware has to do is change the lootsystem to a common sense one, like many successful MMOs has done and this kind of problems will go away.

 

The community does not seem to benefit from a anarchy lootsystem, it needs to be changed so items that drop ends up with the character that can equip and benefit from the stats. They already have made it halfway with bosses only dropping loot that can be used by the different classes in the team, why not go all the way?

 

Anyway after reading thousands of posts regarding this topic, I am still astonished that Bioware has not commented even one time regarding this. They ask for player feedback, the loot distrubution threads contain lots of it

Edited March 20, 2013 by Icestar

[ZionHalcyon]

so what I'm taking from all this is that if I dare to hold a differing opinion I am a jerk and should merely sit quietly and accept uncivil behavior toward me even though I did not attack anyone with my initial statements.

 

And I am a hypocrit for being upset about you being upset that I dare to hold a differing opinion.

 

Really?

 

No, not really. What you should take from this is that there are people all over with varying different opinions, and yours is no more special than anyone elses, and if you decide to share an opinion that goes against the social norm then you should expect some push back. What makes you a hypocrite is criticizing others for their opinions while behaving like yours should be above critique - and THAT is what makes you an epic, selfish jerk.

[Risq]

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.

 

No, never said that and most folks aren't suggesting that you "do" that.

 

What I'm saying, and not sure if I've stated correctly, is if you want it for a Companion just say "Hey that would work on Khem I'm rolling need on it" , and then someone else who has a companion who can wear the same gear may say "Hey that would also work on Lt Pierce for my Juggernaut" and then they roll need as well.

 

That way "both" of you have an equal chance at getting it for your companion.

 

Otherwise the one who rolls Greed for his companion is hosed because when you roll need you are guaranteed to get it no matter what over them.

 

But if you're defending your right to not say "anything at all" and then need roll, and afterwards defend your right to have done that, that's just wrong. That defense just keeps everyone else from getting a equal chance at gear because a roll at 1 of "Need" beats a roll of 100 at "Greed" every time.

 

Or you could just tell everyone at the start of the run to role need on everything and only abstain if you don't want anything. That also works.

 

But players who roll need for companions without telling why shouldn't be surprised when others won't play or group with them when they do this.

 

If you want to be fair just tell everyone what you're doing, don't stealth do it (not saying you are, but using the royal we and you).

[Lostpenguins]

This is where the root of the problem lies. What happens when you assume? If people took a couple of minutes before the run begins and decide as a group how loot will be divided, there would be no need to make assumptions. If the group does not agree on loot rules, then if you choose to roll greed, you may lose to someone rolling need. Losing a roll is not ninja'ing.

There's always going to be assumptions in this game, as there are in RL. Do you assume that a dps knows to try and not pull aggro off the tank? Do you assume someone in a group finder who is a healer knows that their primary job is to heal the group? Or do you ask them that as well? Do you assume when you write something in English that they speak English and can understand you?

 

There's going to be common assumptions in this game. Loot rules are basically that way. Hopefully the OP gets it now. Secondary is whether he agrees or not. Etiquette doesn't require agreement, only compliance.

[cidbahamut]

It doesn't matter if it benefits you better with leveling. Your companion did nothing in the flashpoint, therefore your companion gets no priority on loot. I just find it funny that you want to take group-earned loot, take it, and use it in a way that only benefits solo play. Rather silly.

 

If someone acquires a single piece of gear from an entire run, why do you care if it gets equipped to a companion instead of to a player character? It's not your loot, so why would you feel so strongly about how a player uses it?

[ZionHalcyon]

If someone acquires a single piece of gear from an entire run, why do you care if it gets equipped to a companion instead of to a player character? It's not your loot, so why would you feel so strongly about how a player uses it?

 

Because the impact of that gear profoundly affects a player more than a companion - as I said in an earlier post, PRESENCE stat affects comps much more than gear does, and you can get comp gear suitable to your level just by doing quests.

 

There is no statistical reason to gear comps from flashpoints. Socially, its a slap in the face if someone rolls need on something for their comp that you can use on your main toon.

 

You don't have to agree, you don't have to like it, you just have to understand that IS the social norm expected when grouping and if you deviate from that then prepare to be blacklisted - if people put you on ignore, you won't be paired with them any further. Enough people put you on ignore, well, get used to some VERY long flashpoint queue times.

Edited March 20, 2013 by ZionHalcyon

[Lostpenguins]

If someone acquires a single piece of gear from an entire run, why do you care if it gets equipped to a companion instead of to a player character? It's not your loot, so why would you feel so strongly about how a player uses it?

If the loot could have gone to someone else's toon but another user took it to equip their companion, that's not right. "How a player uses it" is not an excuse. If I roll need on everything so that I can vendor it all, that also falls under the "not your loot, so why would you feel so strongly about how a player uses it" argument.

 

The general consensus of the MMO community is that gear must be a direct benefit to your character. With TOR, that has extended to your toon and does not include your companion as many of us look at them as pets. They may be an extension of the character's toon, but they're not the toon, else you could bring them everywhere you go, but it's obvious you can't. Therefore, the belief of "must be a direct benefit to your character" does not apply to companions as it doesn't affect all aspects of the character.

 

Seriously, if you want loot for solo play, go solo the content to get the loot. The people who group will group to allow the loot to go to the group.

[SlimsPicken]

It legit makes me laugh that people on a flashpoint mission with 3 other real human player characters thinks that a companion- who isnt even present or used in the flashpoint deserves any consideration at all in the loot rolls.

 

truly unbelievable.

[ZionHalcyon]

It legit makes me laugh that people on a flashpoint mission with 3 other real human player characters thinks that a companion- who isnt even present or used in the flashpoint deserves any consideration at all in the loot rolls.

 

truly unbelievable.

 

Its how spoiled and selfish some people in the world have become.

[cidbahamut]

Because the impact of that gear profoundly affects a player more than a companion - as I said in an earlier post, PRESENCE stat affects comps much more than gear does, and you can get comp gear suitable to your level just by doing quests.

 

There is no statistical reason to gear comps from flashpoints. Socially, its a slap in the face if someone rolls need on something for their comp that you can use on your main toon.

 

You don't have to agree, you don't have to like it, you just have to understand that IS the social norm expected when grouping and if you deviate from that then prepare to be blacklisted - if people put you on ignore, you won't be paired with them any further. Enough people put you on ignore, well, get used to some VERY long flashpoint queue times.

The math behind it shouldn't matter though.

Unless the "social norm" is that contributing to a successful run does not warrant any compensation for one's efforts, then there shouldn't be any issue if someone decides that they'd like to choose a piece of loot that benefits their companion instead of their character.

 

Does contribution warrant compensation or are flashpoints supposed to be charity work?

[Urael]

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).

 

No. These are not THE rules for loot distribution. They are YOUR rules. I do agree with you in spirit. But, they are not THE rules. It would be nice if there was an actual set of rules that ALL players would abide by but, there is not. The loop hole in your rules set is this. I as an actual player can claim ALL the gear as need because *I* the actual player am present so therefore it is mine to loot. That is the logic that those that want to hit need will use even abiding by YOUR rules. The important thing to do is present a set of rules up front to all in a PUG and vote on them. If you don't like the results find another PUG. If someone lies and violates what they agreed to, kick them from the group.

[ZionHalcyon]

The math behind it shouldn't matter though.

Unless the "social norm" is that contributing to a successful run does not warrant any compensation for one's efforts, then there shouldn't be any issue if someone decides that they'd like to choose a piece of loot that benefits their companion instead of their character.

 

Does contribution warrant compensation or are flashpoints supposed to be charity work?

 

Like I said, you don't have to like the social norm, just abide by it or find yourself on a lot of ignore lists and find your groupfinder queue time getting even longer than it is now.

[cidbahamut]

The general consensus of the MMO community is that gear must be a direct benefit to your character.

 

I'm saying that the general consensus is flawed and that it should be reexamined.

[Lostpenguins]

The math behind it shouldn't matter though.

Unless the "social norm" is that contributing to a successful run does not warrant any compensation for one's efforts, then there shouldn't be any issue if someone decides that they'd like to choose a piece of loot that benefits their companion instead of their character.

 

Does contribution warrant compensation or are flashpoints supposed to be charity work?

It's not charity work. You joined the flashpoint to: gain experience, get comms (if using the LFG tool), complete FP quests, and A CHANCE at loot. Sometimes you'll end up in a FP getting no drops, sometimes all the drops. That's how it works. It's the nature of RNG. You can't have the last piece of loot from the final boss just because you haven't gotten anything and now it's going to some guy who can't use it, but his toon he never plays gets to use it. That's the biggest misappropriation of loot there can be. That's as bad as someone saying, "I didn't get any drops so I'm taking this to vendor to compensate for my time in here".

 

That's not how it works. Why do you think your viewpoint is greater than 3 other people's viewpoint who are actively grouped with you and making efforts to complete the FP as well? You seem to think this is your viewpoint versus my viewpoint when it's more like your viewpoint versus the 3 other people in the group who would most likely disagree with you. So far I've seen like 3 or 4 people who actually side with you and over 10x as many people who disagree. Put those numbers into perspective.

[ZionHalcyon]

No. These are not THE rules for loot distribution. They are YOUR rules. I do agree with you in spirit. But, they are not THE rules. It would be nice if there was an actual set of rules that ALL players would abide by but, there is not. The loop hole in your rules set is this. I as an actual player can claim ALL the gear as need because *I* the actual player am present so therefore it is mine to loot. That is the logic that those that want to hit need will use even abiding by YOUR rules. The important thing to do is present a set of rules up front to all in a PUG and vote on them. If you don't like the results find another PUG. If someone lies and violates what they agreed to, kick them from the group.

 

He IS right though in that those ARE the default rules by which most flashpoints and ops gravitate towards, to the point of an unspoken rule there. They might not be hard coded in the game, but they ARE what most people use.

 

Which is why if you decide you want to buck the norm, always ask first if you want to continue running flashpoint groups - as long as a person who wants to roll for a comp is willing to back down and hit greed when someone else in the group needs it, I have no issues with someone asking to roll need on an item otherwise no one else really needs for their comp.

 

But the key is to ask, and to respect and back down if someone else legit needs it for their main.

 

But see, this requires social interaction and common courtesy. And what we've learned is that the people who are arguing for just blindly rolling need on items for their comp and not suffering any consequences is that these are selfish, antisocial jerks.

[codycroft]

The math behind it shouldn't matter though.

Unless the "social norm" is that contributing to a successful run does not warrant any compensation for one's efforts, then there shouldn't be any issue if someone decides that they'd like to choose a piece of loot that benefits their companion instead of their character.

 

Does contribution warrant compensation or are flashpoints supposed to be charity work?

 

A FP is a risk, with a reward possible, not automatic. But again, if everyone went into it with the known fact that everyone was going to 'need' everything, all is well. That is not what happens though, people like OP know the social convention, expect everyone else to follow the social convention, and then game it and hit need to guarantee they get the roll. That is the real underlying issue of this thread.

 

If everyone one knows the rules, cool. When some take the known rules and then wait till the end to break them, assuring they get the loot, the other rules about kicking them comes into effect. If you want to need on anything or everything, state it. If the group disagrees, they'll boot you, which is fine. You have no RIGHT to that particular group, even if you feel you have a right to all the loot or a right to the FP.

 

But OP won't do that because if he states his intentions, he can't game the system and get what he wants.

Edited March 20, 2013 by codycroft

[Risq]

This is where the root of the problem lies. What happens when you assume? If people took a couple of minutes before the run begins and decide as a group how loot will be divided, there would be no need to make assumptions. If the group does not agree on loot rules, then if you choose to roll greed, you may lose to someone rolling need. Losing a roll is not ninja'ing.

 

Yes and no.

 

What you're trying to do is put all the blame on one side. If that's your plan, how hard is it to say "Hey I plan to roll need on gear my companion can use" from the start as well. That's what I do so that there isn't any hard feelings or misunderstandings.

 

It's far easier to say "Hey from the start I said that's what I'm doing" than trying to say "why wouldn't I do that" if no one "knows" to expect it.

 

That's why I just tell everyone when I roll for a companion, since I personally have no idea what's going on in their head.