Selecting need for loot

[codycroft]

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.

 

Indeed, what happened is a majority of people who play MMO's have already had his discussion and the majority of the time it ended up with need for your toon, greed if you're selling or looting for alt. That's why it is assumed, because it has been hashed out repeatedly over time and it is the general consensus. If OP or his supporters want different rules, it's up to them to state them. It is not like the consequences of going against the rules are unknown.

[RLWalker]

It seems to me like people are getting off topic.

 

First off, you can level to 50 with free quest gear so people saying they need an item to level is false, or at the very least an exaggeration of how much a single item will help them. That is not to say that making immediate use of an item is not a strong argument to hit need.

 

It is far more efficient to hit the need button and sort out conflicts afterwards. This is because in the majority of cases the item is not an upgrade for anyone. So yes, if I see something I could use for whatever reason I hit need. If someone feels that they could make better use of the item they are free to whisper me and make their case. The "need" button should probably be re-labelled "want". I think this better expresses the purpose of the button.

 

I prefer simple rules. I pretty much stated my looting system in two sentences, and it handles every scenario that could possibly occur. I'm not going to read a two page essay on how to decide between need/greed/pass. Especially not when ambiguity is introduced - did that trooper roll for himself or his companion???

 

A lot of it does come down to simple greed. Many people just cannot handle not winning loot. How else to explain why so many people raged at the initial story mode loot system in ops? A perfectly fair and simple system that was taken out because of greed.

 

Anyways, happy looting to all.

[Ratajack]

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.

 

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?

 

The OP and anyone else has the right (or option) to roll need on any item that they helped to produce, and to attempt to take that right (or option) away is wrong. Would it be better for all if people followed the "social conventions"? Yes, it would. Could the OP find himself on many ignore lists? Of course he could. That does not make it right for me or anyone else to attempt to take away his right to roll need, and I will defend his right to roll need, even if I choose to follow "social convention".

[ZionHalcyon]

The OP and anyone else has the right (or option) to roll need on any item that they helped to produce, and to attempt to take that right (or option) away is wrong. Would it be better for all if people followed the "social conventions"? Yes, it would. Could the OP find himself on many ignore lists? Of course he could. That does not make it right for me or anyone else to attempt to take away his right to roll need, and I will defend his right to roll need, even if I choose to follow "social convention".

 

If anyone is to take anything away from your comments in the thread overall, its that you are arguing for the sake of argument, because you've already admitted you follow the social norm, even if you are personally against it.

 

As one poster said, the social norm doesn't require agreement, just compliance.

 

So really going back and forth with you seems pointless.

[Risq]

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.

 

I smile at this because on run when this game first came out, either we didn't have a healer or we lost ours early on and one of the guys we were with asked if he should use his healing companion. Since we were stuck we were ok with it and we used that to complete the FP.

 

What was funny though was that neither of us other two had any issue with him waning gear for his Companion since it was the companion at the time who helped us complete the Flashpoint.

[codycroft]

It seems to me like people are getting off topic.

 

First off, you can level to 50 with free quest gear so people saying they need an item to level is false, or at the very least an exaggeration of how much a single item will help them. That is not to say that making immediate use of an item is not a strong argument to hit need.

 

It is far more efficient to hit the need button and sort out conflicts afterwards. This is because in the majority of cases the item is not an upgrade for anyone. So yes, if I see something I could use for whatever reason I hit need. If someone feels that they could make better use of the item they are free to whisper me and make their case. The "need" button should probably be re-labelled "want". I think this better expresses the purpose of the button.

 

I prefer simple rules. I pretty much stated my looting system in two sentences, and it handles every scenario that could possibly occur. I'm not going to read a two page essay on how to decide between need/greed/pass. Especially not when ambiguity is introduced - did that trooper roll for himself or his companion???

 

A lot of it does come down to simple greed. Many people just cannot handle not winning loot. How else to explain why so many people raged at the initial story mode loot system in ops? A perfectly fair and simple system that was taken out because of greed.

 

Anyways, happy looting to all.

 

If that is how you want to run, state it at the beginning and all is well. You may have people drop, you may not. I'm ok with that. That is not the topic though, or at least not the underlying issue.

[Urael]

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.

 

I disagree that what was presented was "THE default rules". Where are these default rules written down? On whos authority are they the default rules? There are no default rules. This is why it is prudent for the group leader to present the set of rules up front when encountering strangers for clarity's sake. I KNOW that what many present are the social convention and personally if I am not the leader of a group I ask for a specific item. TBH, if the game has any amount of loot control and I am the leader I don't set things up as a FFA because of the very reasons that people are arguing in this thread. I also do not "expect" anything when I PUG. I "hope" I may get something or at the very least cover my expenses for grouping (repairs).

 

I don't believe that ALL are selfish antisocial jerks. You may have many factors: age (young), launguage barrier, newbieness ( real ignorance to the norms ), etc. If a person after careful explanation continues to behave poorly to the group then and only then are they as you describe. That is why there is vote kick and ignore.

Edited March 20, 2013 by Urael

[codycroft]

Of for crying out loud.

 

Again, they are social norms because two decades of people playing MMO's had these discussions before, over and over again. The majority of times, they came to the agreement of standard need/greed rules. That is why they are the social norm.

 

If you want to change the norm, say so. Don't get surprised though, if people don't want to, and don't be surprised if they don't want to group with you.

[RLWalker]

If that is how you want to run, state it at the beginning and all is well. You may have people drop, you may not. I'm ok with that. That is not the topic though, or at least not the underlying issue.

 

By using the group finder tool you are agreeing to the system put in place by BioWare, which is need/greed/pass. I am fine with that system so I will not make any attempt to enforce rules on other people.

[codycroft]

By using the group finder tool you are agreeing to the system put in place by BioWare, which is need/greed/pass. I am fine with that system so I will not make any attempt to enforce rules on other people.

 

By grouping with other people, you are agreeing to mutual rules that govern people in groups. They are well known and common sense rules. BW also put in tools so people who don't like those rules can drop, or groups that have ninja's in their group can kick them.

[keysmachine]

considering tanks in this game are far and few between.

 

me being a tank.. if i ever saw somebody needing for a companion. i would stop in my tracks and ask the person to leave. if they didn't leave i would.. because the thing about it is. i get insta pops and you will have to wait.

 

needing for a companion is actually hurting the overall group. because it is reducing the effectiveness of that group. that's like your tank needing more Armor or a better mod. and then when it finally drops and that can improve his/her effectiveness by 10% you roll for some companion character and thus the group doesn't function at its optimal rate.

 

however the OP's greed and arrogance will never see it as such.

 

as a tank idiots like the OP don't phase me any.

[Emencie]

The OP and anyone else has the right (or option) to roll need on any item that they helped to produce, and to attempt to take that right (or option) away is wrong. Would it be better for all if people followed the "social conventions"? Yes, it would. Could the OP find himself on many ignore lists? Of course he could. That does not make it right for me or anyone else to attempt to take away his right to roll need, and I will defend his right to roll need, even if I choose to follow "social convention".

 

Then you also agree to the right (or option) of the players to kick him from the group and ban him from their groups because he cannot play nice with others. right?

 

So then what is the problem? No one says that the need button should be removed... He exercised his right (or option) to roll need and buck the social norm. And the community (his party) Promptly exercised their right (or option) to not have to play with someone who puts themselves over the community.

 

I guess I'm caught where you seem to be so adamant about the right to 'cheat' someone out of loot. but not adamant about the right to kick that person out of the group for their actions.

[ZionHalcyon]

I disagree that what was presented was "THE default rules". Where are these default rules written down? On whos authority are they the default rules? There are no default rules. This is why it is prudent for the group leader to present the set of rules up front when encountering strangers for clarity's sake. I KNOW that what many present are the social convention and personally if I am not the leader of a group I ask for a specific item. TBH, if the game has any amount of loot control and I am the leader I don't set things up as a FFA because of the very reasons that people are arguing in this thread. I also do not "expect" anything when I PUG. I "hope" I may get something or at the very least cover my expenses for grouping (repairs).

 

I don't believe that ALL are selfish antisocial jerks. You may have many factors: age (young), launguage barrier, newbieness ( real ignorance to the norms ), etc. If a person after careful explanation continues to behave poorly to the group then and only then are they as you describe. That is why there is vote kick and ignore.

 

True, not all are. But nowadays, usually I follow this process if someone needs on an item they don't need.

 

1) Confront - ask them why they did it and explain the social norm to them.

if they are apologetic, and adhere the rest of the run, then all good.

If they don't, on to step 2: kick the jerk.

 

Because if they either act like they can do whatever they want or don't talk at all, chance are they will do it again and ruin the FP for everyone else. And note, I don't wait until a boss to confront them - I pay attention to random drops as well - better to nip it in the bud before a boss loot gets ninja'd.

 

And if they get booted, then step 3 - welcome to my ignore list. I now never have to deal with you again.

 

That's how I roll, and from what I've seen, its how most people handle their business too.

[ChrisMattar]

To be honest I'd boot you in a second and /ignore you. I expect most gamers to react the same.

Like someone said this is common courtesy, you're playing with others, you want all for yourself play a single player game.

First Roll is always for actual need by the character that is currently playing in the group.

You can roll for Alts and Comps if no one actually needs it. In case of need/greed, if your char doesn't need then you all greed and a random will get it.

This is a rule you have to live by in society as a human being.

 

 

 

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

[ScarletBlaze]

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

 

Did you ask before you selected need for a companion if the group was okay with you doing that? Not asking before hand is the problem.

 

Selecting need for a companion should be asked about prior to doing it while the group is being formed. Most groups will only select need for the people on that run for the character they are using.

 

I only select need if is something my shadow actually needs if I am on my shadow. I never select need for a companion or an alt if I am in a pug.

 

Running with guild members can be easier since they know your alts. There have been times in my guild something drops and I know the person has an alt so I suggest they select need. But that is with guild members not pugs

 

When you fail to talk to the group prior about the selecting need for your companion then you are doing something they didn't have the chance to agree or disagree with, then they have the right to kick you for your failure to communicate with them beforehand.

Edited March 20, 2013 by ScarletBlaze

[Ratajack]

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?

 

This is exactly what the majority seem to favor. You are only allowed compensation if the group decides that no one is more deserving than you, even though there would be no compensation without your efforts. Yes, the rest of the group contributed equally and therefore every member should have an equal chance to be compensated. I cannot claim that I did not have an equal chance at being compensated if I choose to roll greed and someone else chooses to roll need, since I CHOSE to roll greed knowing full well that another might roll need.

[Ratajack]

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.

 

I've seen nothing to indicate the OP or the people who support players having the option to roll need for companion expect the rest of the group to follow "social convention" and then "game the system". If anything, it's just the opposite. The OP and those who support players having the option to roll need for their companion would have no problems if the entire group rolled on every drop. Do not claim that because some choose to give up their option to roll need, that those that choose to roll need for their companion are "gaming the system". No one is forcing those to choose to roll greed to do so.

[Risq]

It seems to me like people are getting off topic.

 

First off, you can level to 50 with free quest gear so people saying they need an item to level is false, or at the very least an exaggeration of how much a single item will help them. That is not to say that making immediate use of an item is not a strong argument to hit need.

 

It is far more efficient to hit the need button and sort out conflicts afterwards. This is because in the majority of cases the item is not an upgrade for anyone. So yes, if I see something I could use for whatever reason I hit need. If someone feels that they could make better use of the item they are free to whisper me and make their case. The "need" button should probably be re-labelled "want". I think this better expresses the purpose of the button.

 

I prefer simple rules. I pretty much stated my looting system in two sentences, and it handles every scenario that could possibly occur. I'm not going to read a two page essay on how to decide between need/greed/pass. Especially not when ambiguity is introduced - did that trooper roll for himself or his companion???

 

A lot of it does come down to simple greed. Many people just cannot handle not winning loot. How else to explain why so many people raged at the initial story mode loot system in ops? A perfectly fair and simple system that was taken out because of greed.

 

Anyways, happy looting to all.

 

Excuse me say what now?

 

Let me say this first off, I have 50's that are 6 of the 8 classes available. This isn't to brag but to make my next statement, it takes time to outfit 6 level 50's completely. Or at least well enough that they help a team and not be a burden on them. My two mains (which switch of playing) are my Jedi Guardian and my Commando Healer and this couldn't be more true for either of them.

 

I will never forget a run with another Commando who was healing and I was doing DPS, and when the Tank comes in on a "Hard" Flashpoint run, in fresh blue Recruit gear from the PVP vendor you get once you reach 50 we all knew we were in trouble.

 

That gear is "only" good for starting PVP so you don't get owned too badly, but "NOT" good for flashpoints. It's high on expertise and "not" on endurance or the other base stats.

 

The group fell apart because there was no way the healer could keep him alive and the rest of us at the first door of the "Jedi Prisoner" where you have a room erupt on you. That paper Tank complained the healer wasn't any good because if he was "he could have healed through anything" including his crappy armor.

 

That's the argument you're using here. That no one "need" gear to be better. Actually you're wrong.

 

Better gear helps you hit harder, take less damage, heal better, do "more" damage, etc at the upper level FP. Other wise the end level vendor would all sell the same gear. PVP vendors would only have one tier not 3.

 

But for you to argue that no one "needs" better gear they just want it, suggest to me that you've either never played the upper level content or you do and you make the poor healer devote more time to keeping you alive than he/she should need too.

[Lostpenguins]

This is exactly what the majority seem to favor. You are only allowed compensation if the group decides that no one is more deserving than you, even though there would be no compensation without your efforts. Yes, the rest of the group contributed equally and therefore every member should have an equal chance to be compensated. I cannot claim that I did not have an equal chance at being compensated if I choose to roll greed and someone else chooses to roll need, since I CHOSE to roll greed knowing full well that another might roll need.

What? You did have an equal chance to be compensated - Before the loot dropped. At the point that the loot dropped and it wasn't matching your toon's needs, it therefore diminished your qualifications to receive that loot.

 

You seem to think that your 25% contribution in a 4-man group means your 25% view is greater than the 75% view that is against you rolling. And that's where you're wrong.

 

If you find a group that all think like you, then feel free to follow that logic, but since your view is in a minority, you play by their rules or face a group-kick. Fair enough?

[Elyssandra]

It is far more efficient to hit the need button and sort out conflicts afterwards.

No

 

This is because in the majority of cases the item is not an upgrade for anyone.

Untrue. An item that's not an upgrade for anyone is not a need (since noone needs it) but a greed roll.

 

So yes, if I see something I could use for whatever reason I hit need. If someone feels that they could make better use of the item they are free to whisper me and make their case.

How about you greed loot that's not an upgrade for you so the person who can use it on their characters can need it and don't have to whisper you to "make their case"?

 

The "need" button should probably be re-labelled "want".

No. Greed = want.

 

What do you use the greed button for anyway? Decoration? Or do you have a "simple loot rule" like need on everything, greed on every tenth item?

 

 

the group leader to present the set of rules up front when encountering strangers for clarity's sake.

No I lead a minimum of three ops groups every week, and often other groups as well e.g. Xeno. Unless for some reason wer'e deviating from the norm I do NOT discuss rules each time I am forming.

 

I have enough to do without catering to people who perhaps through taking up residence under rocks, somehow managed to reach 50, without finding out what's considered the norm.

 

loot control ... FFA

Loot should never be set to FFA unless you're grouping with people you trust completely. FFA allows anyone in the group to loot everything.

Loot should be set to Round robin or master looter.

[RLWalker]

Should the goal of this discussion not be to develop a set of rules that makes looting easy and conflict free?

 

It seems many people are here just to have an argument or vent their frustration at losing a roll.

[Emencie]

It is possible to be in the majority and still be a jerk in a crowd of jerks.

No argument here... WoW's group finder made it clear that jerks make jerks, make jerks, make jerks.

 

That sounds like a person that would vote kick a player for rolling need for a companion and then blacklist that player because he did not conform to their expectations. By your own definition that would make many players jerks.

I disagree here. since everyone has said over and over again just say something and its fine. Adhere to the social norm and if you need to break it just say so and your reason. It's socially accepted to stand in line at the post office... but if a person with a need, needs to step in front of me and asks me then I, and most people will have no problem with that social norm being broken. that is what the people in this thread are saying. There is nothing wrong with rolling need for a companion. The problem is rolling need for a companion over another player with an air of entitlement that you and your needs are more important than anyone else.

1) Confront - ask them why they did it and explain the social norm to them.

if they are apologetic, and adhere the rest of the run, then all good.

If they don't, on to step 2: kick the jerk.

 

Because if they either act like they can do whatever they want or don't talk at all, chance are they will do it again and ruin the FP for everyone else.

I'm starting to agree with others here... you are just being contrary for no reason.

 

Using the "right" to click need is a right you seen to have the need to fight for even when the offender does not inform the group that this is their intent.

 

But using the "right" to kick someone makes a group a bunch of jerks to you. Even if that group tells the offender outright that this is the penalty for their actions.

[Ratajack]

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.

 

No. I'm not trying to put all the blame on one side. I'm trying to prevent all the blame being put upon the OP when NEITHER of the two groups took the time to establish ground rules. This is why I've said multiple times the GROUP should take the time to set ground rules before the run starts, not just the person who might roll need for his companion or the person who assumes that 'social convention" will be the rule. You cannot avoid the blame by claiming that someone didn't take action when you could have taken action yourself.

[Elyssandra]

Should the goal of this discussion not be to develop a set of rules that makes looting easy and conflict free?

 

The set of rules has been clearly articulated by everyone but five people across 43 pages.

Edited March 20, 2013 by Elyssandra

[Lostpenguins]

I've seen nothing to indicate the OP or the people who support players having the option to roll need for companion expect the rest of the group to follow "social convention" and then "game the system". If anything, it's just the opposite. The OP and those who support players having the option to roll need for their companion would have no problems if the entire group rolled on every drop. Do not claim that because some choose to give up their option to roll need, that those that choose to roll need for their companion are "gaming the system". No one is forcing those to choose to roll greed to do so.

No one is forcing them, but they're doing it on an assumption for mutual benefit and group harmony in accordance with standard MMO rules of etiquette. There is no exploit that the player is making my rolling need on anything. It's not a ban-able offense. But it's a MMO/social taboo.

 

Why are you fighting it so hard? No one is disagreeing with you and saying that it's an exploit. However, all of us arguing with you agree that it comes off as selfish or rude to do so and most people in here would tell the person to not do that or kick them if they didn't comply.

 

So what's the point here that you're making? I think we're on willing to concede that you have a right to it. But, just as in real life, "the right" doesn't make you "right". It means you're not getting banned from the game. That's all. But you're hurting your social standing in this game. That's it.