Selecting need for loot

[Ratajack]

The game allows you to roll, and it allows players to make a judgement call on what is acceptable practice and what is not.

 

That it does. My judgement call is that everyone who participates in the fight has the right to roll and if anyone tries to deny another player the right to roll, I will attempt to vote to kick. I generally only roll need for a direct upgrade for my character, as I have said. That is my personal choice. I do not begrudge anyone the chance to roll on any loot they helped to produce. The fact that my trooper uses aim does not entitle me to that aim chest piece over the smuggler who could use it for corso.

 

Maybe I'm just used to playing with a slightly more mature class of player.

[Eillack]

Wow what a jerk the OP is. I feel for those teammates that have to deal with someone with this attitude. You never "need" on a companion unless you ask and your team says it is cool. Edited March 17, 2013 by Eillack

[Wraiven]

Wow; unbelievable responses here. My take: If you're in a group of four, you should generally take home about a quarter of the loot. Except for those few items that bind on pickup, if someone else in the group really needs it, they are welcome to ask! I have sometimes rolled very well early in a mission, and so I'll then pass on many of the loots just to give others the opportunity to pull their share. But, I've never had someone fuss about the results of a roll; that's just absurd. We'll sometimes congratulate the winner of a roll as the rest of us quietly drool over the won item.

 

You have to remember that the ages of the players of this game vary tremendously, and some are less mature than others. I guess the question you really have to ask yourself is whether you want to be part of a group that behaves in such an immature fashion. For me, I'd surely select "pass" on that one.

 

Really? You select need on stuff just because you feel like you are entitled to a quarter of the loot? I'm willing to bet you have a hard time getting groups in the group finder. You roll need on your class only...not your companion. If you do otherwise, I'm 100% positive you get kicked on a regular basis. I find it hard to believe you are shocked at the responses in this thread. None of the responses I have read indicate anyone's age. The responses show me a rather mature a polite audience. They have something you obviously do not, common courtesy, which in itself shows a sign of maturity. You and the OP obviously have zero common courtesy, which indicates to me not your intelligence, but your maturity level.

Edited March 17, 2013 by Wraiven

[HoboWithAStick]

That it does. My judgement call is that everyone who participates in the fight has the right to roll and if anyone tries to deny another player the right to roll, I will attempt to vote to kick. I generally only roll need for a direct upgrade for my character, as I have said. That is my personal choice. I do not begrudge anyone the chance to roll on any loot they helped to produce. The fact that my trooper uses aim does not entitle me to that aim chest piece over the smuggler who could use it for corso.

 

Maybe I'm just used to playing with a slightly more mature class of player.

 

Lets reverse that for a sec, pretend someone rolls and take something you could clearly use. Now how does it feel? I know you are going to say thats fine he won but clearly thats not how you would feel.

 

Gearing out companions over peoples main is just greedy, if you want to gear companions go run a ev or kp story/hm and don't take anyone that needs gear state its a companion gearing run.

 

Look at it how you want to, its ninja looting, its greedy and greasy.

[Ratajack]

Really? You select need on stuff just because you feel like you are entitled to a quarter of the loot? I'm willing to bet you have a hard time getting groups in the group finder. You roll need on your class only...not your companion. If you do otherwise, I'm 100% positive you get kicked on a regular basis. I find it hard to believe you are shocked at the responses in this thread. None of the responses I have read indicate anyone's age. The responses show me a rather mature a polite audience. They have something you obviously do not, common courtesy, which in itself shows a sign of maturity. You and the OP obviously have zero common courtesy, which indicates to me not your intelligence, but your maturity level.

 

Actually, the concept of using someone's help and then denying them the opportunity to benefit from their efforts is far from polite. It is an extremely entitled attitude.

 

If your work group completes a project jointly, and earns a major bonus, do you feel that you none of the rest of the group are entitled to the bonus because you deserve it more or have a car payment to make? How would you feel if another member of the group told you that you get no bonus because another member deserved it more? After all, if a member of the group has a car payment to make this week and your car payment isn't due for another two weeks, wouldn't the polite thing to do be to let the person who needs it now have it?

[Ratajack]

Lets reverse that for a sec, pretend someone rolls and take something you could clearly use. Now how does it feel? I know you are going to say thats fine he won but clearly thats not how you would feel.

 

Gearing out companions over peoples main is just greedy, if you want to gear companions go run a ev or kp story/hm and don't take anyone that needs gear state its a companion gearing run.

 

Look at it how you want to, its ninja looting, its greedy and greasy.

 

If you had read my entire post, you would already know the answer to that question. I'll say it again and highlight the improtant part you missed or ignored.

 

That it does. My judgement call is that everyone who participates in the fight has the right to roll and if anyone tries to deny another player the right to roll, I will attempt to vote to kick. I generally only roll need for a direct upgrade for my character, as I have said. That is my personal choice. I do not begrudge anyone the chance to roll on any loot they helped to produce. The fact that my trooper uses aim does not entitle me to that aim chest piece over the smuggler who could use it for corso.

 

Maybe I'm just used to playing with a slightly more mature class of player.

 

 

I meant every word I said. If a player participates in the fight, he is entitled to a chance at the loot that drops, whether or not he will use it for his "character". Even if he only wants to vendor the loot, he still is entitled to a chance to roll and I will not deny him that opportunity. If my trooper loses that aim chest piece to the smuggler, I know the chest piece will drop again, or something better will. It is not the end of the world.

 

Maybe I'm just from a different generation.

[Samy_Merchi]

Lets reverse that for a sec, pretend someone rolls and take something you could clearly use. Now how does it feel? I know you are going to say thats fine he won but clearly thats not how you would feel.

I would feel exactly the same as I would if someone rolled and took something I could clearly use, for their own character's feet. I lose the item either way. So while yes, I'd be a bit miffed I didn't get the item if somebody needed it for the companion, I'd be just as miffed if they needed it for themselves. Does that mean people should stop needing for themselves?

[Red_rocks]

Your argument is invalid, 3 of the 4 players in the group are choosing Greed for companions and Need for themselves.

 

You are choosing Need for companions and Need for yourself.

 

You are deeming yourself more important than the other 3 people in the group and probability WILL work out in the long run that you get MORE LOOT than everyone else.

 

It may not happen on this run because of the RNG which makes you feel more entitled to continue your SCUMMERY

but you will get more loot than everyone else.

 

Congrats scumbag.

[oaceen]

Social conventions in this game with the companion system have developed to the point where Need is for you, Greed is sale or companions. If you choose to flout those conventions, then expect the other players to kick you.

 

just quoting this again and pointing out that it was on the fourth response.

 

the thread should have stopped there tbh.

[dacentabaal]

Well... I'm unsure about other players.. but the social convention I use in FP's (HM) is simple, if I personally need an item i'll "Need" on it (although 9/10 I have full BH gear waiting for my characters at 50 so its rare I "Need") otherwise I "Greed" on everything even if my companion needs gearing up becase the rule is.. "Need" for yourself, "Greed" for a comp or Alt. Or I just "Pass" if im with a low geared player who needs it more

 

The only other time I "Need" on an item is when there is a a muppet in the group who just wants to "Need" on it for an alt or to vendor for credits (yeah had that a few times).

 

So simply: If i'm in a group with you and you "Need" for a crap excuse then you're either getting vote kicked from the group or everyone will "Need" to spite you and Trade back to the player who actually needed it.

Edited March 17, 2013 by dacentabaal

[Andryah]

Im certainly not going to cry over it if someone else wins it.

 

Then don't cry about it if they decide to boot you from the group for needing items they could have used on their actual character. It goes both ways.

 

For all intents and purposes.... your companion IS part of your chracter except when you are in groups. Solo and duo play is tuned around your companions and you.

 

In any event... loot roll discussions and companions is a long standing circular firing squad on the forum. I will admit however that I have not seen it active in the forum for a while.

 

OP, the real issue here is not YES/NO on rolling need for companions.... it IS that a group should briefly discuss and agree on what the need/greed rules for the instance will be...and EVERYONE follow what is agreed to. If there is not discussion and no agreement up front... then shame on the group leader and people can/should roll on anything they and their companion can use.

 

/2-cents

Edited March 17, 2013 by Andryah

[Andryah]

Social conventions in this game with the companion system have developed to the point where Need is for you, Greed is sale or companions. If you choose to flout those conventions, then expect the other players to kick you. These are unwritten rules, just like not queue-jumping at a bus stop is an unwritten rule, but still one that the other people around you expect to be obeyed.

 

While I do not disagree with this specifically... it is based on common assumption and is going to bump up against problems in random grouping. In random grouping in MMOs... it is highly presumptuous to assume "unwritten rules" are in any way binding in any random group.

 

Ima say it again.... if a group leader and his group cannot take 2 minutes to discuss the loot rules for the run and agree... it' a bad group leader and a disaster waiting to happen. It's not only a better soical convention in an MMO, it's the mature and polite thing to do.

Edited March 17, 2013 by Andryah

[Red_rocks]

Your companion did not contribute in any way to the flashpoint so why should he get loot over people who helped complete the flashpoint?

 

Please explain how 3 people greeding for companions and needing for themselves, and 1 self entitled *** needing for companions and needing for himself is fair on the first 3 people?

[Paokzu]

And the group has the right to vote kick them and put them on ignore.

 

^ Because I will look at your gear. Most ppl have the decency to ask if anyone needs before hittin the button, and others usually say nope, go for it. But you can be a d-bag and need on things that others may need. That rep will follow you.

[Hyfy]

Can't say for anyone else or their guild but in general we will ask first if we can roll need for our companion. Even amongst other guildies. Common courtesy. If we can use it for ourselves most definitely need on it. If we will end up using it on our companion then we'll just ask. Takes two seconds really.

[Ratajack]

Your companion did not contribute in any way to the flashpoint so why should he get loot over people who helped complete the flashpoint?

 

Please explain how 3 people greeding for companions and needing for themselves, and 1 self entitled *** needing for companions and needing for himself is fair on the first 3 people?

 

The PLAYER contributed to the kill. The PLAYER has the right to roll on the loot. Trying to separate the player and the companion is simply an attempt to justify an entitled attitude, in my opinion.

 

You are also assuming that 3 of the 4 people are rolling greed for companions and we all know what happens when you assume. There may be 3 people who choose to roll need for companions and one who chooses to roll greed. If a player chooses to roll greed, that is his choice, but that does not in any way mean that every player must roll greed. I personally choose to roll greed unless it is an upgrade for my character, but that does not mean that I expect everyone to do the same. If they do, great. If they choose to roll need, that is their right and I do not begrudge them that right, nor do I attempt to vote kick or otherwise "punish" them. As I said before, I know that piece will drop again, or something better.

 

In that other game that shall not be mentioned, I had to run and instance 43 times before I won the caster shield I needed for my shaman. Not only did it seldom drop, I lost 4 rolls before I finally won it. I congratulated everyone who won it before me, even the two pally tanks. I did win it eventually.

[Samy_Merchi]

Your companion did not contribute in any way to the flashpoint so why should he get loot over people who helped complete the flashpoint?

Does the amount of contribution matter? If it does, then what if the companion contributes more than the player? I've been on flashpoints with three players and one companion. If the companion contributed as much as any of the players, does that change things? Is it okay to Need for the companion then? How about if the companion contributes *more* than the player's own character (say, a healer companion and a player who keeps idling)? In that case, would one have to Need for the companion and Greed for the player's own character, since the former contributed more?

[ericterminator]

main character always first if someone need the gear and you need for companion this is not good you get companion gear doing quest if you would do that in a raid you will be kick out so fast. if you don't understand that well I don't know what to say

[Doctoglethorpe]

For now on I'm gonna entitle myself to two slices of cake whenever I'm at a party, cause you know I gotta take a slice home to the dog, he's a hungry boy.

 

As far as I'm concerned I'd much rather my dog get cake then any of those pesty friends of mine, even the ones that are too broke to afford taco bell. They don't need that cake any more then my dog does. In fact I bet my dog wants it even more then they do. Have you seen my dog eat?

Edited March 17, 2013 by Doctoglethorpe

[-IceHawk-]

It is entirely within your rights to Roll Need on anything, for any reason.

 

It is also entirely within the rights of your community to determine they are not interested in playing with you.

 

This is the basic functional level of inter-personal relationship we refer to as "Societal Standards." You need not follow said standards, however you are a member of a community and therefore are not free of consequences for your actions.

 

In short, act as you will, you have the liberty.

 

Keep in mind however, so do the other players.

[Jonrobbie]

It is entirely within your rights to Roll Need on anything, for any reason.

 

It is also entirely within the rights of your community to determine they are not interested in playing with you.

 

This is the basic functional level of inter-personal relationship we refer to as "Societal Standards." You need not follow said standards, however you are a member of a community and therefore are not free of consequences for your actions.

 

In short, act as you will, you have the liberty.

 

Keep in mind however, so do the other players.

 

Fair enough, I just find it immature that there are certain gamers who believe that they have a sense of entitlement over other gamers for something which everyone worked together to find. There is no terms of service or rule by developers design that says you cant need for your companion. And I dont believe that everyone should live by some unwritten rule on this mmo that some gamers presume every gamer should supposedly be aware of. Companions are in my view critical to the entire gameplay experience, not just to one specific flashpoint, so i dont see why I cant choose need, but then, if they want to put me on ignore all the power to them

Edited March 17, 2013 by Jonrobbie

[Jonrobbie]

Its not so much the fact that they might put me on ignore, thats fine if they want to do that, but rather their reaction towards me winning a roll. If someone wins a roll on something i tried for, then hey cool good for them, no problem.

 

But heaven forbid if i win it i hear nothing short of childish and pathetic comments of fair play, name calling and how im not playing fair.

Cant they just get a grip

[Ratajack]

Fair enough, I just find it immature that there are certain gamers who believe that they have a sense of entitlement over other gamers for something which everyone worked together to find. There is no terms of service or rule by developers design that says you cant need for your companion. And I dont believe that everyone should live by some unwritten rule on this mmo that some gamers presume every gamer should supposedly be aware of But then, if they want to put me on ignore all the power to them

 

That is what it boils down to at its most basic-a false sense of entitlement on the part of the players who want to decide who has the right to roll on gear and do everything they can to make sure they get that new shiny and not someone else without whom that new shiny would not even exist. They can disguise it with phrases like "social conventions" or "character before companion", but it all amounts to the same thing-entitlement.

 

Hypothetically, Player A rolls greed for his companion but supports Player B's right to roll need on loot they both helped to produce with the rest of the group. Neither one is attempting to dictate that Player C cannot roll need because without Player C that loot would not exist. Player C wants to be the only one who rolls need so he is guaranteed that new shiny that only exists due to the help of others. Which player has a false sense of entitlement?

[-IceHawk-]

You violated a basic stricture of SWTOR-etiquette, and one I am doubtful you were ignorant of.

 

To be blunt, the gear that drops in Hard Mode Flashpoints and Operations are for Endgame Content; therefore the argument that you need said gear for your companion, whom you cannot use in the content said gear is designed for, is fallacious.

 

You are complaining that you were, rightly mind you, censured for your blatantly selfish and anti-social behavior.

 

You were and are in the wrong.

[Aebrynis]

the OP is a troll,he fooled you all so i'm going to give him a 8.5/10

 

This was my immediate thought, as well. Bumped to 9/10 for stretching the 'discussion' out to 5 pages.