Selecting need for loot

[RLWalker]

Just me, but doesn't need rolling only really present a problem if the player is needing every roll? What's so hard about talking with your group? Also we have bind timers for a reason. Nobody in this game is consistently playing with the same loot ninja over and over are they? I'd say any groups that are having issues with loot rolls need to stop, take a breath, and....gasp, communicate. Problem solved.

 

EDIT: I guess my point is there is no "silver bullet" for looting issues and it will always be a situational thing, no matter how right you feel about your stance.

 

An enlightened response.

[cidbahamut]

Even though I feel I'm right, I'm not saying I'm right simply because everyone else agrees with me.

 

My posts at the beginning aren't talking about right or wrong. It's talking about what will happen if you decide to break social taboos. Do you agree or disagree that when you don't adhere to social standards of a community that you will most likely get ostracized and ignored? If you agree, then there's nothing to argue here.

I agree that failing to adhere to social standards will result in backlash. I also adhere to those standards in-game.

 

I simply feel that the social standards could stand to see some renovation.

[Lostpenguins]

I agree that failing to adhere to social standards will result in backlash. I also adhere to those standards in-game.

 

I simply feel that the social standards could stand to see some renovation.

Okay, you're entitled to your opinion. Good luck with that buddy. I think you and I are done discussing as you feel you're right and I feel I'm right. Luckily, the majority sides with me so I don't have to lose out on drop rolls to someone who think his companion's gear is important... lol.

[BaronV]

I said that to enable people to think about the mechanics of what the buttons do without preconceptions.

 

I never said one should need indiscriminately. And yes, it does lead to less conflict because in most cases there is no one that "needs" it according to your definition. Therefore the need button can also separate the people who can use it for some other reason vs. people who will sell it to a vendor.

 

P.S. I do not mean conflict as in a shouting match. I mean that multiple people claim an item and it needs to be resolved.

 

This only works if everybody is on the same page and has the same understanding... the only real difference to the social convention is that it is entirely up to the person who wins the need roll to decide who is "deserving" or not (assuming everyone chose need)

[Elyssandra]

I said that to enable people to think about the mechanics of what the buttons do without preconceptions.

You mean preconceptions like what the button labels mean? lol

 

I never said one should need indiscriminately.

 

if I see something I could use for whatever reason I hit need.

[cidbahamut]

Okay, you're entitled to your opinion. Good luck with that buddy. I think you and I are done discussing as you feel you're right and I feel I'm right. Luckily, the majority sides with me so I don't have to lose out on drop rolls to someone who think his companion's gear is important... lol.

And why shouldn't gearing one's companion be considered important if one places value on it?

 

Why should your desire to gear your character supercede my desire to gear my companion?

[Paltan]

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

 

Seriously, I hope that people will do that to you, your companion is totally secondary, main character should have priorities and it's common sense but hey there is always a selfish person thinking me, me, me. Anyway I will have boot you on the first need for your Character, if another player needed for his main toon!

[Elyssandra]

Why should your desire to gear your character supercede my desire to gear my companion?

 

Because dear sir... Companions, unlike corporations, aren't people!

[cidbahamut]

Because dear sir... Companions, unlike corporations, aren't people!

That's so asinine that I don't know what to say.

Edited March 20, 2013 by cidbahamut

[Vandicus]

And why shouldn't gearing one's companion be considered important if one places value on it?

 

Why should your desire to gear your character supercede my desire to gear my companion?

 

Fine for you to think that way. Its not fine to force people to play with you though, and most people simply don't want to play with people who won't follow the social convention, so deal with the fact that most groups will vote to kick.

[ZionHalcyon]

That's so asinine that I don't know what to say.

 

Asinine is your assertion that you should be able to need roll on comps. Asinine and selfish.

[Lostpenguins]

And why shouldn't gearing one's companion be considered important if one places value on it?

 

Why should your desire to gear your character supercede my desire to gear my companion?

I've already explained this countless times in this thread.

 

Basically, your companion is for solo play but you didn't obtain the loot from solo play. Your companion's gear cannot help the group in the Flashpoint therefore upgrading said gear for your companion only benefits you.

 

I find it sort of a selfish point to take the gear for solo play when someone could use it for all facets of the game: solo play and group play. Therefore, because your companion cannot function in all aspects of the game, they get secondary priority on loot versus someone else who can use the gear all of the time.

 

That's why I feel my needs are greater - because the gear will be used all of the time. If the group did another flashpoint all together afterwards, having the gear go to someone's toon will show in the group with either more dps, better damage reductions, or better healing. However if you took that loot away from someone to give to your companion... are you seeing any improvement in the groups performance? Of course not... because taking it for your companion only benefits you and no one else.

 

And please, don't try to argue that .02% damage reduction isn't noticeable therefore my point isn't valid... the spirit of the statement still holds true and there is a benefit to the group if no one is taking for their companion as a priority. If you really want, say there's a group of 4 people who, after 10 runs, have 0 upgrades because every upgrade for their toon has gone to upgrading someone else's companion. That group, after 10 runs, performs just as poorly as it did before, while the other group, who focused on gearing your toon as a priority, now have several upgrades to help them through the FP's and probably some gear for their companions.

 

Do you not see the benefit to putting companions secondary at that point? Do you not see how "all the time" > "some of the time"?

[RLWalker]

This only works if everybody is on the same page and has the same understanding...

 

Actually it's OK if people have a different understanding. The backup plan is the chat window.

 

the only real difference to the social convention is that it is entirely up to the person who wins the need roll to decide who is "deserving" or not (assuming everyone chose need)

 

Yes! Precisely! There are so many different wants and needs in this game that trying to enumerate and order all of them is a waste of time. I dislike if people hit need for something they are going to sell but I'm not going to make a big deal out of it. Otherwise their reason is as good as mine. If I lose a roll I can whisper them and ask for the item but again it's not a big deal either way. Just for the record I very very rarely hit need. SWTOR doesn't track this but my main WoW character (no longer play WoW) shows 264 need rolls and 5571 greed rolls (pass is not counted but this would be even more than greed). So in all the thousands and thousands of times I could have rolled need, it only happened 264 times. Not everyone that hits need is an evil person.

[Elyssandra]

That's so asinine that I don't know what to say.

 

Awww....

I'm crushed...

 

I was going for witty

And ended up being called asinine by the latin quoting resident wise man (oh I'll have you know those quotes are appropriate and relevant all ye who say otherwise)

 

I'll just go cry in a corner now.

[RLWalker]

You mean preconceptions like what the button labels mean? lol

 

Precisely. You have already assigned meaning to the buttons based on the label text.

 

Contrary to what most people seem to think, I want/need very little.

[Ratajack]

No, equal chance happened before the loot dropped. This is where you're not seeing it clearly.

 

Say there are 10 quarters and you and I are going to flip the coins one at a time and see who gets them. If it's heads, then I get the quarter. If it's tails, you get the quarter. If I win the first 9 quarters, you seem to feel that you should get the last one, regardless of the pre-set rules. You also seem to think that even though it came up heads on the first quarter, that now we should roll to see who gets it.

 

So, think of the quarters as loot drop. There's 10 of them in an instance (this is an example so say there are 10 bosses). I'm a Marauder (Heads) and you're a healing Merc (Tails). The standing social standard of etiquette dictates that I get marauder drops (Medium Armor with dps Str stats) and you get healing merc drops (Heavy Aim armor with healing stats). The boss is killed (the coin is being flipped) and the loot comes up as a Medium Armor with DPS Str stats (it landed heads). That's where your "chance" occurs. But you seem to want to roll off again as if the first "chance" never occurred.

 

See the problem? You're completely forgetting the equal chance occurred BEFORE the loot was identified.

 

As I said before, sure, you are not exploiting anything in this game by rolling need. Even if the group AGREED to the social taboos in writing in the party chat beforehand, you are not getting banned for rolling NEED. That's exactly like a guildmate taking all the stuff from the gbank and gquitting. That's part of the rules that it's not in the rules. But it is in the social rules of etiquette that you're breaking.

 

Do you get it yet?

 

This might be true IF bosses ONLY dropped loot based on the group composition. I have read in this thread that this is supposed to be the way loot if determined, but it is not always the case. As an experiment, I went back and soloed 3 low level instances on my scoundrel, and only one piece if cunning gear dropped. I saw two pairs of aim pants, an aim blaster rifle, a willpower lightsaber, an aim autocannon, an aim chest, a strength light saber, a cunning hat and a strength chest piece. That does not seem to be based on group composition. If it had been, I should have seen only cunning gear drop. Am I correct?.

[cidbahamut]

I've already explained this countless times in this thread.

 

Basically, your companion is for solo play but you didn't obtain the loot from solo play. Your companion's gear cannot help the group in the Flashpoint therefore upgrading said gear for your companion only benefits you.

 

I find it sort of a selfish point to take the gear for solo play when someone could use it for all facets of the game: solo play and group play. Therefore, because your companion cannot function in all aspects of the game, they get secondary priority on loot versus someone else who can use the gear all of the time.

 

That's why I feel my needs are greater - because the gear will be used all of the time. If the group did another flashpoint all together afterwards, having the gear go to someone's toon will show in the group with either more dps, better damage reductions, or better healing. However if you took that loot away from someone to give to your companion... are you seeing any improvement in the groups performance? Of course not... because taking it for your companion only benefits you and no one else.

 

And please, don't try to argue that .02% damage reduction isn't noticeable therefore my point isn't valid... the spirit of the statement still holds true and there is a benefit to the group if no one is taking for their companion as a priority. If you really want, say there's a group of 4 people who, after 10 runs, have 0 upgrades because every upgrade for their toon has gone to upgrading someone else's companion. That group, after 10 runs, performs just as poorly as it did before, while the other group, who focused on gearing your toon as a priority, now have several upgrades to help them through the FP's and probably some gear for their companions.

 

Do you not see the benefit to putting companions secondary at that point? Do you not see how "all the time" > "some of the time"?

I see the logic and value in it, but I disagree with the premise.

 

Basically you're saying that I will never be rewarded for contributing, I will only be allowed to acquire gear solely for the benefit of the group. I find that to be a flawed system. It effectively means that I am prevented from working towards achieving my own goals.

[Lostpenguins]

This might be true IF bosses ONLY dropped loot based on the group composition. I have read in this thread that this is supposed to be the way loot if determined, but it is not always the case. As an experiment, I went back and soloed 3 low level instances on my scoundrel, and only one piece if cunning gear dropped. I saw two pairs of aim pants, an aim blaster rifle, a willpower lightsaber, an aim autocannon, an aim chest, a strength light saber, a cunning hat and a strength chest piece. That does not seem to be based on group composition. If it had been, I should have seen only cunning gear drop. Am I correct?.

That's because it's broken right now and hasn't been fixed. It's either that or they only do that sort of loot system for tokens like Rakata drops and not some random orange/purple drop from bosses.

 

Still, that doesn't hold true only if gear drops based on group composition. That just means the drops that don't apply to any toon get greeded for companions. If someone really wants it for their companion, all they need to do is ask if it's okay and the group would most likely say "yes".

 

You could go back to my analogy and change the coins to 6-sided dice. I'm "1", you're "6", and everything else is up in the air. So, there's a chance that the roll won't benefit either person. That's still where the "equal chance" occurs and where you're obviously refusing to see or, for some reason, can't seem to acknowledge when you keep saying "equal chance".

[Lostpenguins]

I see the logic and value in it, but I disagree with the premise.

 

Basically you're saying that I will never be rewarded for contributing, I will only be allowed to acquire gear solely for the benefit of the group. I find that to be a flawed system. It effectively means that I am prevented from working towards achieving my own goals.

Um, that's a flawed statement. How will you "never be rewarded for contributing"? If you get gear for your main, that benefits the group during group play AND benefits you in solo play. So you're still able to achieve your goals. In fact, getting gear for your toon frees up using comms on yourself during planetary quests that you can now use to upgrade your companion. Sounds like, once again, it's "working towards achieving [your] own goals."

 

Seriously, how can you not see this. It's mind-boggling.

Edited March 20, 2013 by Lostpenguins

[Elyssandra]

Precisely. You have already assigned meaning to the buttons based on the label text.

 

OK I'm willing to go out on a limb and guess that the buttons are labelled precisely for this reason - so we can assign meanings to them.

As opposed to having say a pink button and a blue button or two grey buttons with randomly changing hieroglyphs...

 

Why not take a time out and actually think about your position rather than just typing random contradictory stuff?

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

Forget about the names on the buttons.

 

if I see something I could use for whatever reason I hit need.

If you want something you should hit need.

I never said one should need indiscriminately.

[shadowrouge]

I did not men to imply that the OP had no responsibility to try to set ground rules, or that the OP had no share of the blame. My only intent was to point out that the OP did not deserve the entire blame. Both sides need to shoulder their share of blame for the lack of communication. I have said the GROUP should establish rules before the run.

 

Then perhaps you should have worded it differently. Instead of saying " Its not Everyone's responsibility to inform" you should have said it IS every ones responsibility to inform.

[RLWalker]

OK I'm willing to go out on a limb and guess that the buttons are labelled precisely for this reason - so we can assign meanings to them.

As opposed to having say a pink button and a blue button or two grey buttons with randomly changing hieroglyphs...

 

Why not take a time out and actually think about your position rather than just typing random contradictory stuff?

 

I think you need to go back and read my posts again. I was proposing that people hitting need in cases where they want something will lead to more efficient loot distribution. Unfortunately some people could not get past the fact that need is written on the label, so I suggested that they pretend that there were no labels at all. Or if you wish, pink/blue or random hieroglyphics.

[Ratajack]

That's because it's broken right now and hasn't been fixed. It's either that or they only do that sort of loot system for tokens like Rakata drops and not some random orange/purple drop from bosses.

 

Still, that doesn't hold true only if gear drops based on group composition. That just means the drops that don't apply to any toon get greeded for companions. If someone really wants it for their companion, all they need to do is ask if it's okay and the group would most likely say "yes".

 

You could go back to my analogy and change the coins to 6-sided dice. I'm "1", you're "6", and everything else is up in the air. So, there's a chance that the roll won't benefit either person. That's still where the "equal chance" occurs and where you're obviously refusing to see or, for some reason, can't seem to acknowledge when you keep saying "equal chance".

 

But your argument of "the player already lost the roll when the piece of loot with another player's stats on it dropped" then becomes invalid. There cannot be a "first roll" to lose if the loot is not based on group composition. The marauder cannot win the "first roll" if the loot is not generated based on group composition, but in a totally random manner based on the boss's loot table. Therefore the only roll that matters is the need/greed roll and that is the one in which "social convention" denies or takes away from a player the option to roll need for a companion.

[river_of_Gem]

In congratulation that this thread reach page 50, i will tell a story ( i would sing if i can but i am a terrible singer )

 

We ran KUS HM today and got a Sage healer that keep rolled NEED on everything and said he need it for his companion ( i wonder if he's from this thread lol ) but we said nothing and move on to the end. After we down the final boss, when i was about to start a vote kick, the other dps was already start ones and bam, this ninja was kicked, so it seem i am not the only 1 don't like ninja in FP

 

After this run, i queued again for gigles and got an instant pop ( being a tank have it perk ) then we have this healer again ! This time i vote kick him right at start and tell everyone he's a ninja, so now he got kicked twice from HM FP and end up on ignore list of 7 ppl

 

For all ninja in this thread, keep on your good work, it really entertaint me

 

ps : in b4 story bro cool

[cidbahamut]

Um, that's a flawed statement. How will you "never be rewarded for contributing"? If you get gear for your main, that benefits the group during group play AND benefits you in solo play. So you're still able to achieve your goals. In fact, getting gear for your toon frees up using comms on yourself during planetary quests that you can now use to upgrade your companion. Sounds like, once again, it's "working towards achieving [your] own goals."

 

Seriously, how can you not see this. It's mind-boggling.

 

The motivation is not to compensate me for my time and effort. I get gear, but only inasmuch as it directly benefits the group.

Instead of a scenario like: "Oh, you helped out so you get some loot",

we have the following: "Oh look, this specific piece of gear that will increase your DPS has dropped. This is what you can have regardless of whether or not it's what you actually wanted."

 

The whole thing is framed in specifics of gear and stats. I'd like a system that recognizes an individual's contributions and allows them to make their own judgements about what they'd like their compensation to be. If I value some sweet looking orange body piece for a companion over a marginal upgrade piece for my character, I should be able to make that judgement call without being scorned for it. The system in place as it is right now would consistently deny me access to that until literally no one else wanted it, rather than just letting the people who actually want the item to take a shot at it.

 

I concede the point regarding freeing up commendations for further kitting out yourself and companions. Gearing in one place frees up resources to gear up elsewhere. It's some consolation I suppose.