Selecting need for loot

[Ratajack]

Of course, this works in reverse, too.

 

If you pull out your super companion, then it isn't going to need any gear.

 

Remember, there's always Greed. If no player toon currently in the flashpoint can get a direct gear upgrade the loot drop, then it would be a Greed roll.

 

And as some of the other posters mentioned, there's always the option of saying, "Hey, can I have this for xxx reason?"

 

I believe that may be a part of the logic of that mindset. If I use my companion when we are short a player, then I do not have to worry about possibly losing my gear to a companion, even if that companion contributed in the instance. My companion may be better geared than your companion. It may be that your companion may be better geared than mine, but I can always claim the "presence" buff negates better gear. Either way, I do not have to worry about losing MY gear to your companion.

[Elyssandra]

Ideally, there indeed wouldn't be any player interaction regarding loot distribution. Simply give the same piece to everybody.

Excellent we have gone beyond SWTOR and are now discussing a hypothetical game where everyone gets a copy of the same item...

 

I'm not one of those slackers who needs gear from leveling flashpoints for the stats.

And have proceeded into a game where people who need upgraded gear through content are slackers...

please continue...

 

Got a problem with my smuggler getting that heavy aim gear? Too bad, if you needed it for the stats then I was probably already carrying you, so stop the complaints..

Great attitude. You must have many friends...

To all the folks who use the "I'm carrying XYZ" argument - please feel free not to carry anyone.

If you're that leet, run the content by yourself.

If you can't run it by yourself, you needed that other person to finish the content - ergo no carrying done... thank you very much.

Don't ever think you can group with someone and then deny them upgrade loot because in your mind, you're carrying them.

[RLWalker]

Excellent we have gone beyond SWTOR and are now discussing a hypothetical game where everyone gets a copy of the same item...

 

 

And have proceeded into a game where people who need upgraded gear through content are slackers...

please continue...

 

 

Great attitude. You must have many friends...

To all the folks who use the "I'm carrying XYZ" argument - please feel free not to carry anyone.

If you're that leet, run the content by yourself.

If you can't run it by yourself, you needed that other person to finish the content - ergo no carrying done... thank you very much.

Don't ever think you can group with someone and then deny them upgrade loot because in your mind, you're carrying them.

 

Perhaps a new system is needed then?

 

Because the system that is advocated by you is:

 

A) Use a mind-reading device to determine if the other people in the group think you can hit need.

B) Should you not correctly predict the thoughts of other people (or you ran out of batteries for your mind-reading device) you are immediately branded a loot ninja, kicked from the group and ignored, followed by harassment on the fleet.

 

Yep, that's a great system.

[Khevar]

I believe that may be a part of the logic of that mindset. If I use my companion when we are short a player, then I do not have to worry about possibly losing my gear to a companion, even if that companion contributed in the instance. My companion may be better geared than your companion. It may be that your companion may be better geared than mine, but I can always claim the "presence" buff negates better gear. Either way, I do not have to worry about losing MY gear to your companion.

Well, for me personally, this point is a moot one. I've never needed on gear for a companion, whether or not they were present.

 

However, I have been in pugs where a Need argument for companions broke out, and I attempted to mediate it with the position of: "You may want that gear for your companion, but Theran isn't here, Captain Jarv'ke did the healing for us and can use those Smuggler Columi pants"

Edited March 20, 2013 by Khevar

[hallucigenocide]

did'nt bother to read all 54 pages but.. here's a though since comps are a big part of the game and alot feel that they should be able to need for them aswell.. why not add another button? then it could be like need/ comp need/ greed

and just make it so that you cannot pick need on an item that does'nt have your stats.

[Ratajack]

Excellent we have gone beyond SWTOR and are now discussing a hypothetical game where everyone gets a copy of the same item...

 

 

 

What would be wrong with this solution, especially in story mode FP's? I ask out of curiosity. This solution would give that bounty hunter that aim chest piece upgrade and would also allow that operative to upgrade Kaliyo's chest piece. Even the people who can't use it for a companion could vendor it for a few credits. Everybody wins and there should be no drama.

[XuShaBi]

There is no way you can tell if a player is lying about needing for his character either, since there are at least several classes which would switch character's gear for a companion's. If a player swaps his character's gear for companion's gear for that new shiny would appear to be an upgrade when in actuality it is for his companion. A trooper's companions all use aim, so any gear the trooper might use could be for almost any one of his companions, the exceptions being M1-4X, the ship droid and possibly HK-51. A smuggler could swap gear with Risha, or an agent could swap gear with Kaliyo. We have no way of knowing if a player is lying. You could say "we could just trust", but then why not trust if a player admits that it is for his companion?

 

The gear check is simply a test which, like all other tests used in this world, have Type 2 error. Despite it having type 2 error, as you have pointed out, it's still extremely useful for many cases i.e. it would restrict force users from rolling need on aim/cunning gear and tech users from strength gear.

 

If you allow need for companion then any possible test would simply be inferior to what we have in terms of minimizing type 2 error. This argument alone shows how ninja looting would be reduced in our current case oppose to what you are advocating.

 

And I have argued nothing about trusting others in the current scheme so bringing such argument smells of brewing a strawman argument.

[Elyssandra]

Because the system that is advocated by you is:

 

A) Use a mind-reading device to determine if the other people in the group think you can hit need.

B) Should you not correctly predict the thoughts of other people (or you ran out of batteries for your mind-reading device) you are immediately branded a loot ninja, kicked from the group and ignored, followed by harassment on the fleet.

 

No.

The loot rules acceptable to the majority have been articulated quite clearly in this thread.

[MillionsKNives]

Perhaps a new system is needed then?

 

Because the system that is advocated by you is:

 

A) Use a mind-reading device to determine if the other people in the group think you can hit need.

B) Should you not correctly predict the thoughts of other people (or you ran out of batteries for your mind-reading device) you are immediately branded a loot ninja, kicked from the group and ignored, followed by harassment on the fleet.

 

Yep, that's a great system.

 

Or, should your mind reading device run out of batteries and you find yourself confused on the loot rules, you could...COMMUNICATE with your teammates! I know it may come as a surprise, but the chat box on your screen wasn't just added so that you can hurl insults at people. No mind reading required.

Edited March 20, 2013 by MillionsKNives

[RLWalker]

Or, should your mind reading device run out of batteries and you find yourself confused on the loot rules, you could...COMMUNICATE with your teammates! I know it may come as a surprise, but the chat box on your screen wasn't just added so that you can hurl insults at people. No mind reading required.

 

I have suggested this in every loot-rage thread I have responded to.

 

The main difference between me and everyone else here is I want the loot roll over and done with right away. Other people want the loot roll to be done absolutely correctly the first time, which means everyone has to stop what they're doing and wait around. At least my way you find out who is a loot whore in 2 seconds rather than 2 minutes.

Edited March 20, 2013 by RLWalker

[Elyssandra]

So... after failing reading comprehension you're back to just saying random stuff again. Is there a cure for that?

 

At least my way you find out who is a loot whore in 2 seconds rather than 2 minutes.

 

Your way =

Need = I want it (any reason!)

Greed = I want to sell it/I don't care

Pass = I don't want crud in my inventory

How does this eliminate "loot whore in 2 seconds"?

 

Let me take a really crazy, wild guess... you don't work in any capacity where you have to respond logically to people.

[XuShaBi]

NOT going to a mitzvah in a Nazi costume is common sense. Its the real world. Something I would not do.

It has real world effects. It has real world consequences. I would not seek to offend someone for the sake of offending them so your comparison is asinine.

 

So do you think those who group with you are droids behind screen? Or are they just people living in a different real world where you don't care about your actions' consequences? If not then your entire attempt to differentiate your actions consequences in game and in real world is entirely mute and pointless... People spend their time to earn the opportunity to roll on gear which they need for their upgrade. So you robbing them the opportunity has real world implication of diminishing other players' reward relative to the spent effort and time in this game.

 

You know it's also common sense that if your group members tell you not to do something then you expect them to be upset if you don't give a damn about it. Or does your common sense definition only works when it fits your needs?

 

Calling my comparison to be asinine doesn't help your case. Why? You offered no consistent reasoning but showing more and more hints of your double standards towards other in dealing with problems.

 

 

How is choosing to roll a decision forced on the entire group? Im not forcing them to click need or greed or pass. The roll makes the decision, not me, i only choose to roll for a chance for the item which means i have an equal chance same as anyone else does who chooses to roll need for it.

 

Stop spinning the issue. The argument is not about the out ex-post result but your ex-ante action and your commitment to flaunt group decided plan of action through democracy. You FORCED your plan to be prioritized over what's agreed through democracy.

 

I think its damning to attempt to enforce some standard or principle on someone else that restricts their freedom of choice. You say its about the group and yet only one person benefits from that item. Not all 4 so stating that one person in particular cannot roll on the item because of some unwritten rule that the others believe is their right and not the other persons is blatant double standards. You say im forcing it onto others by stating that I believe in my freedom of choice? I believe its YOU who are forcing your beliefs onto me by restricting my freedom of choice

 

From what I can tell, you clearly don't tolerate democracy through representative majority. You are free to do so. Just don't complain about the consequences. And, in this case, don't complain about other's kicking you. If you really have any sense of maturity then you should realise you have got your benefits of your action but you will still have to pay for the consequences. No one has the duty to play with you, it's your privilege that other want to play with you. You abuse it then you lose it. It's pure and simple, so stop complaining.

 

You say its far from fair and equal? The roll of the die makes the choice, and everyone has a chance. Thats fair, thats equal, not someone throwing their weight around saying "I deserve this more than you!"

 

You know some think playing the Russian Roulette is a fair and equal way to resolve a conflict. So should we let RNG decide the outcome and pay no respect to the law established by a representative majority?

[RLWalker]

So... after failing reading comprehension you're back to just saying random stuff again. Is there a cure for that?

 

 

 

Your way =

 

How does this eliminate "loot whore in 2 seconds"?

 

Let me take a really crazy, wild guess... you don't work in any capacity where you have to respond logically to people.

 

I'm not sure why you are personally attacking me. Anyways, I reject as reason "society says so". What a terrible argument. Tell me what's so great about your system and I might agree. The OP was perfectly correct to roll need. There is not enough information to decide if he made a mistake by keeping the loot (in all likelihood no one needed it and they kicked him for spite). He certainly made a mistake by posting a thread here.

[Khevar]

I'm not sure why you are personally attacking me. Anyways, I reject as reason "society says so". What a terrible argument. Tell me what's so great about your system and I might agree. The OP was perfectly correct to roll need. There is not enough information to decide if he made a mistake by keeping the loot (in all likelihood no one needed it and they kicked him for spite). He certainly made a mistake by posting a thread here.

Looking past some of your other posts in this thread, I gather this is your viewpoint (please correct me if I've gotten this wrong)

 

1. You, as a player, have decided what you consider you Need and what you don't.

2. You don't force your opinions on others.

3. You don't want someone else to force their opinion on you.

4. If your decision happens to include the fact that your companion needs it, what's the problem?

 

Is that correct?

 

If I have understood you, this is a viewpoint that I've seen before. It is, however, a truly solitary viewpoint.

 

A group functions smoothly when the people in it agree on how to act. It can be beneficial for each person to be in accord, rather than an "every person for themselves."

 

The way I look at it, is there are two parts to this game. 1) The solo experience, 2) The group experience. If you are doing group content, you are doing it to help others, or because you like the social interaction, or perhaps because you couldn't do it alone. There is also content in this game to difficult to do alone and it requires a group.

 

A player toon winning loot makes a better experience for the individual and for the group. A companion winning loot only makes a better experience for the individual (unless the companion is a member of the group).

 

Because if this fact, most players (I say most because it includes almost everyone I've pugged with, as well as most of the people that post on this subject in the forums) have come to the idea that Need is for players, not companions. It's a social convention. It's also less selfish. You're effectively saying, "Hey bud, your main character you have out is more important than my companion sitting back on my ship"

 

By you changing your personal definition of "Need" in this way, you're more in alignment with most groups. It's just good manners.

Edited March 20, 2013 by Khevar

[Bastila-chan]

Well this is a damn good post. I didn't read whole thread but I think Khevar just summed it up.

[TW-Cool]

Need for you and Greed for everything else is what I follow. I'd be afraid to need for a companion anyway.

 

The unwritten rule could be updated to say if you did the flashpoint/operation with your companion out and helping the fight, then it would be fit to need for the companion since the companion was actually an active player in the flashpoint. Otherwise the need button should only be used for the characters currently in the flashpoint. This idea goes along with the fact that you cant trade an item with a person in an op that joined after you made the kill and won a particular item.

[RLWalker]

Looking past some of your other posts in this thread, I gather this is your viewpoint (please correct me if I've gotten this wrong)

 

1. You, as a player, have decided what you consider you Need and what you don't.

2. You don't force your opinions on others.

3. You don't want someone else to force their opinion on you.

4. If your decision happens to include the fact that your companion needs it, what's the problem?

 

Is that correct?

 

Yep, except I personally don't believe that a companion has priority over player. What I want is for people not to flip out over the initial roll. No one should be scared of reprisal because of how they roll. If there is a problem, take it up after in chat or whispers. And always keep an open mind (some people are RPers or don't speak English well, etc.) Sometimes it's best to just let things go.

[imnotawitch]

So, here's a question. I apologize for not reading the entire thread, but did the OP say whether he would mind at all if a group member needed on an upgrade for their companion when the OP could have used it for a major upgrade on his character?

[jorill]

It depends on how you go about it. If you declare at the beginning you want to do need for companions and the group is ok with it then thats fine. If you just do it without asking then it comes across as sneaky and if you wait for other people to roll and then roll need then i would personally kick you from my group.

[Khevar]

Yep, except I personally don't believe that a companion has priority over player. What I want is for people not to flip out over the initial roll. No one should be scared of reprisal because of how they roll. If there is a problem, take it up after in chat or whispers. And always keep an open mind (some people are RPers or don't speak English well, etc.) Sometimes it's best to just let things go.

Well, fair enough. Now, this has been my experience in the pugs I've run:

 

1. Kill mob

2. Loot drops, someone clicks it.

3. Glance over stats, not an upgrade, greed.

4. Oooh, upgrade, need.

5. Move on.

 

When all the players in the instance have this idea, there's no stress, and things go quickly.

[RLWalker]

Well, fair enough. Now, this has been my experience in the pugs I've run:

 

1. Kill mob

2. Loot drops, someone clicks it.

3. Glance over stats, not an upgrade, greed.

4. Oooh, upgrade, need.

5. Move on.

 

When all the players in the instance have this idea, there's no stress, and things go quickly.

 

Same here. The only loot dispute I have personally been involved in was actually over me NOT rolling need on a piece of gear. The poor player was forced to trade me back the gear I had passed on in order for the other players to continue the run. Weird huh?

[Ratajack]

So, here's a question. I apologize for not reading the entire thread, but did the OP say whether he would mind at all if a group member needed on an upgrade for their companion when the OP could have used it for a major upgrade on his character?

 

The OP did, I believe, state in subsequent posts that he has no problem with people rolling need for their companion even if the OP could have used it for his character. Please, someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Edited March 21, 2013 by Ratajack

[ekwalizer]

Need priority should always go to an actual player that will immediately benefit from the item; thereby benefiting the group as a whole.

 

Companions, even if actively being used, aren't really contributing a whole lot. They are following a script. They are incapable of effectively reacting to the environment.

 

The well established social norms of this game are that Need = a direct upgrade for YOU, Greed = Companion/Sales.

 

If you delve too deeply into the argument of needing for companions you end up at the Need for credits argument. "Well, I need it because it sells for 12k cr and I'm trying to buy a <insert whatever>.

[river_of_Gem]

Got a problem with my smuggler getting that heavy aim gear? Too bad, if you needed it for the stats then I was probably already carrying you, so stop the complaints. Be glad that you may end up with something for one of your undergeared companions instead.

 

I won't complain, i kick

[BaronV]

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

 

 

 

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.

 

Okay. As far as im concerned my wants always trump your "needs" so I'll just click need on EVERY SINGLE THING without even thinking about it and when you /w me for an item i won:

 

"please can i have that armour, it will give me +48 endurance +36 mainstat, +12 critical rating, +22 surge rating. whereas you cant even equip it "

 

I will just respond with a simple "NO" m'kay?