Selecting need for loot

[BaronV]

. If either one or both are fighting over armor that is weaker than what they can wear, then I'm not even sure what to say about people who will gimp their stats to "look cool".

 

You obviously dont play on an RP server

 

Ive personally spent over a million credits on my main to ensure that she looks cool and also has uber stats. And sometimes more than one outfit too

 

When there is ambiguity JUST ASK?? Why is that so hard a concept to get???!

[RLWalker]

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?

 

So the only reason you wouldn't hit need on everything is the fear of punishment?

 

Look, all I'm saying is that there are other reasons to need gear other than for upgrades. If you're on your 40th run of a flashpoint looking for something for Kaliyo, then yeah go ahead and need it. If you need on everything I certainly won't think highly of you.

[NSViper]

Simple solution, "ask in group" - "can i need for companion" - simple yes/no will suffice...

 

What really cranks my gears is when PUG HM FP members hit need on everything....

[BaronV]

So the only reason you wouldn't hit need on everything is the fear of punishment?

 

Look, all I'm saying is that there are other reasons to need gear other than for upgrades. If you're on your 40th run of a flashpoint looking for something for Kaliyo, then yeah go ahead and need it. If you need on everything I certainly won't think highly of you.

 

my post was to show the fallacy of your position that everyone press need and the person who wins the roll then decides who is "most deserving" In your way of doing things, the person SHOULD be hitting need on everything - he is then using his judgement to determine that what he wants the loot for is "more deserving" than what you want the loot for in every single instance.

 

To refresh your memory my post was in response to you saying this:

 

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.

 

which you posted in response to

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)

[BaronV]

So the only reason you wouldn't hit need on everything is the fear of punishment?

 

No the reason I dont hit need on everything is that I respect and agree with the social convention and am not looking to deprive my group members at their fair chance at loot I do not require to enhance my character. In the event that i wish to take something that most people would expect me to hit greed on i always ask them if i can hit need. Most of the times they say sure, other times someone says "I need it"

 

But if there was no fear of consequences there are many many people out there all too happy to just grab everything for themselves, just because they can

Edited March 21, 2013 by BaronV

[Ratajack]

my post was to show the fallacy of your position that everyone press need and the person who wins the roll then decides who is "most deserving" In your way of doing things, the person SHOULD be hitting need on everything - he is then using his judgement to determine that what he wants the loot for is "more deserving" than what you want the loot for in every single instance.

 

 

So, your way (and social convention) is to decide who is "most deserving" BEFORE the roll?

[BaronV]

So, your way (and social convention) is to decide who is "most deserving" BEFORE the roll?

 

My way (which is the social convention) is to let the group as a whole decide who is "most deserving" and in the case that there is none let everyone have a fair chance at the RNG giving the loot to them.

[RLWalker]

In the event that i wish to take something that most people would expect me to hit greed on i always ask them if i can hit need. Most of the times they say sure, other times someone says "I need it"

 

And I'm saying that in this case just hit need. If you lose the roll, you lost. If you win and someone says they need it more, then trade it to them. Simple.

[BaronV]

And I'm saying that in this case just hit need. If you lose the roll, you lost. If you win and someone says they need it more, then trade it to them. Simple.

 

And what's to stop me from refusing to give the item anyway? I rolled fairly for it in your way of doing things, why should'nt I be allowed to keep it? After all I have decided that no matter what reason you give, my need always trumps yours!

[RLWalker]

And what's to stop me from refusing to give the item anyway? I rolled fairly for it in your way of doing things, why should'nt I be allowed to keep it? After all I have decided that no matter what reason you give, my need always trumps yours!

 

As long as the need/greed/pass system exists there is potential for abuse. Nothing can stop that - not even "society".

 

At this point I think we can say that we disagree. Maybe in the future BioWare will switch to a "bag of crap" solution, that is utterly boring but prevents conflicts.

 

Edit: Just to be clear, my distaste for all these "social conventions" is that they are complicated, ambiguous, and don't actually solve any problems at all. In other words it's a pointless waste of time.

Edited March 21, 2013 by RLWalker

[skarvika]

I only select need for things I will use (for mods, companion gear, etc), everything else I pass on. I can say though that the reason for this is that sometimes you'll roll for gear that's better than your own and if someone else gets it, it can be a little frustrating.

[Ratajack]

My way (which is the social convention) is to let the group as a whole decide who is "most deserving" and in the case that there is none let everyone have a fair chance at the RNG giving the loot to them.

 

It's ok for you to tell player A that player B is "more deserving" than player A, but not ok for player A to tell player B that player A is "more deserving" or at least as deserving?

[BaronV]

As long as the need/greed/pass system exists there is potential for abuse. Nothing can stop that - not even "society".

 

At this point I think we can say that we disagree. Maybe in the future BioWare will switch to a "bag of crap" solution, that is utterly boring but prevents conflicts.

 

Edit: Just to be clear, my distaste for all these "social conventions" is that they are complicated, ambiguous, and don't actually solve any problems at all. In other words it's a pointless waste of time.

 

So now you are saying that the entire system should be changed, but as long as it is in place people should have the right to abuse the existing system??

 

And FYI the social convention is not ambiguous except in some cases in which case people should have the decency to ask. You are basically defending people's right to be indecent inconsiderate jerks and saying others should be made to put up with it. And FYI the social convention DOES answer the problem of ambiguity and only fails when people refuse to adhere to it. That is no different from any other rule.

[BaronV]

It's ok for you to tell player A that player B is "more deserving" than player A, but not ok for player A to tell player B that player A is "more deserving" or at least as deserving?

 

If i were to accept your premise i would say yes - because you should'nt be allowed to make decisions in favour of yourself.

 

But I DO NOT accept your premise. It is the entire group that decides which player is "more deserving" or which players qualify for selecting need.

[Ratajack]

If i were to accept your premise i would say yes - because you should'nt be allowed to make decisions in favour of yourself.

 

But I DO NOT accept your premise. It is the entire group that decides which player is "more deserving" or which players qualify for selecting need.

 

You want to play semantics and take the "you" in my post as singular only and not the "you-as in the rest of the group" I intended? Ok, let's continue in that same vein. No, it is not the ENTIRE group that decides which player is more deserving. It may be three out of four, it may only be two out of four, but is definitely is NOT the ENTIRE group. If it were the ENTIRE group, there would be no need for anyone to tell anyone else who is more deserving.

 

That does not make my point any less valid. It is ok for players A and B to tell player D that player B is "more deserving" than player D(player C doesn't care one way or the other) but not for player D to tell player B that player D is as deserving as player B? By the way, player B is making that decision in favor of himself. You can say that player D is making that decision in favor of himself, and to an extent that is true. The difference is that Player B is telling Player D that Player B is "more deserving" and Player D cannot roll, while Player D is telling Player B that he is "as deserving" and both should be able to roll.

[Lostpenguins]

That does not make my point any less valid. It is ok for players A and B to tell player D that player B is "more deserving" than player D(player C doesn't care one way or the other) but not for player D to tell player B that player D is as deserving as player B?

Actually, yes, to an extent. Which is why there's still a roll system so that a majority can't simply ninja-loot it all in such situations that there's 3 guildies and one non-guildie. In the current system A & B could still both roll need and A could simply give it to B if A won it. That's still leading to an unfair advantage.

 

I get what you're saying in that the rules allow someone to roll need on every piece of gear drop, thus you feel when a group tells the player he can't roll need, they are using their moral standards to brow-beat and bully the other person into not rolling need on items that could be an upgrade to his companions. And you find that behavior unfair. You feel that forcing your beliefs onto others is unfair.

 

And, to an extent, I understand that.

 

What you are missing, is that this scenario being presented is a mutual effort. Because it's assumed that everyone sort of follows the same rules or at least knows about them, it's an unspoken deal between all participants. This is typically how it goes and many people in this post have explained what the general understanding is on how loot is distributed. All of these agreements are understood as being true w/out needing to say anything.

 

When someone doesn't follow those rules they are met with resistance: and it's a sliding scale that ranges between explaining to the person and expecting them to correct it to outright group kicking of said individual who caused the infraction.

 

If you know the general,unspoken truth, it is your responsibility to express your differing intentions to the group before surprising them at the end with a sudden change in group dynamics. If you don't do that, it's downright rude to the rest of the group who have been behaving accordingly.

 

You can try and spin it all you want that there's no rules in writing, that it's their fault for assuming, etc. etc. However, the fault is really on you if you recognize the prevailing social standards of etiquette and decide to break them w/out letting anyone know. This isn't about whether their standards are right or yours are right, it's about the very simple premise that there's a known, existing social agreement that you're willingly breaking to serve your own agenda.

Edited March 21, 2013 by Lostpenguins

[Ratajack]

Actually, yes, to an extent. Which is why there's still a roll system so that a majority can't simply ninja-loot it all in such situations that there's 3 guildies and one non-guildie. In the current system A & B could still both roll need and A could simply give it to B if A won it. That's still leading to an unfair advantage.

 

I get what you're saying: in that the rules allow someone to roll need on every piece of gear drop, thus you feel when a group tells the player he can't roll need, they are using their moral standards to brow-beat and bully the other person into not rolling need on items that could be an upgrade to his companions. And you find that behavior unfair. You feel that forcing your beliefs onto others is unfair.

 

And, to an extent, I understand that.

 

What you are missing, is that this scenario being presented is a mutual effort. Because it's assumed that everyone sort of follows the same rules or at least knows about them, it's an unspoken deal between all participants. This is typically how it goes and many people in this post have explained what the general understanding is on how loot is distributed. All of these agreements are understood as being true w/out needing to say anything.

 

When someone doesn't follow those rules they are met with resistance: and it's a sliding scale that ranges between explaining to the person and expecting them to correct it to outright group kicking of said individual who caused the infraction.

 

If you know the general,unspoken truth, it is your responsibility to express your differing intentions to the group before surprising them at the end with a sudden change in group dynamics. If you don't do that, it's downright rude to the rest of the group who have been behaving accordingly.

 

You can try and spin it all you want that there's no rules in writing, that it's their fault for assuming, etc. etc. However, the fault is really on you if you recognize the prevailing social standards of etiquette and decide to break them w/out letting anyone know. This isn't about whether their standards are right or yours are right, it's about the very simple premise that there's a known, existing social agreement that you're willingly breaking to serve your own agenda.

 

The devs set rules in place when they created the loot system and chose to use the need rolls trump greed rols system. Notice that they did not set any qualifications as to what would constitute a need roll and what would constitute a greed roll, thereby retaining each member's equal right to roll need and therfore each member's equal chance at the loot. That is the default loot system set in place by the devs. Is this the only loot system allowed? NO, but it IS the default loot system. "Social convention" does not automatically override the default system set in place by the devs.

 

ALL party members have the responsibility to set the ground rules if any member feels they want to either: use a system other than the default loot system established by the devs (possibly by placing qualifications on who can and cannot roll need), or if they wish to go against "social convention" and have no restrictions on when they can roll need. I do not think that just because I (and many, maybe most, of the players) choose to follow "social convention" that everyone will follow "social convention", or that there is some sort of unspoken agreement between all participants.

 

When you know the default system set in place by the devs, it is as much your responsibility to state your differing intentions to the group as it is the responsibility of the player who intends to buck "social convention" or the "expected behavior" to state that there may be times he rolls need for his companion.

 

 

It is by far easier to take a few minutes before the run starts and just make sure that everyone in the group is on the same page when it comes to loot.

[MillionsKNives]

You want to play semantics and take the "you" in my post as singular only and not the "you-as in the rest of the group" I intended? Ok, let's continue in that same vein. No, it is not the ENTIRE group that decides which player is more deserving. It may be three out of four, it may only be two out of four, but is definitely is NOT the ENTIRE group. If it were the ENTIRE group, there would be no need for anyone to tell anyone else who is more deserving.

 

That does not make my point any less valid. It is ok for players A and B to tell player D that player B is "more deserving" than player D(player C doesn't care one way or the other) but not for player D to tell player B that player D is as deserving as player B? By the way, player B is making that decision in favor of himself. You can say that player D is making that decision in favor of himself, and to an extent that is true. The difference is that Player B is telling Player D that Player B is "more deserving" and Player D cannot roll, while Player D is telling Player B that he is "as deserving" and both should be able to roll.

 

Yes it is OK, because as long as players A and B use the same rules every time, then should the loot be different they would also say that player D is more deserving than player B. The only reason what you are suggesting sounds wrong is because you are cherry picking a specific circumstance in which player D loses. You can't take a general rule that would benefit everyone equally and only show examples in situations that doesn't benefit a single person.

 

Loot has a random chance to be good for any given class. Assuming only one piece of gear drops (which isn't far off for HM flashpoints) and each player is of a different class then each has a 25% chance of getting a piece of gear that is meant for them. So when that warrior piece drops it is clearly meant for a warrior to get it, not for an agent to get it just because he's there. He already rolled and lost the second it came up warrior, so social convention dictates that he rolls greed to let the warrior have it if he needs it. If the warrior doesn't need it then it gets randomly decided based on greed roll. However the group can also decide other ways of distributing it based on companions, alt spec, etc.

 

In my example if the warrior doesn't need it then things can be ambiguous if others feel they would like priority over a general greed roll, but giving the warrior first priority is not in any way ambiguous or unfair. All the non-warriors already lost the class roll. It's a warrior piece, it's meant for warriors, so warriors get first crack at it. If it came up agent, then the agent would get first crack at it, and so on. The fair chance part of the loot already passed with the decision of the loot type, from this point on it's simply figuring out who benefits from it the most.

 

For the argument of: well he was there, he shouldn't get nothing just because nothing dropped for his class. Well for all the times that nothing drops for his class there are also times where almost everything will be for his class. Should he get nothing then, just because someone not of his class wants to sell it or give it to his companion, forcing him to run more times just to have someone else steal it? The convention of giving the gear to the class it is for is out of self-interest. When it's for you, you get it, when it's for me, I get it. That way everyone gets what they need faster than having to fight for it each time it comes up.

 

For those saying, "what if I'm running and trying to get one specific look that's for my companion/for a different class that I can still equip", this is where communication is key. Tell the group right at the beginning, "I'm running this specifically for the BH chestpiece because I want the look for Kaliyo. That's all I'm rolling on." You will likely not have any problems, or you can leave if they object and find a group that doesn't mind.

[Lostpenguins]

The devs set rules in place when they created the loot system and chose to use the need rolls trump greed rols system. Notice that they did not set any qualifications as to what would constitute a need roll and what would constitute a greed roll, thereby retaining each member's equal right to roll need and therfore each member's equal chance at the loot. That is the default loot system set in place by the devs. Is this the only loot system allowed? NO, but it IS the default loot system. "Social convention" does not automatically override the default system set in place by the devs.

 

ALL party members have the responsibility to set the ground rules if any member feels they want to either: use a system other than the default loot system established by the devs (possibly by placing qualifications on who can and cannot roll need), or if they wish to go against "social convention" and have no restrictions on when they can roll need. I do not think that just because I (and many, maybe most, of the players) choose to follow "social convention" that everyone will follow "social convention", or that there is some sort of unspoken agreement between all participants.

 

When you know the default system set in place by the devs, it is as much your responsibility to state your differing intentions to the group as it is the responsibility of the player who intends to buck "social convention" or the "expected behavior" to state that there may be times he rolls need for his companion.

 

 

It is by far easier to take a few minutes before the run starts and just make sure that everyone in the group is on the same page when it comes to loot.

And this is where I think you're wrong. It seems obvious that most people know the social conventions. You do too. Yet you choose to feign ignorance or play the "it's not against the rules" card to shield you. But you're not fooling anyone here.

 

As I keep saying, you're going to get ostracized by society when you break taboos. And you can defend your position all you want about how the majority is wrong. That's fine. I'm not going to argue with you over that. You even know the social standards and follow them because you know there are repercussions. So I'm not sure why you're arguing with me. You're not going to make me change my mind and I'm not going to make you change your mind.

 

In the end, we both know there's rules of etiquette. I follow them because I believe in their necessity for group benefit. You seem to follow them because you don't want to get ostracized. That's all I care about. I have almost never seen a person willingly roll need on all gear or take over someone else's toon for their own companion. I've played a lot of FP's in this game and if it has happened, I know the person got kicked from the group real fast.

 

And that's all I care about. That you either go along with the unspoken rules or you get kicked (which BW definitely allows since that's why the tool is in place - to kick someone that the other people do not like).

 

So, I think we're done here. =)

[AsheraII]

And this is where I think you're wrong. It seems obvious that most people know the social conventions. You do too. Yet you choose to feign ignorance or play the "it's not against the rules" card to shield you. But you're not fooling anyone here.

 

As I keep saying, you're going to get ostracized by society when you break taboos. And you can defend your position all you want about how the majority is wrong. That's fine. I'm not going to argue with you over that. You even know the social standards and follow them because you know there are repercussions. So I'm not sure why you're arguing with me. You're not going to make me change my mind and I'm not going to make you change your mind.

 

In the end, we both know there's rules of etiquette. I follow them because I believe in their necessity for group benefit. You seem to follow them because you don't want to get ostracized. That's all I care about. I have almost never seen a person willingly roll need on all gear or take over someone else's toon for their own companion. I've played a lot of FP's in this game and if it has happened, I know the person got kicked from the group real fast.

 

And that's all I care about. That you either go along with the unspoken rules or you get kicked (which BW definitely allows since that's why the tool is in place - to kick someone that the other people do not like).

 

So, I think we're done here. =)

Did I sign or in any other way agree with any "social convention"? No.

Did anyone sign or agree to any "social convention" for me? Like how my government once signed a convention about the use of Biochemical weapons etc.? No.

And obviously, there are plenty people here who didn't do so either.

 

Now, you can tell me a hundred times that you'll kick me ASAP from my group. But you won't. I need on maybe 5% of all the drops in a flashpoint. If even that much, since once I'm satisfied with the appearance of a companion, I won't be needing anything for that companion anymore. If I don't like the design of the item, I wouldn't have needed on it anyway. Once I'm satisfied with my own cosmetic customization, I won't even be needing on stuff for myself.

So if you were grouped with me, you'd see me pass on everything that drops. By the time you finally do see me needing on an item, you'd most probably go "Ah well, after all, I got A, B and a C already, so it's already a good run".

 

Now, all this only applies to leveling content. Things DO change with endgame content, since in end-game content the STATS on drops finally become important. And that's where I generally stop needing for companions. But through leveling content? No way, there the cosmetics are the only important component of loot from flashpoints.

 

And like it or not: about every example here is about BT/Esseles. The stats from the gear there are really easy to aquire through other means. So I place no importance on them. If people like how something looks in leveling content, then by all means: NEED ON IT! Only slackers need on leveling gear for the stats.

[Lostpenguins]

Did I sign or in any other way agree with any "social convention"? No.

Did anyone sign or agree to any "social convention" for me? Like how my government once signed a convention about the use of Biochemical weapons etc.? No.

And obviously, there are plenty people here who didn't do so either.

 

Now, you can tell me a hundred times that you'll kick me ASAP from my group. But you won't. I need on maybe 5% of all the drops in a flashpoint. If even that much, since once I'm satisfied with the appearance of a companion, I won't be needing anything for that companion anymore. If I don't like the design of the item, I wouldn't have needed on it anyway. Once I'm satisfied with my own cosmetic customization, I won't even be needing on stuff for myself.

So if you were grouped with me, you'd see me pass on everything that drops. By the time you finally do see me needing on an item, you'd most probably go "Ah well, after all, I got A, B and a C already, so it's already a good run".

 

Now, all this only applies to leveling content. Things DO change with endgame content, since in end-game content the STATS on drops finally become important. And that's where I generally stop needing for companions. But through leveling content? No way, there the cosmetics are the only important component of loot from flashpoints.

 

And like it or not: about every example here is about BT/Esseles. The stats from the gear there are really easy to aquire through other means. So I place no importance on them. If people like how something looks in leveling content, then by all means: NEED ON IT! Only slackers need on leveling gear for the stats.

Social conventions don't require you to agree or disagree. They exist and persist simply from a majority agreeing with them.

 

So feel free to huff and puff all you want. It's still a house of bricks you're blowing at and you won't topple it down.

 

Feel free to fight it all you want. Feel free to label people "slackers", etc. It doesn't matter. And feel free to keep stating, "And obviously, there are plenty people here who didn't do so either." I'd love for you to count the number of people in this thread who agree with your views versus my view.

 

And, yes, I will vote kick you if you do a "need for companion" when someone else in the group can use it. I won't care, the first time, if everyone rolls greed and you roll need and say afterwards "I want it for my companion." I'll probably tell you, "Next time ask before you roll". And if you don't I'll probably initiate a group kick. The funny thing is, the few times someone has actually done something like this, they've been kicked, every time. It's rare for someone to actually do the old "I rolled need for my companion", but when it's happened, I cannot recall a single time they stayed in the group for very long afterwards.

 

So, as I said, keep defending your position. It's fine. As I stated: Social convention doesn't require you to agree, just comply. Failure to comply gives very in-game methods (group kick) to deal with it.

[Ratajack]

Yes it is OK, because as long as players A and B use the same rules every time, then should the loot be different they would also say that player D is more deserving than player B. The only reason what you are suggesting sounds wrong is because you are cherry picking a specific circumstance in which player D loses. You can't take a general rule that would benefit everyone equally and only show examples in situations that doesn't benefit a single person.

 

Loot has a random chance to be good for any given class. Assuming only one piece of gear drops (which isn't far off for HM flashpoints) and each player is of a different class then each has a 25% chance of getting a piece of gear that is meant for them. So when that warrior piece drops it is clearly meant for a warrior to get it, not for an agent to get it just because he's there. He already rolled and lost the second it came up warrior, so social convention dictates that he rolls greed to let the warrior have it if he needs it. If the warrior doesn't need it then it gets randomly decided based on greed roll. However the group can also decide other ways of distributing it based on companions, alt spec, etc.

 

In my example if the warrior doesn't need it then things can be ambiguous if others feel they would like priority over a general greed roll, but giving the warrior first priority is not in any way ambiguous or unfair. All the non-warriors already lost the class roll. It's a warrior piece, it's meant for warriors, so warriors get first crack at it. If it came up agent, then the agent would get first crack at it, and so on. The fair chance part of the loot already passed with the decision of the loot type, from this point on it's simply figuring out who benefits from it the most.

 

For the argument of: well he was there, he shouldn't get nothing just because nothing dropped for his class. Well for all the times that nothing drops for his class there are also times where almost everything will be for his class. Should he get nothing then, just because someone not of his class wants to sell it or give it to his companion, forcing him to run more times just to have someone else steal it? The convention of giving the gear to the class it is for is out of self-interest. When it's for you, you get it, when it's for me, I get it. That way everyone gets what they need faster than having to fight for it each time it comes up.

 

For those saying, "what if I'm running and trying to get one specific look that's for my companion/for a different class that I can still equip", this is where communication is key. Tell the group right at the beginning, "I'm running this specifically for the BH chestpiece because I want the look for Kaliyo. That's all I'm rolling on." You will likely not have any problems, or you can leave if they object and find a group that doesn't mind.

 

It would be true that the non-warriors lost the roll when the warrior loot dropped IF the loot was actually beased on group composition. It is NOT working that way, so there can be no fair "first roll" to lose.

 

Group consists of:

 

Shadow tank

2 gunslinger DPS

Sage healer

 

If there were indeed a "first roll" that the gunslingers could lose then the only possible drops should be willpower or cunning. Low and behold a piece with aim drops. There must not be any fair first roll to give any player first priority, if the loot is not determined by group composition. There is a roll when the particular piece is determined, but since all classes(whether present or not) and not necessarily all group members are represented equally, you cannot, in my opinion, claim that the first was a fair roll in regards to group members.

 

Another example:

 

Powertech tank

Assassin DPS

Assassin DPS

Sage healer

 

In this group, in order for each member to have a 25% chance of winning the "first roll" there should be a 75% chance of willpower gear dropping while only a 25% chance of aim gear dropping. If there was a 50% chance of aim gear dropping and a 50% chance of willpower gear dropping, that means that the powertech has a 50% chance of winning that first roll, but that each of the other three members only have a 16.6% chance to win that "first roll". That makes it a very unfair "first roll".

 

The only time a roll can be verified as fair for every group member is if every member chooses the same roll after the loot drops, not need for the warrior and greed for everyone else.

[AsheraII]

Social conventions don't require you to agree or disagree. They exist and persist simply from a majority agreeing with them.

 

So feel free to huff and puff all you want. It's still a house of bricks you're blowing at and you won't topple it down.

 

Feel free to fight it all you want. Feel free to label people "slackers", etc. It doesn't matter. And feel free to keep stating, "And obviously, there are plenty people here who didn't do so either." I'd love for you to count the number of people in this thread who agree with your views versus my view.

 

And, yes, I will vote kick you if you do a "need for companion" when someone else in the group can use it. I won't care, the first time, if everyone rolls greed and you roll need and say afterwards "I want it for my companion." I'll probably tell you, "Next time ask before you roll". And if you don't I'll probably initiate a group kick. The funny thing is, the few times someone has actually done something like this, they've been kicked, every time. It's rare for someone to actually do the old "I rolled need for my companion", but when it's happened, I cannot recall a single time they stayed in the group for very long afterwards.

 

So, as I said, keep defending your position. It's fine. As I stated: Social convention doesn't require you to agree, just comply. Failure to comply gives very in-game methods (group kick) to deal with it.

What's there to defend? As I said, you probably won't even see me needing on an item, because I rarely do. The rare occasion I do need on it? I don't give a flying. I already got what I want, so you're too late. Have fun queueing for another 30 minutes just to finish the flashpoint. You just won't ever see me doing it a second time, since the design of most gear isn't that great for me to need on it anyway. Especially chestpieces have a tendency to drop on one of the later bosses. So the flashpoint is either already done, or there's just one boss left to down. So whether you kick or not won't matter. It'll only slow you down, especially if you needed the drop as a stat upgrade, because you were already lacking them in the first place if you do.

 

Meanwhile, I'll probably join another flashpoint, and won't see anything interresting anyway, so easily finish it just for the daily or the mission or the comms or the social points or whatever. And those people won't have any problems with me as a groupmember, since they probably see me passing on every single drop.

 

Really, you overestimate the effect of someone who needs only for cosmetics. The effect is radically different from someone who needs on every roll. A cosmetics roller ends up needing on way less drops even than someone rolling for stats.

 

But, if you like talking stats.. The enhancements are all usable for multiple classes. Especially the DPS/Healing enhancements. So an undergeared sniper could still end up with a DPS improvement by grabbing some Mercenary gear, just from moving the enhancement to his own gear. It's all relative, there's no right or wrong on either side of the fence, and that includes your side.

[Lostpenguins]

What's there to defend? As I said, you probably won't even see me needing on an item, because I rarely do. The rare occasion I do need on it? I don't give a flying. I already got what I want, so you're too late. Have fun queueing for another 30 minutes just to finish the flashpoint. You just won't ever see me doing it a second time, since the design of most gear isn't that great for me to need on it anyway. Especially chestpieces have a tendency to drop on one of the later bosses. So the flashpoint is either already done, or there's just one boss left to down. So whether you kick or not won't matter. It'll only slow you down, especially if you needed the drop as a stat upgrade, because you were already lacking them in the first place if you do.

 

Meanwhile, I'll probably join another flashpoint, and won't see anything interresting anyway, so easily finish it just for the daily or the mission or the comms or the social points or whatever. And those people won't have any problems with me as a groupmember, since they probably see me passing on every single drop.

 

Really, you overestimate the effect of someone who needs only for cosmetics. The effect is radically different from someone who needs on every roll. A cosmetics roller ends up needing on way less drops even than someone rolling for stats.

 

But, if you like talking stats.. The enhancements are all usable for multiple classes. Especially the DPS/Healing enhancements. So an undergeared sniper could still end up with a DPS improvement by grabbing some Mercenary gear, just from moving the enhancement to his own gear. It's all relative, there's no right or wrong on either side of the fence, and that includes your side.

Keep telling yourself that. You are still a rare bird and I don't see people rolling need on cosmetic looks either. And it's been easy to kick someone from a group and put them on ignore. I have people on the ignore list ranging from being annoying with what the say to being annoying in what they do. That list is basically a way for me to not have to hear them anymore and a "checklist" to make sure I'm not grouped with them.

 

And it's a small list because rarely does anyone say something that offensive or do what you do.

 

You won't change your playstyle, and that's fine. You admit that most of the time you aren't going to be pulling your move that often, but you're still rolling the dice in terms of getting caught. Who knows, you may never group with me. Like I said, you keep telling yourself that you're going to do what you want. I don't really care. I have a method that BW gave me to deal with people like you. It's a good thing that I don't rely on FP drops from pug groups. All of the gear I use is from guild operation runs and the like. So you aren't hurting me so much as just alerting me to never group with you again.

 

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... wait, nope, you've already been put on ignore. Can't fool me again. =)

[AsheraII]

It's a good thing that I don't rely on FP drops from pug groups. All of the gear I use is from guild operation runs and the like. So you aren't hurting me so much as just alerting me to never group with you again.

And that's precisely where you completely misplace this thread. We're not talking end-game flashpoints. Not even the hardmodes. Just *leveling* flashpoints. Which is an entirely different matter than end-game flashpoints, where the stats from loot actually matter. In leveling flashpoints, they simply don't.