Selecting need for loot

[Ratajack]

What? So I also put my character ahead of my companion. Because I recognize that you and I both value our characters higher than our companions, I won't take things for my companion over your character.

 

We both put our characters ahead of our companions, I agree. Where our philosophies differ is in the fact that I do not put MY character ahead of YOUR companion, yet you put YOUR character ahead of MY companion.

[Lostpenguins]

You have the right to use in game tools, including the vote kick, for your own reasons. The point of my post was to point out that by attempting to vote kick each and every person who does not share your "right" view that your character trumps my companion, you are not "simply exercising your right not to play with that player". You have an option that will allow you to exercise that right, without attempting to punish the offender. What you are doing is attempting to punish that player. Let's call it for what it is, and not try to disguise it, that's all.

What is the option? 3 people leaving the group, reforming, and leaving that person out of the reque with us? How is that not punishment either under your terms? Tell me, what option allows 3 players to not have to play with that 4th person anymore that doesn't force the 3 to have to stay grouped with them, but doesn't come off as punishment to you?

[Lostpenguins]

We both put our characters ahead of our companions, I agree. Where our philosophies differ is in the fact that I do not put MY character ahead of YOUR companion, yet you put YOUR character ahead of MY companion.

I put character effort > companion effort. Your companion wasn't here and doesn't persist through the entire game, therefore their effort is already secondary as is their priority with loot.

[Ratajack]

What is the option? 3 people leaving the group, reforming, and leaving that person out of the reque with us? How is that not punishment either under your terms? Tell me, what option allows 3 players to not have to play with that 4th person anymore that doesn't force the 3 to have to stay grouped with them, but doesn't come off as punishment to you?

 

Is the fourth person removing you against your will? Is the fourth person insisting that you remain in the group? I don't think so in either case.

 

As I explained in an earlier post, since there is no cross server LFG tool, everyone in the group is on the same server. If you truly were "simply exercising your right not to play with that player" and not solely trying to punish that player or to punish that player in addition to exercising your right not to play with them, three players drop group. simple /invite Player A, /invite Player B and queue.

 

As I said, if you wish to attempt to punish the offender, that is your right. But at least have the stones to be honest about your intentions.

[Ratajack]

I put character effort > companion effort. Your companion wasn't here and doesn't persist through the entire game, therefore their effort is already secondary as is their priority with loot.

 

I put PLAYER effort=PLAYER effort. I make no distinction between character and companion when it comes to other PLAYERS. After all, it was the PLAYER with whom I was grouped.

[Lostpenguins]

Is the fourth person removing you against your will? Is the fourth person insisting that you remain in the group? I don't think so in either case.

 

As I explained in an earlier post, since there is no cross server LFG tool, everyone in the group is on the same server. If you truly were "simply exercising your right not to play with that player" and not solely trying to punish that player or to punish that player in addition to exercising your right not to play with them, three players drop group. simple /invite Player A, /invite Player B and queue.

 

As I said, if you wish to attempt to punish the offender, that is your right. But at least have the stones to be honest about your intentions.

Wait, wait. So all 3 leaving the group and requeing and now the 4th person is stuck inside an empty group... plus the 3 people now have to wait because the first person to leave got a deserter debuff. All of that sounds like you want to punish the 3 people over the 1 person. So one person's rights are more important than 3 other people? Um, no.

[Lostpenguins]

I put PLAYER effort=PLAYER effort. I make no distinction between character and companion when it comes to other PLAYERS. After all, it was the PLAYER with whom I was grouped.

So that means everyone should roll need on everything because everything can be sold for credits. And why should one person's efforts be put to the side just because they want to vendor the item over someone else who could use it as an upgrade?

[Ratajack]

Wait, wait. So all 3 leaving the group and requeing and now the 4th person is stuck inside an empty group... plus the 3 people now have to wait because the first person to leave got a deserter debuff. All of that sounds like you want to punish the 3 people over the 1 person. So one person's rights are more important than 3 other people? Um, no.

 

I never said you HAD to leave group. You asked what other option existed that would enable you and possibly two other members of the group to exercise your right not to have to play with someone who does share your views. I pointed out that an option existed that enabled you to exactly that and explained what that option was. Whether or not you choose to take that option is entirely up to you. I'm just saying that if you choose not to take that option, then don't attempt to pull the wool over my eyes by claiming that all you (either singly or with others) are doing is exercising your right(s) not to have to play with someone who does not share your views.

[scraycroft]

Did you solo the bosses that dropped the scattergun and tanking legs? I'm betting you didn't. If you didn't, then everyone who participated in the fight has the right to roll on the loot dropped.

 

Every player in the group is an "actual real person" and a player's companions are an integral part of the game and as important as their character. When you're not in a group, do you play without your companion or do you use your companion for extra DPS, tanking or heals?

 

 

Did your companion help them down the boss? No, so he shouldn't get the gear unless no one else needs it.

[Lostpenguins]

I never said you HAD to leave group. You asked what other option existed that would enable you and possibly two other members of the group to exercise your right not to have to play with someone who does share your views. I pointed out that an option existed that enabled you to exactly that and explained what that option was. Whether or not you choose to take that option is entirely up to you. I'm just saying that if you choose not to take that option, then don't attempt to pull the wool over my eyes by claiming that all you (either singly or with others) are doing is exercising your right(s) not to have to play with someone who does not share your views.

There's an option for people who want to loot for companions too - they can spam in general chat looking for like-minded people. They can announce their intentions beforehand to the group and if anyone has a problem, they can leave the group until the find a group where the people are okay with it. That's pretty courteous of them? If they willingly know they have behavior that rubs most people the wrong way so they make sure not to step on anyone's toes. They can choose not to group.

 

Oh, don't like those options? I guess they're all just selfish, ninja-looters who are out to get theirs and step on everyone else.

 

Please... stop labeling people just because YOU view it was punishment.

[jovianus]

You have the right to use in game tools, including the vote kick, for your own reasons. The point of my post was to point out that by attempting to vote kick each and every person who does not share your "right" view that your character trumps my companion, you are not "simply exercising your right not to play with that player". You have an option that will allow you to exercise that right, without attempting to punish the offender. What you are doing is attempting to punish that player. Let's call it for what it is, and not try to disguise it, that's all.

 

Nonsense. Why should the 3 players who have been playing by the community standards and having actual consideration for their other players inconvenience themselves by dropping, regrouping, and getting back into the queue? You're the one who was being selfish, so you get removed from the group.

 

It's not 'punishment', it's the 3 people who have been abiding by their accepted rules removing the disruptive/selfish element from their group.

[Ratajack]

So that means everyone should roll need on everything because everything can be sold for credits. And why should one person's efforts be put to the side just because they want to vendor the item over someone else who could use it as an upgrade?

 

No. I'm saying that everyone has the option to roll need and no one PLAYER'S desires trump another PLAYER'S desires. Let's be honest, even if that piece of loot is an upgrade, no player NEEDS it in order to play the game. Even the player who's character might be improved by the stats on the item can still play the game without that piece of loot. Can a player play more effectively with better stats? Of course they can, but that does not mean they cannot play without those better stats.

 

I will defer to your character if that piece of loot is an upgrade for your character out of courtesy, not because I think that your desire to have that upgrade for your character trumps my desire for the upgraded stats for my companion. I do not expect everyone to share my view on this, just as I do not share your view that your desire for that upgrade for your character trumps my desire for the upgrade for my companion.

 

I'm not going to say your view that your desire for an upgrade for your character trumps my desire for an upgrade for my companion is right or wrong, only that it is different than my view.

[Ratajack]

Did your companion help them down the boss? No, so he shouldn't get the gear unless no one else needs it.

 

Could you have downed the boss without the PLAYER? Did you down the boss without the PLAYER?

 

The PLAYER helped down the boss and the PLAYER has the right to an equal chance to get the gear.

 

Most players, including myself, will defer that right in favor of a PLAYER who can use the upgrade for their character, but that in no way negates their rights to an equal chance at that piece of loot.

[CharleyDanger]

Actually your comparison is not a valid one. It goes both ways would be more accurate if the "actual character" player was booted for rolling need.

 

Unless the "actual character" player soloed the mob that dropped the loot, he has no right to tell another player they cannot roll need. Everyone who participates in the fight has the right to roll need.

 

Having said that, I generally do not roll need in a pug for gear that is not an upgrade for my character, but I still respect the rights of the other players and do not deny them the right to roll on loot they helped produce. I am much more likely to vote to kick a player with an entitled attitude such as "I'm a sniper and all cunning gear is mine" than I am to vote to kick a player who needs on gear for their companion.

 

It is not a question of who has the right, but who is right...

 

The consensus in MMOs are that need rolls are reserved for gear that increases the stats of the toon that is actually rolling on the item. The belief among the community is that alts and comps should take a back seat to the group members that are helping you clear the content. In my opinion I think this is not just common courtesy, but common sense.

 

I have never been in a group where the actions of the OP did not result in a boot and an ignore from the group. Were we right to do that? Well.... perception is reality, but reality is not always just. I cannot say booting the OP is right just because the majority thinks its right. I look at it like this...

 

A companion is not needed to clear FP content, a 4 man group is. Should the loot not be reserved for toons that are actually clearing the content?

 

A companion does not need good gear to clear content. I lvled a toon to 50 and never upgraded my comps original gear. Not only was this doable, I did not die until I was lvl 39, and only died a handful times after that. I also did not out lvl the content either. I was always on par or just below the content lvl. Is my companions gear more important than an actual players gear? Maybe because the comp is MINE, but I think that is an extremely selfish way of thinking.

 

A companion is not needed at all. Many have lvled challenge toons and not used a comp once while lvling. Again, how is a comps gear more important than my group members gear?

 

People should not first think "Do I have the right?" people should first think "Is this right?"

[Lostpenguins]

No. I'm saying that everyone has the option to roll need and no one PLAYER'S desires trump another PLAYER'S desires. Let's be honest, even if that piece of loot is an upgrade, no player NEEDS it in order to play the game. Even the player who's character might be improved by the stats on the item can still play the game without that piece of loot. Can a player play more effectively with better stats? Of course they can, but that does not mean they cannot play without those better stats.

 

I will defer to your character if that piece of loot is an upgrade for your character out of courtesy, not because I think that your desire to have that upgrade for your character trumps my desire for the upgraded stats for my companion. I do not expect everyone to share my view on this, just as I do not share your view that your desire for that upgrade for your character trumps my desire for the upgrade for my companion.

 

I'm not going to say your view that your desire for an upgrade for your character trumps my desire for an upgrade for my companion is right or wrong, only that it is different than my view.

Well, this just goes back to what I said before: I could care less if you agree with social convention, so long as you follow it. If you don't, prepare to be ostracized. But acting against the grain and expecting other people to just go along with it, is foolhardy and selfish. You don't have to act how I want you to act, but I don't have to engage with you either. However, you seem to want to limit me from I disassociate myself with you.

 

It doesn't matter about needing stats or whatever. I'm putting definitive values on things. Stats are definitive and area of play in the game are both definitive. A stat upgrade for a person who can use it on their character all the time in all areas of play trumps a desire for something cosmetic (because it's subjective) for a player who will use it less than all the time (by putting on their companion).

 

You have not given me anything to support your side other than desire. If that's the case, you should support rolling need on vendoring too... feel free to do that and I'm sure you'll have even some of these supporters of your viewpoint shaking their head at you.

[Mufang]

Needing for companion is a no no and would get you booted out of most groups instantly. Like someone elese said, needs for yourself and greed for sale or companion.

 

The game shouldn't have unwritten rules like this. The first time I encountered this unwritten rule was during a Gree mission. The reward was extra Gree reputation points, not equipments for a player or companion character. It was of value to everyone. I rolled need, everyone else rolled greed and i won the role. And I had no reason to think i didn't win fairly until someone said "dude, you should have rolled greed". As if i was suppose to know this unwritten rule automaticly. They weren't rude about, but i was taken back by it a little. Do we really need 3 loot options? Why not just 2? Roll or pass.

[Lostpenguins]

The game shouldn't have unwritten rules like this. The first time I encountered this unwritten rule was during a Gree mission. The reward was extra Gree reputation points, not equipments for a player or companion character. It was of value to everyone. I rolled need, everyone else rolled greed and i won the role. And I had no reason to think i didn't win fairly until someone said "dude, you should have rolled greed". As if i was suppose to know this unwritten rule automaticly. They weren't rude about, but i was taken back by it a little. Do we really need 3 loot options? Why not just 2? Roll or pass.

It's a social game. All social activities in life have unwritten social rules. You're going to wear the visitor's jersey at a game? Prepare to get booed. There's no "rule" about that.

 

There's no "rule" that when you walk into an elevator that you face the door, but everyone does it and when someone faces the other way it weirds people out. Why? Who knows? But it's an unwritten rule.

 

Demanding that a social interaction not have socials rules is rather silly and foolish.

[CharleyDanger]

The game shouldn't have unwritten rules like this. The first time I encountered this unwritten rule was during a Gree mission. The reward was extra Gree reputation points, not equipments for a player or companion character. It was of value to everyone. I rolled need, everyone else rolled greed and i won the role. And I had no reason to think i didn't win fairly until someone said "dude, you should have rolled greed". As if i was suppose to know this unwritten rule automaticly. They weren't rude about, but i was taken back by it a little. Do we really need 3 loot options? Why not just 2? Roll or pass.

 

That situation is a little different I must say. If you are not used to playing MMOs than your knee jerk reaction is "Oh, yeah I need that for my alt, comp, my rep bar, or anything associated with your toon" If you have been playing MMOs for a while then your knee jerk reaction is "Oh, it does not increase my primary or secondary stats, I do NOT need that"

 

As far as unwritten rules... everything in the history of society has had unwritten rules. It is just the way it is. If you are ever unsure about a Need or Greed, just ask the group what they think.

[Ratajack]

There's an option for people who want to loot for companions too - they can spam in general chat looking for like-minded people. They can announce their intentions beforehand to the group and if anyone has a problem, they can leave the group until the find a group where the people are okay with it. That's pretty courteous of them? If they willingly know they have behavior that rubs most people the wrong way so they make sure not to step on anyone's toes. They can choose not to group.

 

Oh, don't like those options? I guess they're all just selfish, ninja-looters who are out to get theirs and step on everyone else.

 

Please... stop labeling people just because YOU view it was punishment.

 

Those players that want a "social convention" run only have the same option to spam in chat that they want a "social convention" group for a random FP in an effort find like-minded people.

 

I know that when I use the LFG tool, I will be grouped with random players who may or may not share my views when it comes to loot rules. I know that when I use the LFG tool, I am agreeing to the default loot rules established by the devs. I do not recall ever seeing an option to choose "social convention" run.

 

I know going into an LFG group that most of the players will follow "social convention". I also know that there may be a player who does not follow "social convention". I have the same option to communicate with the group in order to make sure that everyone is on the same page with regards to loot rules. A simple "need for character upgrades only?" in party chat is all it takes. I do not simply ASSUME that "social convention" is the loot rule in effect. Should the person who may buck "social convention" also speak up at the beginning of the run? Yes, but the responsibility for communication does not rest solely on his shoulders.

 

 

If I choose not to take the time to ensure that all members of the group are on the same page, then I cannot in good conscience sanction an attempt to punish a player if that player chooses not to follow "social convention".

 

If, on the other hand, the group takes the time to ensure that all members of the group are aware of the loot rules for that run and one player decides to violate those loot rules, then by all means, punishment is reasonable.

[AsheraII]

It's a social game. All social activities in life have unwritten social rules. You're going to wear the visitor's jersey at a game? Prepare to get booed. There's no "rule" about that.

 

There's no "rule" that when you walk into an elevator that you face the door, but everyone does it and when someone faces the other way it weirds people out. Why? Who knows? But it's an unwritten rule.

 

Demanding that a social interaction not have socials rules is rather silly and foolish.

I've just never heard of this unwritten rule where facing the mirror on the backwall of the elevator is reason for the other passengers to kick you out of the elevator.

[Lostpenguins]

Those players that want a "social convention" run only have the same option to spam in chat that they want a "social convention" group for a random FP in an effort find like-minded people.

 

I know that when I use the LFG tool, I will be grouped with random players who may or may not share my views when it comes to loot rules. I know that when I use the LFG tool, I am agreeing to the default loot rules established by the devs. I do not recall ever seeing an option to choose "social convention" run.

 

I know going into an LFG group that most of the players will follow "social convention". I also know that there may be a player who does not follow "social convention". I have the same option to communicate with the group in order to make sure that everyone is on the same page with regards to loot rules. A simple "need for character upgrades only?" in party chat is all it takes. I do not simply ASSUME that "social convention" is the loot rule in effect. Should the person who may buck "social convention" also speak up at the beginning of the run? Yes, but the responsibility for communication does not rest solely on his shoulders.

 

If I choose not to take the time to ensure that all members of the group are on the same page, then I cannot in good conscience sanction an attempt to punish a player if that player chooses not to follow "social convention".

 

If, on the other hand, the group takes the time to ensure that all members of the group are aware of the loot rules for that run and one player decides to violate those loot rules, then by all means, punishment is reasonable.

1 - Since both parties clicked the LFG and both parties decided not to say anything, majority vote wins. So if the a piece drops and that one person rolls need for the companion and the other people say, "No, please hand it over to the one character who can use it."... this is where we go from here. If the person who took it doesn't want to give it up, then they should be removed. They are in a group that doesn't have the same values with them. So they should really leave and find a group that does - now that they know since both parties are blameless for not stating specific rules. If that person chooses not to leave - the group has every right to remove that person so that they can find someone who does follow the same principles. So, it's not punishment. That person remove isn't on time out. They are just left to find a new group with the same ideals.

 

2 - Please top using the word "punish" though. That's subjective in this form. You seem to be okay with the 3 people leaving the group to reform. In both cases, the player who is being removed is now left alone and cannot complete the instance. So either both ways are punishment or not. The fact that you're trying to split hairs is ridiculous and pointless.

[Ratajack]

It's a social game. All social activities in life have unwritten social rules. You're going to wear the visitor's jersey at a game? Prepare to get booed. There's no "rule" about that.

 

There's no "rule" that when you walk into an elevator that you face the door, but everyone does it and when someone faces the other way it weirds people out. Why? Who knows? But it's an unwritten rule.

 

Demanding that a social interaction not have socials rules is rather silly and foolish.

 

You will get boo'ed for wearing a visitor's jersey at a ball game, but you will not be removed from the stadium for bucking "social convention". Of course, the person in the seat next to you has the option to leave the stadium, or possibly switch seats, if he doesn't want o have to sit next to you.

 

Facing the doors in an elevator is not an unwritten rule, it simply makes for a faster exit from the elevator as you have already taken the time to turn around after entering while the elevator was between floors.

 

Demanding that everyone adhere to your "unwritten rules" could be seen as rather silly and foolish.

[Lostpenguins]

I've just never heard of this unwritten rule where facing the mirror on the backwall of the elevator is reason for the other passengers to kick you out of the elevator.

No, but they'll ostracize you for it. They'll definitely look at you in a different light. You're confusing grouping in a flashpoint with riding in an elevator. They both have social conventions, but the group in the FP is a combined effort to accomplish something. Try acting way off social kilter in a group for school projects for an MBA or what-not and rest assured you'll have people requesting that you leave the group or having you actively removed.

[Lostpenguins]

You will get boo'ed for wearing a visitor's jersey at a ball game, but you will not be removed from the stadium for bucking "social convention". Of course, the person in the seat next to you has the option to leave the stadium, or possibly switch seats, if he doesn't want o have to sit next to you.

 

Facing the doors in an elevator is not an unwritten rule, it simply makes for a faster exit from the elevator as you have already taken the time to turn around after entering while the elevator was between floors.

 

Demanding that everyone adhere to your "unwritten rules" could be seen as rather silly and foolish.

You make the same logical fallacy. You equate FP's and attending something in the same light. They are only the same in social conventions having unwritten rules. FP's have more than that. They are also a system that require team cooperation. Ever seen a movie where one guy in a group that requires team cooperation to perform properly becomes undesirable to the rest of the group? Ever seen that group up and leave him behind? There ya go.

Edited March 21, 2013 by Lostpenguins

[river_of_Gem]

Solution 1 : all vote kick the ninja and ignore - result : all 3 can queue for 1 another player, the ninja end up empty group and in ignore list of 3 players.

 

Solution 2 : all left group and ignore the ninja - result : all 3 need to wait for the lock time out, use /whisper to regroup again, the ninja end up empty group and in ignore list of 3 players.

 

Can you tell me what's the different for the ninja between those solution ?