Selecting need for loot

[Ratajack]

How about

 

Player A: Can I need for my companion?

Player B: Sure

Player C: Sure

Player D: That's a direct upgrade for my merc, no

 

or

 

Player A: Can I need for my companion?

Player B: Sure

Player C: Sure

Player D: Sure

 

I've seen both of these scenarios played out. I've also seen:

 

Player A: *Needs*

Player B: You're a Scoundrel and you just needed on Trooper gear

Player A: It's for Corso

Player B: DON'T DO THAT

 

The third example is rude on the part of Player A. You might argue that Player B is being rude for coming down hard on Player A.

 

However, it is my contention that if someone wants to need for their companion, it would be the exception rather than the rule, and should ask first. In other words, it is the responsibility of the companion-needer to gain agreement on the action beforehand.

 

Would player B even have the chance at that upgrade for his trooper if not for the scoundrel's efforts and contributions? I don't think so. Likewise, that scoundrel would not even have the chance to go against '"social convention" by rolling on that aim chest piece for Corso without the efforts and contributions of the trooper. Neither one of them has a given right to that chest piece over the other, in my opinion.

 

I agree that the courteous thing to do is to defer it to the trooper if the trooper wants it, provided that the trooper is going to use it for his character and not Tanno Vik. In my opinion, though, that does not automatically give the trooper the right to roll uncontested, though, should the scoundrel wish to roll need as well. As I see it, attempting to deny the scoundrel the option to roll need for Corso is just as discourteous as you say the scoundrel is for rolling need for Corso without making his intentions known beforehand.

Edited March 22, 2013 by Ratajack

[Wallner]

Get with it man, it's common courtesy.

[Khevar]

You failed to answer the question posed.

 

Those that expect "social convention" to prevail should make that clear before the run begins, rather than to just ASSUME that will be the case. Likewise, if a player intends to roll need for his companions, he should make that clear. When neither group makes the effort to ensure that all members of the group are on the same page with regards to loot rules, it can lead to drama.

One of the purposes of threads like this, is to inform the uninformed that the social convention is Need isn't for Companions.

 

Any player I've pugged with, who didn't know about the rule beforehand, agreed to it once informed. Occasionally, I've had to opporunity to explain it to someone verbally in vent, and the person felt the rule made sense. Like it was a logical rule, not an arbitrary statement, but one founded in reason. I've only seen a tiny handful of people ever disagree with this idea EVER, and they were all forum posters in threads like this.

 

You say that players should make the social convention of "Need isn't for companions" clear at the beginning of the run. Since almost everyone I've EVER pugged with already knows that, it would get really annoying to always ask at the beginning of every group. So eventually, you would stop doing it.

 

It then falls to the companion-Needer to have the responsibility of speaking up.

Edited March 22, 2013 by Khevar

[Khevar]

There are a few different ideas in your post, so I'm going to try and break them down.

Would player B even have the chance at that upgrade for his trooper if not for the scoundrel's efforts and contributions? I don't think so.

You are correct. The Scoundrel was a vital part of the team. Corso Riggs, on the other hand, contributed exactly nothing as he was sitting back on the ship playing Pazaak. Had we been short a tank and Corso was out helping the group, that would be a different story.

Likewise, that scoundrel would not even have the chance to go against '"social convention" by rolling on that aim chest piece for Corso without the efforts and contributions of the trooper. Neither one of them has a given right to that chest piece over the other, in my opinion.

Perhaps the problem is the use of the word "right". As in, "I have a right to be faced by my accuser", or "I have a right to a phone call after being arrested". If you wouldn't mind, I'd like to take that word out of this discussion. "Rights" as regards to entertainment are not resolvable through an internet debate.

I agree that the courteous thing to do is to defer it to the trooper if the trooper wants it, provided that the trooper is going to use it for his character and not Tanno Vik.

I agree.

In my opinion, though, that does not automatically give the trooper the right to roll uncontested, though, should the scoundrel wish to roll need as well.

I only half agree with you. It's not that the Trooper should have an uncontested roll, it's just that he should be rolling against other players that would get a direct upgrade to their gear. If the drop in question is a Trooper piece, but it ISN'T an actual direct upgrade, he shouldn't be rolling need on it either.

As I see it, attempting to deny the scoundrel the option to roll need for Corso is just as discourteous as you say the scoundrel is for rolling need for Corso without making his intentions known beforehand.

Remember that it benefits the Scoundrel in the other direction. The next Smuggler gear that drops, the Trooper doesn't roll Need on it.

[jovianus]

Player A-You can't have that, it's MINE!!!!!

 

Player B- That would be an upgrade for your character and my companion, let the dice decide.

 

Who is more selfish?

 

The player who thinks their pet is more important than the other player.

[Khevar]

There's another aspect of the Greed/Need thing. Let me know what you think of this.

 

The default, normal, usual activity should be Greed. Everyone deserves a fair chance at loot. If everyone Greeds, everyone gets a chance to win the drop and use it, put it on a companion, sell it, or reverse it for mats. Totally, 100% fair. This should be general, accepted action taken.

 

Need should be a rare thing. It is a special thing. It should only be used under a specific circumstance:

 

"One or more of the players in the group, who are cooperating to kill baddies, could put that gear on and contribute more to the group."

It benefits everyone for two reasons:

 

1. The group will succeed better.

2. EVERYONE a higher chance of getting gear that would make then a better player.

 

This is the philosophy behind the rules of Need and Greed.

Edited March 22, 2013 by Khevar

[Ratajack]

There are a few different ideas in your post, so I'm going to try and break them down.

 

You are correct. The Scoundrel was a vital part of the team. Corso Riggs, on the other hand, contributed exactly nothing as he was sitting back on the ship playing Pazaak. Had we been short a tank and Corso was out helping the group, that would be a different story.

 

You seem to be ignoring the fact that it was not the "scoundrel" who contributed, it was the PLAYER at the keyboard. Without the PLAYER, that scoundrel contributes nothing, as the trooper would contribute nothing without that player. Both PLAYERS contributed, not the characters or the companions. I'm sorry I did not make my point clear enough. I said scoundrel when what I should have said was "the player controlling the scoundrel" and when I said trooper I should have said "the player controlling the trooper". I refer to the PLAYER by the class they are playing, not actual character.

 

Perhaps the problem is the use of the word "right". As in, "I have a right to be faced by my accuser", or "I have a right to a phone call after being arrested". If you wouldn't mind, I'd like to take that word out of this discussion. "Rights" as regards to entertainment are not resolvable through an internet debate.

 

Actually, I do mind. That word is appropriate in this debate. You are, after all, attempting to deny another player's RIGHT to benefit from their contributions.

 

I only half agree with you. It's not that the Trooper should have an uncontested roll, it's just that he should be rolling against other players that would get a direct upgrade to their gear. If the drop in question is a Trooper piece, but it ISN'T an actual direct upgrade, he shouldn't be rolling need on it either.

 

Remember that it benefits the Scoundrel in the other direction. The next Smuggler gear that drops, the Trooper doesn't roll Need on it.

 

Both PLAYERS contributed, and both PLAYERS should have the right to roll need. You can say that denying the scoundrel's rights to roll so the trooper can roll uncontested may work in the scoundrel's favor if a piece of cunning gear drops. It is equally true that not denying the scoundrel's rights to roll need could work in favor of the knight or consular when that cunning piece drops, those two PLAYERS would have the same right to roll need for their companions who use cunning. The trooper still has that same right to roll need, even though he has no companion who uses cunning, since the trooper contributed to the kill.

 

 

I'm not saying that everyone should roll need. I'm saying that I just think it's wrong to attempt to deny a player of their right to benefit from their contributions for any reason.

[Ratajack]

Player A-You can't have that, it's MINE!!!!!

 

Player B- That would be an upgrade for your character and my companion, let the dice decide.

 

Who is more selfish?

 

 

The player who thinks their pet is more important than the other player.

 

Except that neither of those two players thinks their "pet" is MORE important than the other player's character, but one of those players thinks he is more important and deserving than the other player. I'll give you a hint , it's not player B.

[Ratajack]

There's another aspect of the Greed/Need thing. Let me know what you think of this.

 

The default, normal, usual activity should be Greed. Everyone deserves a fair chance at loot. If everyone Greeds, everyone gets a chance to win the drop and use it, put it on a companion, sell it, or reverse it for mats. Totally, 100% fair. This should be general, accepted action taken.

 

Need should be a rare thing. It is a special thing. It should only be used under a specific circumstance:

 

"One or more of the players in the group, who are cooperating to kill baddies, could put that gear on and contribute more to the group."

It benefits everyone for two reasons:

 

1. The group will succeed better.

2. EVERYONE a higher chance of getting gear that would make then a better player.

 

This is the philosophy behind the rules of Need and Greed.

 

 

 

First, as I have said before, I follow "social convention" but I still accept that those other three party members have the right not to follow "social convention" and have the right to expect a fair and equitable chance at the loot.

 

As has been pointed out in previous posts, the second any person chooses "need" the person who chose "need" elected to take the "fair chance" out of the picture as that person's "need" roll trumps the other party member's greed rolls. Thereby effectively denying those other party members their right to a fair chance at the loot.

 

I'm not saying that everyone should roll need, but if everyone did roll need as the default roll, then every member of the group has an equal chance at the loot, and if a player who follows "social convention" wins, they can give the loot to the player of the appropriate class. Example:

 

Vanguard tank

Sage DPS

Gunslinger DPS

Scoundrel healer

 

Aim chest piece drops with defense and absorb. Every player rolls need and every player has a 25% chance of winning the roll. If the scoundrel wins, he gives the chest piece to Corso. If the trooper wins, he equips the chest piece. If the sage or the gunslinger win, they give the chest piece to the trooper and he equips it. This gives the trooper a 75% chance to end up with the chest piece while still giving the scoundrel the same chance to win the roll for that chest piece as any other single member of the group.

 

There was another suggestion many posts back that I think would work very well to satisfy all concerned, especially in story mode FP's. That is to give every member of the group the exact same piece of loot. If the aim chest piece drops, then the trooper gets his upgrade, the scoundrel gets his upgrade for Corso, and the sage and gunslinger can vendor it for a few credits if they do not need it. Everybody wins. Since they are giving all 50's free tionese gear, maybe it could even be used in HM FP's. They might have to do find a way to prevent it from being abused to farm credits if they did it for HM FP's, but the gear from story mode vendors for so little, I think, hat it probably would not be an effective use of time for farming credits.

[Khevar]

Actually, I do mind. That word is appropriate in this debate. You are, after all, attempting to deny another player's RIGHT to benefit from their contributions.

Since you have decided the idea of Need vs Greed falls under something as nebulous as a "right" during entertainment, you firmly hold this subject in an area where no meaningful discussion can occur. Who defines these nebulous rights? The Founding Fathers of Videogames? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are allowed a loot drop"

 

The subject of "Need" vs "Greed" is one of manners. It is of one of etiquette. It is one of politeness. Do I have a "right" for polite conversion? Do I have a "right" for someone to hold the door open for me when it's raining outside? Do I have a "right" to prevent someone from cutting in line at the movie queue?

 

These are meaningless arguments.

 

My only hope is that anyone who is on the fence on the subject considers the idea of Need isn't for companions without asking first to be a logical approach to loot drops.

Edited March 22, 2013 by Khevar

[Ratajack]

 

The subject of "Need" vs "Greed" is one of manners. It is of one of etiquette. It is one of politeness.

 

 

Do I have a "right" for polite conversion?

 

You have the "right" to expect not to be verbally abused.

 

Do I have a "right" for someone to hold the door open for me when it's raining outside?

 

You have the "right" to expect that you will not be barred from going through that door.

 

Do I have a "right" to prevent someone from cutting in line at the movie queue?

 

You have the "right" to expect courtesy, and the "right" to ask him to be courteous or to ask the management to remove the offender, but taking matters into your own hands and trying to prevent him from cutting the queue yourself would be beyond your "rights" in my opinion.

[CharleyDanger]

When the OP chose to roll need for his companion, he did NOT tell anyone they could not roll need for their character, as far as I can tell from the original post. To me, that equates to the OP putting his companion and the other player's characters on the same level. This is not putting his companion AHEAD of anyone's character as they both had equal chance at the loot, assuming both rolled need.

 

Is the OP being discourteous? I would say he is not being as courteous as I would be. Is the OP telling anyone they cannot roll need on any items, or that if another member of the group wants to roll need they have to ask permission from the lords of loot? No, he is not. He is extending the same courtesy to everyone else in the group as he expects to receive, the courtesy for every player to be able to roll need if they so choose. I know many feel this violates some "social taboo".

 

If the OP were telling you that you could not roll need for your character because he wanted that item for his companion, then I would be here defending your right to roll need for whatever reason, since you helped to produce that loot.

 

Regardless the OP will still upgrade his characters gear before he will upgrade his companions gear. If the OP has a piece of gear that is an upgrade to himself and his companion, the OP will equip that piece to himself. This action proves that the OP thinks his character is more important than his companion. So...

 

OPs Character > OPs Companion

 

Well why would he then need for his companion when another player in the group needs the loot for a character? The answer is that OP feels that.....

 

OPs Companion = Characters in the group (This shows that the OP feels his companion is more important than group members because he is not using the same standard he uses with his own companion)

 

You can spin the above and say "Well the OP said its OK for others to roll need for their companions, so the OP puts everyone on the same level" Problem with that is 1) The VAST majority do not roll for their companions because the vast majority would never put their companions on the same level as a group member 2) The OP would never put an upgrade on his companion that would also be an upgrade to his character, therefore, he should never ask other players to sacrifice what he is not willing to. (Again, you could say the OP is fine with others rolling need for companions, but no body does that, so the point is moot)

Edited March 22, 2013 by CharleyDanger

[Khevar]

You have the "right" to expect not to be verbally abused.

According to whom?

You have the "right" to expect that you will not be barred from going through that door.

Why?

You have the "right" to expect courtesy, and the "right" to ask him to be courteous or to ask the management to remove the offender, but taking matters into your own hands and trying to prevent him from cutting the queue yourself would be beyond your "rights" in my opinion.

These rights have been granted (or not granted) by which party?

 

Why wouldn't I have the right to prevent him from cutting the queue?

 

Who decides this?

 

I'm not actually asking you to answer these questions. These are intended to be rhetorical. They are intended to get to think about the idea of "rights" as regards to good manners and "rights" as regards to entertainment.

[Ratajack]

 

I'm not actually asking you to answer these questions. These are intended to be rhetorical. They are intended to get to think about the idea of "rights" as regards to good manners and "rights" as regards to entertainment.

 

Let me ask my own rhetorical question.

 

You work 40 hours a week. You expect to get paid for your efforts. Does your co-worker have the right to deny your paycheck, or even the chance to get it?

[Khevar]

Let me ask my own rhetorical question.

 

You work 40 hours a week. You expect to get paid for your efforts. Does your co-worker have the right to deny your paycheck, or even the chance to get it?

Of course. (that is, of course I expect to get paid)

 

Let's say we're working on a medical research project. His assistant has been on vacation and didn't contribute. Would you expect the absent assistant to be credited for the medical breakthrough?

Edited March 22, 2013 by Khevar

[Ratajack]

Let me ask my own rhetorical question.

 

You work 40 hours a week. You expect to get paid for your efforts. Does your co-worker have the right to deny your paycheck, or even the chance to get it?

 

 

 

Of course.

 

Let's say we're working on a medical research project. His assistant has been on vacation and didn't contribute. Would you expect the absent assistant to be credited for the medical breakthrough?

 

 

Maybe I wasn't clear in my question. YOU work 40 hours a week. YOU expect to get paid. By your answer to my question, I, as your co-worker, have the right to deny you YOUR paycheck that you worked for and to deny you even the chance to get it. Is that your stance?

 

If so, can you get me a job where you work? I would love to be able to have someone work 40 hours a week so I get paid. I know. I know. We already have that. It's called welfare, right?

 

Let's take your example of the medical project. My department consists of 6 members, one head of department and 5 assistants. My department contributed to this medical breakthrough. I, as head of the department, am the one who attended the project meetings. My department deserves to be credited. Does it make any difference upon who's desk I choose to display the award to the other departments that contributed? Do I as head of the department have to display it on my desk, or can I choose display it on one of my assistant's desks, even if that assistant was on vacation while the project was completed?

[Khevar]

Let's try this again, my answer was unclear.

Let me ask my own rhetorical question.

 

You work 40 hours a week. You expect to get paid for your efforts. Does your co-worker have the right to deny your paycheck, or even the chance to get it?

Of course I expect to get paid. The co-worker doesn't have a right to deny my paycheck.

 

-----

 

New theoretical example, disrelated to the first. Medical research project. Being credited with medical research is important. It moves your career along and has actual value more than a plaque on the desk.

 

Myself and another researcher are working on this research. We are successful and publish. The other researcher's assistant was absent on vacation for the entire time and contributed nothing. Does the assistant get credited for the research?

[jovianus]

Except that neither of those two players thinks their "pet" is MORE important than the other player's character, but one of those players thinks he is more important and deserving than the other player. I'll give you a hint , it's not player B.

 

No, Player A thinks he is more important and deserving than Player B's pet, which give than Player A is an actual, you know, person, is true.

[Jedi_Varse]

to be fairly hones players don't want you to roll for companions either you roll for yourself or you dont roll at all and gear your compainion with old gear that you have for yourself, i personaly kick anyone who does flashpoints just to select need on gear for his companion when the other people in the party need it for there actual toon ......they arnt at fault here they had a right to kick its called ninja looting

[Ratajack]

No, Player A thinks he is more important and deserving than Player B's pet, which give than Player A is an actual, you know, person, is true.

 

You keep separating the character from the companion, when it is the PLAYER, you know the actual person who contributed and not the character. I'd like to see a character make any contribution without the player. Some people actually <gasp> choose to control their companion as much as their character. Since it is the PLAYER-the actual PERSON-who contributes, then that PLAYER has the right to a fair and equitable chance at the loot.

 

PLAYER A apparently thinks he is more deserving than PLAYER B, since PLAYER A feels that loot is his and wants an uncontested roll.

[Khevar]

You keep separating the character from the companion, when it is the PLAYER, you know the actual person who contributed and not the character. I'd like to see a character make any contribution without the player. Some people actually <gasp> choose to control their companion as much as their character. Since it is the PLAYER-the actual PERSON-who contributes, then that PLAYER has the right to a fair and equitable chance at the loot.

 

PLAYER A apparently thinks he is more deserving than PLAYER B, since PLAYER A feels that loot is his and wants an uncontested roll.

I'm still interested in what you think of my last post, so at the risk of distracting away from that, I have to comment on this.

 

1. A companion has been designed, by Bioware, to have less ability that the main toon. A dps companion does less damage than a dps toon in the same gear. A tank companion has much less mitigation and less threat handling than a tank toon. A healing companion does much less than a healer toon.

 

2. Gearing up a companion (with a few exceptions such as 2-manning a flashpoint) only benefit that player's solo experience. Gearing up the main toon benefits the player AND any group he/she is a member of.

 

3.The only time you roll on loot is in a group. In a group, gearing up the main toon is of more benefit than gearing up a companion, unless the companion is present and contributing to the group.

 

You are talking about the PLAYER. We are talking about the MAIN TOON.

Edited March 22, 2013 by Khevar

[Ratajack]

Let's try this again, my answer was unclear.

 

Of course I expect to get paid. The co-worker doesn't have a right to deny my paycheck.

 

-----

 

New theoretical example, disrelated to the first. Medical research project. Being credited with medical research is important. It moves your career along and has actual value more than a plaque on the desk.

 

Myself and another researcher are working on this research. We are successful and publish. The other researcher's assistant was absent on vacation for the entire time and contributed nothing. Does the assistant get credited for the research?

 

I'll give you two answers and explain each.

 

Answer 1

 

Let's say that only one person can be credited as lead researcher and gain the bigger boost to career. I and my partner both contributed equally to the project, but we have to make a decision as to which of us will be able to choose who is credited as lead researcher. We decide to use the old fashioned flip a coin method to make the determination. We both have an equal 50% chance to win the toss. If my partner wins the coin toss I would certainly hope that my partner will not give his assistant any credit, but at that point it makes no difference whether he credits himself as lead researcher or his assistant because I already lost the toss. If I win the toss, of course I will credit myself as lead researcher.

 

Answer 2

 

Let's say that I and my partner can each name one person who will be credited and gain the career boost. In that situation, why would it matter to me whether or not my partner decided to allow his assistant to be credited over himself. It would not reduce the credit I receive, or the career boost.

 

Maybe EA/BW will change the loot system so that everyone gets the same piece of loot and the assistant can be credited while still giving credit to all the other researchers.

[Ratajack]

I'm still interested in what you think of my last post, so at the risk of distracting away from that, I have to comment on this.

 

1. A companion has been designed, by Bioware, to have less ability that the main toon. A dps companion does less damage than a dps toon in the same gear. A tank companion has much less mitigation and less threat handling than a tank toon. A healing companion does much less than a healer toon.

 

2. Gearing up a companion (with a few exceptions such as 2-manning a flashpoint) only benefit that player's solo experience. Gearing up the main toon benefits the player AND any group he/she is a member of.

 

3.The only time you roll on loot is in a group. In a group, gearing up the main toon is of more benefit than gearing up a companion, unless the companion is present and contributing to the group.

 

You are talking about the PLAYER. We are talking about the MAIN TOON.

 

Oh, I understand the difference. As I said, I choose to roll greed unless it is an upgrade for my character.

 

That does not stop me from seeing the other side of this debate, that of the person who wants that upgrade for his companion. He did contribute and has a valid point when he says he wants a fair chance at the loot. It is possible to respect both sides of this debate, even if my personal choices lean toward one side.

 

I might not choose to roll need for my companion, but I am not going to tell you that you cannot roll need for your companion. In fact, as I said, if you choose to roll need for your companion and win that item over my character, for whom it would also have been an upgrade, I will congratulate you on your win.

[Khevar]

...

 

That does not stop me from seeing the other side of this debate, that of the person who wants that upgrade for his companion. He did contribute and has a valid point when he says he wants a fair chance at the loot. It is possible to respect both sides of this debate, even if my personal choices lean toward one side.

 

...

We're both in accord on this.

 

What I believe we're at odds on, is I say the player who wants to roll Need for the companion bears the onus of asking if the others mind. Needing in this manner without gaining agreement first is rude and shouldn't be done.

Edited March 22, 2013 by Khevar

[Ratajack]

We're both in accord on this.

 

What I believe we're at odds on, is I say the player who wants to roll Need for the companion bears the onus of asking if the others mind. Needing in this manner without gaining agreement first is rude and shouldn't be done.

 

I agree to a point. I think the player who wants to roll need for the companion should make his intentions clear. I just think that those that expect, or assume, "social convention" to be the rule in effect, should also speak up before the run to avoid this type of drama. To not speak up, assuming that "social convention" will be the rule, and then getting bent out of shape if someone bucks the "social convention" is kind of like saying "MOM, Johnny took that toy I wanted, even though I left it on the floor."