Selecting need for loot

[Khevar]

...

 

For simply having a different opinion, or sticking up for your own rights, or the rights of others?

 

So, yeah, those with differing views really have nothing to fear.

Your rhetoric makes it sound like you're trying to be the Rosa Parks of SWTOR.

 

The people I know personally who believe Need is only for main gear upgrades are less selfish.

 

1. They're happy to let someone else Need on that loot because it would be a main upgrade for that person.

2. They believe that the other player (getting an immediate bump on his stats), is more deserving of the drop.

3. They're willing to give up their right to roll Need for their companion because they hope that other players will do them the same courtesy down the line.

 

The player that Needs on everything doesn't care about that. They've decided that they don't want to cooperate. They don't want to see the big picture. They are more selfish.

 

What you're defending is bad manners.

 

NOTE: I don't condone rudeness in the other direction either. I firmly believe that someone Needing for companions without asking first should be given the benefit of the doubt. To be educated. To be told why we want to operate that way. When I run into that in pugs, I do just that and almost every case, they're like "Oh, ok"

 

But you're not arguing about courtesy. You're arguing that "everyone has a viewpoint and they have a right to not be told what to do leave them alone." Of course that is true. But if their viewpoint happens to be selfish and shortsighted, don't ask other players to accommodate that selfishness.

[Anzel]

Ooohhh, it's the return of the "because I said so" troll. How you been?

 

I've been fine... and you?

[Khevar]

I've been fine... and you?

Livin' the dream, you know.

[Ratajack]

If people intend to roll Need on stuff they don't, it's far more convenient for me and them to simply never be grouped. They MIGHT get the item they rolled Need on, but they will certainly be vote-kicked from my group. Or, I guess, the group can instead vote-kick the tank or healer (whichever I happen to be playing at the time). I'm sure the group will wisely select the most socially acceptable and convenient option in that moment.

 

Just seems like a smart move to get the ignore lists ironed out, doesn't it? That way nobody's wasting time being grouped with people whose "opinions" differ and subsequently being inconvenienced by being forcibly removed from groups.

 

Now if you don't intend to roll need for stuff you don't actually need, there wouldn't be any advantage to getting all that stuff out of the way ahead of time, would there?

 

Believe me, I'm right there with you that sometimes the majority is wrong. Hell, 1,000 years ago -everybody- thought our planet was flat. They were so convinced of this that they imprisoned and threatened to kill very smart people who were brash enough to disagree and offer evidence while doing so.

 

However, this isn't one of those times. This isn't a disagreement over a scientific fact. This is actually a debate about socially acceptable behavior. In such debates, the only way to determine "right" is by understanding the (seemingly vast) majority opinion. And, of course, the admission of those arguing the counter-point that they realize they're in the wrong helps too, as you did when you admitted they fear being ostracized. The righteous tend to stand proudly and proclaim their correctness rather than hiding behind a wall flinging *****.

 

Amazing. The fact that I pointed out that some might fear, and rightly so, being ostracized is in no way an admission that those that wish to stand up for their rights are "in the wrong". It is simply recognizing that "society" will often punish those who's views are different, as you admit. It makes no difference if we are talking about "scientific fact" or a "social convention".

 

Look at how those who are "in the minority" are treated in the real world, even today. Take any "hot button" topic and look at how the minority are treated. Does the fact that they are in the minority make them "wrong"?

 

Sure, you can claim that this is a video game, but if someone is willing to take away another person's rights in a video game, how likely are they going to be to let that behavior start to trickle over into real life?

[DarthTHC]

Amazing. The fact that I pointed out that some might fear, and rightly so, being ostracized is in no way an admission that those that wish to stand up for their rights are "in the wrong". It is simply recognizing that "society" will often punish those who's views are different, as you admit. It makes no difference if we are talking about "scientific fact" or a "social convention".

 

Look at how those who are "in the minority" are treated in the real world, even today. Take any "hot button" topic and look at how the minority are treated. Does the fact that they are in the minority make them "wrong"?

 

Sure, you can claim that this is a video game, but if someone is willing to take away another person's rights in a video game, how likely are they going to be to let that behavior start to trickle over into real life?

 

There's nothing amazing about that. Their thought pattern, as you say, is "If I behave this way most of society will ostracize me while some might support me." The opposite is equally true "If I behave this OTHER way, most of society will support me but nobody (in their right mind) would ostracize me." That is clearly an admission of knowledge of wrongness, or socially unacceptable behavior.

 

Nobody's talking about taking away anyone's "rights" in a video game. (What rights are there in a video game?)

 

We're simply talking about actions and the consequences of those actions within the society of this video game. If people choose to behave selfishly, they are very likely to experience the repercussions of that selfish behavior. Those repercussions are likely to be unpleasant, not only for the person acting selfishly, but also for those who have to deal with him.

 

By publishing their identities, people with selfish intent could, in fact, possibly avoid some of the repercussions of their selfish intent by potentially never being grouped with anyone who would apply those repercussions. Wouldn't that be better for them?

Edited March 29, 2013 by DarthTHC

[Ratajack]

Your rhetoric makes it sound like you're trying to be the Rosa Parks of SWTOR.

 

The people I know personally who believe Need is only for main gear upgrades are less selfish.

 

1. They're happy to let someone else Need on that loot because it would be a main upgrade for that person.

2. They believe that the other player (getting an immediate bump on his stats), is more deserving of the drop.

3. They're willing to give up their right to roll Need for their companion because they hope that other players will do them the same courtesy down the line.

 

The player that Needs on everything doesn't care about that. They've decided that they don't want to cooperate. They don't want to see the big picture. They are more selfish.

 

What you're defending is bad manners.

 

NOTE: I don't condone rudeness in the other direction either. I firmly believe that someone Needing for companions without asking first should be given the benefit of the doubt. To be educated. To be told why we want to operate that way. When I run into that in pugs, I do just that and almost every case, they're like "Oh, ok"

 

But you're not arguing about courtesy. You're arguing that "everyone has a viewpoint and they have a right to not be told what to do leave them alone." Of course that is true. But if their viewpoint happens to be selfish and shortsighted, don't ask other players to accommodate that selfishness.

 

In your opinion, it is more selfish to stand up for your rights, or the rights of others? It may be bad manners to roll need, but it is also a person's right, even if only a virtual right. What some are defending is the denial or removal of another person's rights, even virtual ones.

 

I hope that we can all recognize bad manners or rudeness. We may find them distasteful, to say the least. We do not have to applaud them, but we do often have to tolerate them. If I'm eating dinner at a restaurant, and the person at the next able is being loud and obnoxious, that does not give me, either alone or along with the rest of the patronage, the right to throw that loud obnoxious person out on his ear. I can either choose to finish my dinner while attempting to ignore that loud customer, ask the management to address the situation or pay my tab and leave the restaurant.

 

Those in an instance in which a player chooses to roll need for his companion have the same options. They can finish the instance with the offender, even if they roll need for everything, and then choose to give it to whomever they feel is more deserving. They can ask management to do something about the offender, by asking EA/BW to address the loot system. They can choose to pay their tab and leave the restaurant and drop group. Unfortunately, what most groups seem to want to do is to take the offender and bodily toss him out on his ear. This becomes easier and more acceptable to them because it is an anonymous virtual tossing, and not a physical one in which their actual identity would be known. They claim that they are only exercising their right not to have to play with a person who's views they do not share, but I doubt any of them would exercise their right not have to put up with that loud obnoxious customer in the same manner in the real world.

 

Let's look at selfishness. In your opinion, those people you personally know that do not support the fact that a player should have the right roll need for loot they helped to produce are less selfish than any of those that support a player's right to roll need for any piece of gear? I quote: "The people I know personally who believe Need is only for main gear upgrades are less selfish."

 

I support a player's right to roll need for any piece of loot they helped to produce. I do not choose to roll need for my companion, but if you choose to roll need for yours, I will congratulate you should you win the roll. In fact, if that piece that drops is an upgrade for my character AND your companion, I will invite you to roll need against me.

 

Sounds to me like there is at least one person who doesn't believe that need is for "main gear upgrades only" who is actually less selfish than those you know who do. I'm not trying to pat myself or anyone on the back, just pointing out that, as I said, it is possible to respect another person's differing views.

[Ratajack]

There's nothing amazing about that. Their thought pattern, as you say, is "If I behave this way most of society will ostracize me while some might support me." The opposite is equally true "If I behave this OTHER way, most of society will support me but nobody (in their right mind) would ostracize me." That is clearly an admission of knowledge of wrongness, or socially unacceptable behavior.

 

Incorrect. Let's look at a very hot topic, the debate over gay marriage and gay rights. The "social convention" is that gay marriage is wrong. Those that support gay marriage risk being ostracized by most of society(those that believe that gay marrigae is wrong) while some (those that support gay marriage and gay rights) might support them. If on the other hand they choose to fall on the side against gay rights, then most of society would support them, but those who support gay rights (not in their right mind, by your definition) would not. Which side is right and which side is wrong?

 

I only use that one case as an example to prove that being on the "socially acceptable" side is not always right, or wrong, and that a person's fear that they may be ostracized for holding a minority opinion is often justified.

 

 

 

Nobody's talking about taking away anyone's "rights" in a video game. (What rights are there in a video game?)

 

 

How about the right that any person should have, the right to have a FAIR and EQUAL chance to benefit from one's efforts. I know the claim is that by rolling need if others roll greed makes it an unequal chance, but the fact is that each and every person that rolled greed did so by CHOICE, not because the group was saying that they had to roll greed.

[Khevar]

In your opinion, it is more selfish to stand up for your rights, or the rights of others? It may be bad manners to roll need, but it is also a person's right, even if only a virtual right. What some are defending is the denial or removal of another person's rights, even virtual ones.

I'm saying the act itself is selfish. Are you saying that standing up for the right of someone to act selfishly is nobler than asking that person to stop being selfish?

 

I hope that we can all recognize bad manners or rudeness. We may find them distasteful, to say the least. We do not have to applaud them, but we do often have to tolerate them. If I'm eating dinner at a restaurant, and the person at the next able is being loud and obnoxious, that does not give me, either alone or along with the rest of the patronage, the right to throw that loud obnoxious person out on his ear. I can either choose to finish my dinner while attempting to ignore that loud customer, ask the management to address the situation or pay my tab and leave the restaurant.

Fair enough.

 

Those in an instance in which a player chooses to roll need for his companion have the same options. They can finish the instance with the offender, even if they roll need for everything, and then choose to give it to whomever they feel is more deserving. They can ask management to do something about the offender, by asking EA/BW to address the loot system. They can choose to pay their tab and leave the restaurant and drop group. Unfortunately, what most groups seem to want to do is to take the offender and bodily toss him out on his ear. This becomes easier and more acceptable to them because it is an anonymous virtual tossing, and not a physical one in which their actual identity would be known. They claim that they are only exercising their right not to have to play with a person who's views they do not share, but I doubt any of them would exercise their right not have to put up with that loud obnoxious customer in the same manner in the real world.

If you are arguing that players should behave better when faced with bad manners, I agree. This hasn't been the focus of your arguments in the past, however. You seem to come back to the right of the "Need on companion" crowd to act selfishly.

 

Let's look at selfishness. In your opinion, those people you personally know that do not support the fact that a player should have the right roll need for loot they helped to produce are less selfish than any of those that support a player's right to roll need for any piece of gear? I quote: "The people I know personally who believe Need is only for main gear upgrades are less selfish."

Yes. Remember, this philosophy is predicated on, "I'm giving up my Need roll because it isn't a main toon upgrade" Any player that doesn't get a main toon upgrade is giving up their Need roll. That is why it is unselfish.

 

If other players behave accordingly, than everyone is more likely to gear up quickly. In the long run, everyone wins.

 

I support a player's right to roll need for any piece of loot they helped to produce. I do not choose to roll need for my companion, but if you choose to roll need for yours, I will congratulate you should you win the roll. In fact, if that piece that drops is an upgrade for my character AND your companion, I will invite you to roll need against me.

Now, if everyone were to GREED on that loot, then everyone would have a fair chance to get it. The issue is not that the player wins the roll for his companion. The issue is, the player should have an even chance to win the loot, rolling against everyone else. The one single exception to this rule, the one thing that could elevate one player over the others in terms of "who gets the loot" is if that loot can upgrade the main toon in the instance.

 

The others are willing to elevate that player's opportunity to roll for two reasons:

1. He will instantly be contributing more to the group helping them get to the end of the Herioc/Flashpoint/Operation

2. They would like others to treat them the same way.

 

Sounds to me like there is at least one person who doesn't believe that need is for "main gear upgrades only" who is actually less selfish than those you know who do. I'm not trying to pat myself or anyone on the back, just pointing out that, as I said, it is possible to respect another person's differing views.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying YOU are acting selfishly in this scenario. I'm saying the player who is Needing for companions without asking first is.

Edited March 29, 2013 by Khevar

[CharleyDanger]

I guess I'm just one of those crazy people that can actually accept and respect that others may have different views than I have. This does not make them wrong, just different. I do not have to agree with a given viewpoint in order to defend the person who's view it is and that person's right to express and act on that opinion.

 

Btw. the OP and I are not the only ones in this thread defending a player's right to roll need. If you had actually read the entire thread you would know that. If you did read the entire thread, and do know that, I would appreciate you being more honest in your statements.

 

Those who wish to claim that the companion didn't participate inthe fight are more than welcome to continue ignoring that fact that the PLAYER did contribute, and that it is the PLAYER who is being denied the chance to roll need, not the companion. If it makes you feel better about trying to take another person's rights away from them(even if only in a video game), then knock yourself out.

 

I have not read all 90 pages, but I have read enough to now that you are in the vast minority. Honestly I do not care enough to read 90 pages of you saying the same thing over and over. The fact that you do care enough (even though you do not roll need your self) tells me that you have a serious problem with other who disagree with you. Why cant you accept that virtually the entire community, including your self, will never roll need for a companion.

 

No one is saying the OP does not have the right to roll need. We are all just saying that we think it is wrong, and we will put anyone who rolls need on a companion on our ignore list. I have said the above at least 3 times, and you never respond to it. You keep defending the OPs right, when no one is questioning it. I think you just like to argue for the sake of it. I mean over 90 pages! Dude, you have problems.

[Kilora]

Do not roll "Need" for companion gear. | 02.13.2012, 08:04 PM

Need vs. greed isn't as simple in our game because of companions, as well as Orange Gear and mod extraction.

 

We will probably limit the 'need' button to only people who match the primary class the gear is meant for, and add a new button in between need and greed for players to choose if they intend the gear for these purposes - this will allow CC users to roll against each other without competing with the guy who wants to sell the gear for credits.

 

I don't have a timeline on this for you guys right now, though - certainly not in the next major patch. In the meantime, I strongly recommend that players who care clearly decide the expected need/greed role behaviors ('no companion need rolling or you're out!') when a group is initially formed. In the meantime, I'll work on getting this feature in the works.

 

Can we put this to rest now? Damion (Dev poster -- check the "last" page of dev posts in the tracker) stated this. Hopefully they'll put this into the game at some point, like WoW did. No needing for companions, and no needing if you can't even equip the piece (based on light/heavy armor, not level).

[Khevar]

Incorrect. Let's look at a very hot topic, the debate over gay marriage and gay rights. The "social convention" is that gay marriage is wrong. Those that support gay marriage risk being ostracized by most of society(those that believe that gay marrigae is wrong) while some (those that support gay marriage and gay rights) might support them. If on the other hand they choose to fall on the side against gay rights, then most of society would support them, but those who support gay rights (not in their right mind, by your definition) would not. Which side is right and which side is wrong?

 

...

I'm going to flip this comparison around on you.

 

With the people I hang out with, nobody complains about gay marriage. We're happy to see someone gets the right to marry, and are unhappy when it is ruled against. Now, let's say we went out to lunch with a new co-worker. And this guy was a heavy homophobe. And he started harassing one of the other diners for being there with his boyfriend.

 

This sort of behavior is unacceptably rude. I'm not sure what we'd do (not having been presented with this situation in real life), but my first thought would be to give the waiter a big tip for having to deal with a smug jerk, and then leave the restaurant with the jerk stuck with the bill.

 

Would you defend this guy for his right to be an insufferable ***** in public?

Edited March 29, 2013 by Khevar

[Kilora]

Ratajack and Khevar -- I understand the use of metaphor for example, but PLEASE stay away from any political/social issues. This is against the forum rules, and ALWAYS leads down a nasty path.

[Khevar]

Can we put this to rest now? Damion (Dev poster -- check the "last" page of dev posts in the tracker) stated this. Hopefully they'll put this into the game at some point, like WoW did. No needing for companions, and no needing if you can't even equip the piece (based on light/heavy armor, not level).

<3 U

 

Edit: I found the original post:

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?p=2813008#post2813008

Edited March 29, 2013 by Khevar

[DarthTHC]

Incorrect. Let's look at a very hot topic, the debate over gay marriage and gay rights. The "social convention" is that gay marriage is wrong. Those that support gay marriage risk being ostracized by most of society(those that believe that gay marrigae is wrong) while some (those that support gay marriage and gay rights) might support them. If on the other hand they choose to fall on the side against gay rights, then most of society would support them, but those who support gay rights (not in their right mind, by your definition) would not. Which side is right and which side is wrong?

 

I only use that one case as an example to prove that being on the "socially acceptable" side is not always right, or wrong, and that a person's fear that they may be ostracized for holding a minority opinion is often justified.

 

How about the right that any person should have, the right to have a FAIR and EQUAL chance to benefit from one's efforts. I know the claim is that by rolling need if others roll greed makes it an unequal chance, but the fact is that each and every person that rolled greed did so by CHOICE, not because the group was saying that they had to roll greed.

 

 

At the risk of getting a warning, if you read the news and pay attention to what's really being said, the social convention is actually that homosexual marriage is just fine. That's completely outside of the topic of rolling need or greed though so I'll drop it there.

 

Sure, everyone should have a fair and equal chance to benefit from one's efforts. Let's look at that word, benefit. Let's also look at the word fair.

 

Say you have a group with a Consular or Inquisitor, a Knight or Warrior, a Trooper or Bounty Hunter, and a Smuggler or Agent. Now say that a piece of gear with Cunning on it drops.

 

Who benefits from that gear? Well, the Smuggler/Agent does, obviously. But also, anyone in the party who currently has a cunning-based pet could benefit too, right? As could anyone in the party who likes credits.

 

But there's also that word fair that you threw out there. How would it be fair for a person to roll Need for a few hundred credits and win over the person for whom the gear directly and significantly improves his ability to play the game?

 

That's where the whole "I should be able to roll Need on everything" theory falls apart. It's unfair (you brought the word in, not me) to people who can use the gear for others to take it for use on a pet or simply to vendor.

 

This is why it's unacceptable to society for people to behave like that. Regardless what the 1% of sociopaths in society would like everyone else to believe, the vast majority of people actually do possess a sense of fairness and will act upon it. This is why people who exhibit anti-social, selfish behavior fear they will be ostracized for exhibiting anti-social, selfish behavior.

 

They know the behavior is unacceptable. They know it's wrong.

 

Why they don't want to simply avoid the repercussions of it is beyond me, unless maybe they get their jollies by snatching an item away from someone else then being subsequently booted from the group for it. We'd call that "griefing", I think.

[Ratajack]

I have not read all 90 pages, but I have read enough to now that you are in the vast minority. Honestly I do not care enough to read 90 pages of you saying the same thing over and over. The fact that you do care enough (even though you do not roll need your self) tells me that you have a serious problem with other who disagree with you. Why cant you accept that virtually the entire community, including your self, will never roll need for a companion.

 

I accept this. What I do not accept is this overwhelming desire to punish or ostracize someone who doesn't act as I do. I try very hard to accept people who disagree with me, as I have been stating all along. I do not share the belief that just because "social convention" says one thing, that doing something not in accordance with "social convention" is "wrong" and cannot be tolerated. I recognize that there are those that hold that belief and they are no more "right" or "wrong" than I am.

 

I do not expect others to share my views, and I do not try to force my views onto them. I'm simply trying to open a few minds, and maybe get a few people to be a little more tolerant of others who may not be as courteous as we would like them to be.

 

No one is saying the OP does not have the right to roll need. We are all just saying that we think it is wrong, and we will put anyone who rolls need on a companion on our ignore list. I have said the above at least 3 times, and you never respond to it. You keep defending the OPs right, when no one is questioning it. I think you just like to argue for the sake of it. I mean over 90 pages! Dude, you have problems.

 

I'm not saying don't put that person on your ignore list. Putting someone on your ignore list and finishing the instance is far different, though, from throwing the offender out on his ear, putting him on your ignore list, "naming and shaming" in general on fleet, spreading his name to every guild trying to get him blacklisted and ostracized or otherwise trying to make his life or gaming experience miserable.

 

If a few more people take the time to finish the instance in tolerance, and quietly place the offender on their ignore list, that is enough. Does it take all that much to display a little tolerance for a few minutes, then ensure that you will not have to group with that person again, rather than getting all bent out of shape and possibly flying off the handle?

[Icestar]

<3 U

 

Edit: I found the original post:

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?p=2813008#post2813008

 

DamionSchubert Last Activity: 03.04.2013 09:05 PM

 

Amazing, and the guy that wrote that is still around.

Edited March 29, 2013 by Icestar

[RandomXChance]

Interesting how the justifications for needing posts seem to have vanished after the link to the Dev post.

 

The last time i "tolerated" a needer, they needed on and received every good drop in the flashpoint. The other three members received nothing. First offense gets a vote kick. If it succeeds that means 2/3 of the remaining group does not wish to play with the individual due to poor manners.

 

Many of the social conventions that you just dismiss are what hold society at large together. It does not mean they are always right nor does it mean they never change. Without these it is difficult for large groups of people to live/work together. This is an MMO and much of that is true here.

 

The ONLY way I have to really show my displeasure at the needing is a vote kick, so that is what I use. The offending player has no clue nor could care less that I have them on Ignore.

[DarthTHC]

I accept this. What I do not accept is this overwhelming desire to punish or ostracize someone who doesn't act as I do. I try very hard to accept people who disagree with me, as I have been stating all along. I do not share the belief that just because "social convention" says one thing, that doing something not in accordance with "social convention" is "wrong" and cannot be tolerated. I recognize that there are those that hold that belief and they are no more "right" or "wrong" than I am.

 

I do not expect others to share my views, and I do not try to force my views onto them. I'm simply trying to open a few minds, and maybe get a few people to be a little more tolerant of others who may not be as courteous as we would like them to be.

 

 

 

I'm not saying don't put that person on your ignore list. Putting someone on your ignore list and finishing the instance is far different, though, from throwing the offender out on his ear, putting him on your ignore list, "naming and shaming" in general on fleet, spreading his name to every guild trying to get him blacklisted and ostracized or otherwise trying to make his life or gaming experience miserable.

 

If a few more people take the time to finish the instance in tolerance, and quietly place the offender on their ignore list, that is enough. Does it take all that much to display a little tolerance for a few minutes, then ensure that you will not have to group with that person again, rather than getting all bent out of shape and possibly flying off the handle?

 

Why should anyone have to finish the instance with someone who will jack gear that doesn't benefit them? I don't mind rolling need-for-need against someone who can actually use the gear themselves. But why would I ever put up with someone who's going to roll against me for gear that he's going to put on a pet or, worse, simply vendor?

 

I had a Trooper roll Need on Cunning gear and say it was for his companion. Really? Which of your Trooper companions uses Cunning? That might have been the quickest vote-kick in the history of the game.

 

So, yes, it does take that much - TOO MUCH - to continue to support behavior that is socially unacceptable and detrimental to everyone else in the group. It is absolutely clearly deserving of a vote-kick. If someone jacks your lunch from the fridge at work, are you just going to drop tomorrow's lunch in the fridge and hope you get there before the thief today?

[Ratajack]

 

Sure, everyone should have a fair and equal chance to benefit from one's efforts. Let's look at that word, benefit. Let's also look at the word fair.

 

Say you have a group with a Consular or Inquisitor, a Knight or Warrior, a Trooper or Bounty Hunter, and a Smuggler or Agent. Now say that a piece of gear with Cunning on it drops.

 

Who benefits from that gear? Well, the Smuggler/Agent does, obviously. But also, anyone in the party who currently has a cunning-based pet could benefit too, right? As could anyone in the party who likes credits.

 

But there's also that word fair that you threw out there. How would it be fair for a person to roll Need for a few hundred credits and win over the person for whom the gear directly and significantly improves his ability to play the game?

 

That's where the whole "I should be able to roll Need on everything" theory falls apart. It's unfair (you brought the word in, not me) to people who can use the gear for others to take it for use on a pet or simply to vendor.

 

This is why it's unacceptable to society for people to behave like that. Regardless what the 1% of sociopaths in society would like everyone else to believe, the vast majority of people actually do possess a sense of fairness and will act upon it. This is why people who exhibit anti-social, selfish behavior fear they will be ostracized for exhibiting anti-social, selfish behavior.

 

They know the behavior is unacceptable. They know it's wrong.

 

Why they don't want to simply avoid the repercussions of it is beyond me, unless maybe they get their jollies by snatching an item away from someone else then being subsequently booted from the group for it. We'd call that "griefing", I think.

 

 

It is just as fair to give the player who wants that piece to vendor for 30 credits, or 30,000 credits, the same chance to roll for that piece of cunning gear as the smuggler. The fact that the smuggler can equip that item, does NOT make it more fair to "give it to him". The smuggler may not agree and may feel it is unfair, but that is only a personal opinion, and not a fact. The same holds true if that same smuggler sees 3 pieces of aim gear that would be upgrades for corso drop. It is no more "fair" for the trooper to roll need than it is for the smuggler.

 

Is it more courteous to let the smuggler have first dibs on cunning gear and the trooper first dibs on aim gear? Yes, it is more courteous, but not necessarily more "fair".

[Anzel]

I need everything.

[Khevar]

It is just as fair to give the player who wants that piece to vendor for 30 credits, or 30,000 credits, the same chance to roll for that piece of cunning gear as the smuggler. The fact that the smuggler can equip that item, does NOT make it more fair to "give it to him". The smuggler may not agree and may feel it is unfair, but that is only a personal opinion, and not a fact. The same holds true if that same smuggler sees 3 pieces of aim gear that would be upgrades for corso drop. It is no more "fair" for the trooper to roll need than it is for the smuggler.

 

Is it more courteous to let the smuggler have first dibs on cunning gear and the trooper first dibs on aim gear? Yes, it is more courteous, but not necessarily more "fair".

Let me reiterate the point I made earlier.

 

Everyone should have a fair chance at loot. That is what Greed is for. Everyone participated, everyone gets loot. There is one exception to the rule. If the player in question could obtain an immediate and direct main-toon upgrade by putting on that gear, the others in the group are willing to give it to him. If two players in the group are able to obtain a direct main-toon upgrade, they roll against each other.

 

Does that help?

Edited March 29, 2013 by Khevar

[Khevar]

I need everything.

My brother ate a bug once.

[Ratajack]

Why should anyone have to finish the instance with someone who will jack gear that doesn't benefit them? I don't mind rolling need-for-need against someone who can actually use the gear themselves. But why would I ever put up with someone who's going to roll against me for gear that he's going to put on a pet or, worse, simply vendor?

 

I had a Trooper roll Need on Cunning gear and say it was for his companion. Really? Which of your Trooper companions uses Cunning? That might have been the quickest vote-kick in the history of the game.

 

So, yes, it does take that much - TOO MUCH - to continue to support behavior that is socially unacceptable and detrimental to everyone else in the group. It is absolutely clearly deserving of a vote-kick. If someone jacks your lunch from the fridge at work, are you just going to drop tomorrow's lunch in the fridge and hope you get there before the thief today?

 

I may choose to bring my lunch in a cooler I can keep at my desk. This is akin to putting someone on my ignore list. I do not get bent out of shape and fly off the handle demanding that that the offender be stoned because I had to buy lunch, or in the "in game" case, demand that the offender be immediately kicked because it is "TOO MUCH" to ask of anyone to finish the instance and then place the offender on their ignore list.

[translucentwolf]

I may choose to bring my lunch in a cooler I can keep at my desk. This is akin to putting someone on my ignore list. I do not get bent out of shape and fly off the handle demanding that that the offender be stoned because I had to buy lunch, or in the "in game" case, demand that the offender be immediately kicked because it is "TOO MUCH" to ask of anyone to finish the instance and then place the offender on their ignore list.

 

Can you give us all your character names, so we can ignore you, and never have to group with you, ever? Then everyone is happy, right?

[AsheraII]

<3 U

 

Edit: I found the original post:

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?p=2813008#post2813008

Well, since that post is more than a year old, let's hope the idea fell into the shredder, and they're considering BETTER and EASIER TO IMPLEMENT alternatives now.