Selecting need for loot

[Khevar]

It seems simple to you and me. The truth is that nor everyone sees things the same way you do , the same way I do or the same way johnny does. That is why communication and not assuming everyone is on the same page is so important. It's easy to say that it's up to the "other guy" to make his intentions known, but much more difficult to face up to the fact that we could have done something differently and avoided the drama.

Are you asking for everyone to announce at the beginning of each run, the loot rules are for the run?

 

Is that the only thing remaining in this disagreement?

 

Or is there something else?

[Jeweledleah]

Are you asking for everyone to announce at the beginning of each run, the loot rules are for the run?

 

Is that the only thing remaining in this disagreement?

 

Or is there something else?

 

what it sounds to me like is that he's defending the right of jerks to be jerks and its on the shoulders of everyone else to compensate for them and that its ok and acceptable for jerks to be jerks as long as its technically legal, and the rest of us should just let it go, because the needs of a jerk are more important then the needs of everyone else apparently.

 

and btw, if someone cuts in front of me on the line, I call them out on it, I don't just swallow it and shut up. because i don't find people taking advantage of me just because they can - fun and I DON'T let it slide. without breaking any laws in a process. but if they are genuinely in a hurry and need to cut in front of me, its on THEM to ask first, not on me to just accept it because they already did so.

 

no, we shouldn't have to announce default social convention at the start of every run. and if someone makes a mistake, because they genuinely don't know - that's what 2 hours trading cooldown as well as "sorry didn't know" and then adjusting your behavior is for.

Edited March 31, 2013 by Jeweledleah

[nateslice]

Nice little sidestep there.

 

What you call a "sidestep", I call "not taking the bait".

 

And I think I did pretty effectively refute the point you were trying to make. I was saying that people who Need on everything only do so because they also have internet anonymity. They wouldn't, say, cut in line at the bank, without some really good reason and without asking permission from other people in line, because they could be seen and recognized and shamed and even thrown out of the bank in the process. I can't even remember the last time someone tried to cut in front of me anywhere without asking first; the situation is that rare.

 

The only thing you could say I "sidestepped" was your attempt to make this an argument about me as a person. You've been using some fancy-sounding "official" debating terms to dismiss people's arguments here, right? Well, I'm pretty sure what you tried to do there is called "ad hominem".

[Ratajack]

What you call a "sidestep", I call "not taking the bait".

 

And I think I did pretty effectively refute the point you were trying to make. I was saying that people who Need on everything only do so because they also have internet anonymity. They wouldn't, say, cut in line at the bank, without some really good reason and without asking permission from other people in line, because they could be seen and recognized and shamed and even thrown out of the bank in the process. I can't even remember the last time someone tried to cut in front of me anywhere without asking first; the situation is that rare.

 

The only thing you could say I "sidestepped" was your attempt to make this an argument about me as a person. You've been using some fancy-sounding "official" debating terms to dismiss people's arguments here, right? Well, I'm pretty sure what you tried to do there is called "ad hominem".

 

What you sidestepped was the fact that internet anonymity works both ways. I think you will find that not many people will even speak up if someone cuts in front of them at the bank, because there is no anonymity there. Most people will be upset, but most will simply keep there mouths shut rather than cause a scene. Some will speak up, and those people are usually met with the same disdain as the person who cut the line. The anonymity of the internet allows people the freedom to act as they wish they had the guts to act in the real world, from both sides.

[nateslice]

That's... exactly what I was saying. You talked about internet anonymity working one way; I pointed out that it also works the other way.

 

The only other fault I find with this latest comment from you is that the people who speak up when someone cuts in front of them are actually more likely to be backed up by other people in line. Not to mention the staff.

Edited April 1, 2013 by nateslice

[RandomXChance]

First of all, the bus full of people was NOT my example. I was responding to another poster's example. Please, at least get your facts straight.

 

In real life on that bus in front of a busload of people, if that one person is rude and does not give up his seat, the rest of the bus is much more likely to just accept it rather than cause a scene, so it works both ways. pot, meet kettle.

 

If you actually bothered to read my posts and look at them OBJECTIVELY, you would know that I do not abuse the rest of the group's choice to roll greed. Again, get your facts straight before you make baseless accusations.

 

Well again we have the "no YOU are" response in lieu of some cogent, thoughtful rebuttal. I was not criticizing the bus analogy regardless of where it came from, just expanding upon it.

The waiting in line analogy is far more accurate. Do we like being in line? Of course not. Is it the most efficient system? Handing out numbers is better, but not always feasible. So why do most people follow this social convention? Without the overwhelming majority following it we would have chaos as everyone tries to get to the front. Same with Need/Greed. I feel it is a very poorly designed system, but without most following the same rules we would all be needing on every item and the system would be even more pointless.

 

I thought the fact that I roll greed for my companion and need for my character was a pretty good indicator that I saw both sides. Maybe you should take your own advice instead of hiding behind the defense of "I'm in the majority".

 

Nice try. I have put forth several arguments detailing why the Need/Greed is followed by most players. There is no hiding behind some vacuous statement as you are prone to do. See previous post referring to aforementioned pot and kettle.

Again with the "no YOU are" response. At this point you are perilously close to troll territory. You are defending a position you do not follow and are simply trying to throw any reasonable arguments people use back at them, sometimes with puzzling results.

 

As we see right here:

I'd love to see how you react if someone cuts in front of you in line. I'm betting that like most people who find themselves in that situation, you would be upset, but probably not even say a word. I really doubt that you react in real life anywhere near as vehemently as in game. That might have something to do with the anonymity of the internet.

 

If I'm wrong and you do take matters into your own hands in that situation, I would not be surprised to find you explaining yourself to the authorities on a regular basis. How does that "he violated social convention" line work for you in that case?

 

and here:

What you sidestepped was the fact that internet anonymity works both ways. I think you will find that not many people will even speak up if someone cuts in front of them at the bank, because there is no anonymity there. Most people will be upset, but most will simply keep there mouths shut rather than cause a scene. Some will speak up, and those people are usually met with the same disdain as the person who cut the line. The anonymity of the internet allows people the freedom to act as they wish they had the guts to act in the real world, from both sides.

The people who need for companions feel free to do so because of the anonymity of the internet and by the same token we feel free to call them out and penalize as we can. Both sides feel enabled due to the lack of physical confrontation and anonymity. By what I can tell from you position, only the people who vote kick the social convention breakers are rude? Or are both sides wrong and rude, but you like to stick up for the underdog?

 

After these posts I am actually unsure of your real position. You have stated you follow the Need is not for comps rule, but you feel people that get Vote Kicked for not following it are being mistreated because they simply have a different opinion.

Are you just playing devils advocate or trolling? Maybe you just believe everyone should be able to follow their own rules regardless of established group etiquette? So maybe an Anarchist.

Edited April 1, 2013 by RandomXChance

[Khevar]

The more I think about it, the more I like the "Cutting in Line" analogy.

 

Needing on gear is Cutting in Line.

 

Think about it. You queue up based on who gets there first (that's the Greed roll -- who gets there first). But if you Need, you cut the line and go to the front.

 

Now, in real life, I can think of examples when I wouldn't mind someone cutting in line. As a matter of fact, in real life there are times when I would OFFER. Somebody carrying heavy stuff, perhaps? Pregnant lady? Military man? I would also (generally speaking) respond favorably to someone saying, "I'm late for work, would you mind if I popped in ahead of you?"

 

So. As far as the game goes. Many people consider that if the gear in question is a direct upgrade for the main, that's a valid reason to cut the line (Need). These same people consider (whether you agree or not) that an upgrade for a companion isn't a valid reason to cut the line. Many of these people would consider letting someone do it if they asked first.

 

Someone cutting the line without asking first, and without a socially accepted reason to do so is considered rude. People react differently. Some may grumble quietly to themselves. Some may verbally call them out on it. Some may even get angry.

 

Wow. I really like this analogy -- it's working for me.

[Exastify]

Someone cutting the line without asking first, and without a socially accepted reason to do so is considered rude.

 

Just to clarify - I think for the first time (or first couple), this is more naive. But after the person realizes they are going against the convention, they should stop. If they continue, then it is rude.

[Ratajack]

 

After these posts I am actually unsure of your real position. You have stated you follow the Need is not for comps rule, but you feel people that get Vote Kicked for not following it are being mistreated because they simply have a different opinion.

Are you just playing devils advocate or trolling? Maybe you just believe everyone should be able to follow their own rules regardless of established group etiquette? So maybe an Anarchist.

 

I've tried to make myself clear, but apparently have not.

 

We can agree that need for character only is the more courteous method, but I still recognize that everyone who contributes has as much right to roll for the loot whether it has their main stat or not.

 

I think that given the fact that we can all admit that not everyone follows "social convention", the best way to avoid drama is to take the time to ensure that everyone is on the same page, and not put the onus on "the other person". This applies to everyone, regardless of which side of the debate you favor.

 

In the absence of such communication, then both sides have an equally valid argument, and I don't think that either side should be "punishing" the other.

 

To sum it up, even if the last 200 groups you were in all followed "social convention", take the time to make that group 201 also does, or you might find yourself losing that upgrade to someone's companion. You can kick that person from the group, put them on ignore and "name and shame" them on fleet, but none of those will get you that upgrade for your character, when with a few seconds typing in group chat before the run, you might have that upgrade. Would you rather spend a few seconds typing in group chat and get that upgrade, or have to run that instance again and hope that piece drops again, and you win the roll, because you ASSUMED "social convention" would be in effect.

[Exastify]

I've tried to make myself clear, but apparently have not.

 

We can agree that need for character only is the more courteous method, but I still recognize that everyone who contributes has as much right to roll for the loot whether it has their main stat or not.

 

I think that given the fact that we can all admit that not everyone follows "social convention", the best way to avoid drama is to take the time to ensure that everyone is on the same page, and not put the onus on "the other person". This applies to everyone, regardless of which side of the debate you favor.

 

In the absence of such communication, then both sides have an equally valid argument, and I don't think that either side should be "punishing" the other.

 

To sum it up, even if the last 200 groups you were in all followed "social convention", take the time to make that group 201 also does, or you might find yourself losing that upgrade to someone's companion. You can kick that person from the group, put them on ignore and "name and shame" them on fleet, but none of those will get you that upgrade for your character, when with a few seconds typing in group chat before the run, you might have that upgrade. Would you rather spend a few seconds typing in group chat and get that upgrade, or have to run that instance again and hope that piece drops again, and you win the roll, because you ASSUMED "social convention" would be in effect.

 

I would rather assume everyone knows social convention, especially at higher (25+ levels). For the first flashpoints if I REALLY wanted something that badly I would do as you say, but other wise it isn't worth it. I generally do not farm flashpoints for certain gear, so missing out when a ninja gets something isn't terrible but they are being a dick.

 

I mean, when I see a line for food, do I go up and cut to the front of the line because there was no prior discussion or signs telling me not to? No, it's social convention not to, and I'm not going to bother telling people how lines work every time I get in a line.

[Khevar]

...

 

To sum it up, even if the last 200 groups you were in all followed "social convention", take the time to make that group 201 also does, or you might find yourself losing that upgrade to someone's companion. You can kick that person from the group, put them on ignore and "name and shame" them on fleet, but none of those will get you that upgrade for your character, when with a few seconds typing in group chat before the run, you might have that upgrade. Would you rather spend a few seconds typing in group chat and get that upgrade, or have to run that instance again and hope that piece drops again, and you win the roll, because you ASSUMED "social convention" would be in effect.

Thank you for summing that up. I had suspected that was where we were at.

 

I understand what you're asking for, but I hope you realize it is severely unrealistic.

 

Even people with the very very best intentions are going to get bored with "making sure everyone follows social convention" 201 times in a row. It's just not going to happen. I'm not going to argue whether or not they SHOULD as that is a fruitless argument.

 

And let's be realistic, if people come to this thread, read your arguments, and come away with the idea that they don't need to tell the group they're going to Need for their companion, you've done them a disservice, as it can be seen that they will be treated poorly.

Edited April 1, 2013 by Khevar

[Royox]

OP. It's very easy to understand. If you are not a Jedi Knight you shouldn't choose "Need" when looting a Columi for a Jedi knight if there is a Jedi knight in your party who needs it.

 

If you do you are a ninja and you will be kicked. Where are the rules? It's not a "rule". It's RESPECT and fair play with other players. This is an MMO....you need other players to play it and other players will need you. If you respect them they will respect you. If you are a ninja you will be kicked every time you choose "need" for an item your character don't need.

 

You wanna choose "need" for one item for your companion? Be polite. Ask if nobody really need it and then choose need or pass wisely. Boss loots Jedi Knight Lightsaber Rakata and you choose "need" playing with a Consular habing a JK guardian in party with "green" lightsaber? Expect to be kicked because you are a ninja.

 

This is all about respect.

[Ratajack]

Thank you for summing that up. I had suspected that was where we were at.

 

I understand what you're asking for, but I hope you realize it is severely unrealistic.

 

Even people with the very very best intentions are going to get bored with "making sure everyone follows social convetion" 201 times in a row. It's just not going to happen. I'm not going to argue whether or not they SHOULD as that is a fruitless argument.

 

And let's be realistic, if people come to this thread, read your arguments, and come away with the idea that they don't need to tell the group they're going to Need for their companion, you've done them a disservice, as it can be seen that they will be treated poorly.

 

I would hope that people who wish to need for their companion take from this thread the knowledge that "social convention" is not in their favor and that communication is the key. I hope that those who favor "social convention" take from this thread the same thought regarding communication being a two way street.

 

I doubt that either will happen, as it seems that a lot of the people on either side of the debate lack the ability to open their minds enough to see the other side.

[RandomXChance]

I've tried to make myself clear, but apparently have not.

 

 

I think that given the fact that we can all admit that not everyone follows "social convention", the best way to avoid drama is to take the time to ensure that everyone is on the same page, and not put the onus on "the other person". This applies to everyone, regardless of which side of the debate you favor.

 

 

I appreciate the fact that you realized and responded to my query about the fact that it was difficult to reconcile the apparent conflicts in your position. I was not being sarcastic and your response clarifies your opinion

 

Since we are in such a rush to complete the FP and 95% of the time the issue does not come up we all assume everyone is on the same page. Not an ideal way to go about things, but the reality of the situation.

 

The times that I have had a new player do this and instead of instantly flaming and kicking them people have explained the reason for the system things almost always go well.

 

The problem arises with attitude such as this:

Tell you what. How all those who don't believe everyone should be entitled to a fair share of the loot, whether it is for themselves, their companions or the vendor leave your characters' names here so we can add you to an ignore list.

 

Personally, I like to see everyone get something and I don't care if it comes from a need or greed roll. If you want to stick to your social conventions - I imagine you are the same type of people who demand only English in GC - then make sure you state those conventions at the beginning of the dungeon so others are free to leave if they choose or vote you down. Stand by your principles in game, instead of whining about the roll system here.

 

No amount of discussion at the start will resolve this. This is a person who has decided that their own priority system is superior and end of discussion. I particularly like the bit about everyone getting something to make it sound even and fair. In 15 months of playing only once have I seen someone need because "well, I did not get anything". Players understand the roll of the dice. Sometimes you clean up, sometimes not so much.. When I have talked to them they state that if with friends or guildmates of course they do not need on everything.

 

I guess having a discussion at the start will just have the other three vote kick the person immediately or the other person just leaving and therefore save the future drama. If the vote succeeds that means 2/3 of the rest of the group do not agree with this. If it fails, then I guess my option is to leave. As someone who almost always tanks, I doubt this would endear me to the others.

[valondon]

There is absolutely no way I'm reading 100 pages of this. I'm just going to come in and state something simple. Upgrade for character? It's needed. You play that character 100% of the time to accomplish stuff on that character. You use him/her for flashpoints and stuff outside of flashpoints. You use your companions outside of flashpoints, less than 100% of the time - hence the greed option. Do not claim your companion is more vital than an actual playing character, it devalues any argument you can ever come up with supporting your position.

[Smiffo]

Nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

[RandomXChance]

Nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

 

I am afraid I cannot authorize that. This is a 40 Billion dollar installation.

[Ratajack]

I appreciate the fact that you realized and responded to my query about the fact that it was difficult to reconcile the apparent conflicts in your position. I was not being sarcastic and your response clarifies your opinion

 

Since we are in such a rush to complete the FP and 95% of the time the issue does not come up we all assume everyone is on the same page. Not an ideal way to go about things, but the reality of the situation.

 

The times that I have had a new player do this and instead of instantly flaming and kicking them people have explained the reason for the system things almost always go well.

 

The problem arises with attitude such as this:

 

 

No amount of discussion at the start will resolve this. This is a person who has decided that their own priority system is superior and end of discussion. I particularly like the bit about everyone getting something to make it sound even and fair. In 15 months of playing only once have I seen someone need because "well, I did not get anything". Players understand the roll of the dice. Sometimes you clean up, sometimes not so much.. When I have talked to them they state that if with friends or guildmates of course they do not need on everything.

 

I guess having a discussion at the start will just have the other three vote kick the person immediately or the other person just leaving and therefore save the future drama. If the vote succeeds that means 2/3 of the rest of the group do not agree with this. If it fails, then I guess my option is to leave. As someone who almost always tanks, I doubt this would endear me to the others.

 

 

On the flip side of the bolded issue, we have people like this:

 

 

If someone takes a item they should not have I simply initiate a vote kick and place the player on ignore.

 

and

 

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.

 

 

No discussion, no attempt to educate, just absolute refusal to even attempt to put themselves in the other party's shoes, so to speak, and instant punishment for the offender. In your words "This is a person who has decided that their own priority system is superior and end of discussion." This is reason I said:

 

I would hope that people who wish to need for their companion take from this thread the knowledge that "social convention" is not in their favor and that communication is the key. I hope that those who favor "social convention" take from this thread the same thought regarding communication being a two way street.

 

I doubt that either will happen, as it seems that a lot of the people on either side of the debate lack the ability to open their minds enough to see the other side.

 

 

On a side note, I do see merit in the idea of giving the same piece of loot to everybody, especially in story mode flashpoints. That is one way to ensure that there is no reason for drama.

[Lostpenguins]

I am afraid I cannot authorize that. This is a 40 Billion dollar installation.

He can't make that kind of decision. He's only a grunt!

 

...

 

No offense.

[Khevar]

...

 

I doubt that either will happen, as it seems that a lot of the people on either side of the debate lack the ability to open their minds enough to see the other side.

Quite the contrary. I have had back and forth discussions with people in this very thread who argued in favor of Need for companions, but they indicated they had no problem with making their intentions known first.

 

Has anyone in this thread argued against the idea of asking first?

[Jeweledleah]

On the flip side of the bolded issue, we have people like this:

 

 

 

and

 

 

 

 

No discussion, no attempt to educate, just absolute refusal to even attempt to put themselves in the other party's shoes, so to speak, and instant punishment for the offender. In your words "This is a person who has decided that their own priority system is superior and end of discussion." This is reason I said:

 

 

 

 

On a side note, I do see merit in the idea of giving the same piece of loot to everybody, especially in story mode flashpoints. That is one way to ensure that there is no reason for drama.

 

I don't know about others, but I don't initiate immediate kick. I SAY something first. I give that person benefit of the doubt. other people I've ran with do the same. maybe its just my server, it seems some of the communities are less welcoming and genial then others. and I've had it go both ways - people who didn't know (usually low level flashpoints) and people who didn't care and though that their desire to vendor or gear companion is equal to someone else's need for an actual upgrade.

 

here's the thing about gearing companions. when you are questing - most quests reward green gear that is more then sufficient to keep your companion up to date and viable. when you hit lvl 50- you are given free set of gear. 2 sets in fact. I've actually compared tionese and recruit and in some ways, recruit has better stats (especially weapons) so you quite literally can gear yourself and your companion the moment you hit max level. and if you are missing a few slots here and there, you have either an option of buying more recruit gear with credits (works on companions just fine) or eventually buying them tionese upgrades with coms you get just by finishing flashpoints. tionese/recruit combo is MORE then enough to do anything at end solo game, including soloing some of the 2 man heroic dailies.

 

so no, there's really no need to need for companions. none at all. however, someone not getting their collumi piece, means they are that much farther away from eventually being able to do, say Lost Island. heck even if what they mostly do is dailies, an upgrade for companion will still be less effective then upgrade for an avatar.

 

social conventions become that way for a reason. and some times, those social conventions turn into people deciding that they don't want to be fair, that they only care about their own gratification and nothing else. and so fixes like "no loot rolls - everyone gets something" are implemented. and the thing is - they still don't remove the drama. it just shifts. because the tone for the community is set. I'd rather the tone for SWTOR remains relatively pleasant.

[RandomXChance]

On the flip side of the bolded issue, we have people like this:

 

 

 

and

 

 

 

 

No discussion, no attempt to educate, just absolute refusal to even attempt to put themselves in the other party's shoes, so to speak, and instant punishment for the offender. In your words "This is a person who has decided that their own priority system is superior and end of discussion." This is reason I said:

 

 

 

 

On a side note, I do see merit in the idea of giving the same piece of loot to everybody, especially in story mode flashpoints. That is one way to ensure that there is no reason for drama.

 

There is certainly bad behavior on both sides of the coin. As I said, I see if their need roll and they are reasonable in the discussion, then usually no problem. The "i can need on anything/everything so there" attitude gets a different response.

 

103 pages and we HAVE actually reached some level of understanding! Who knew?

[nateslice]

I'm generally okay with people rolling Need, even on loot I really want, as long as they ask first. I had it happen fairly often in WoW, where I played a DPS Death Knight, and occasionally a plate DPS piece would drop and a Warrior or Paladin tank would ask if he could Need on it for his DPS set.

 

I would generally consent to it, although I would also roll Need. I don't mind the occasional 50% chance as long as I know about it when the rolling resolves.

 

Here in TOR, I might be a little less generous and understanding when I'm playing my Gunslinger (who just got to level 50 yesterday), just because everyone except Troopers has a companion who uses medium armor with Cunning. If I let one person roll against me on that character's loot, then the other two players could easily go, "Ooh, me, too! Me, too!", forcing me to roll against the entire group for every upgrade.

 

I'd really rather not consent to only a 25% chance of getting any upgrade that drops for me. Especially if I've been Passing on everything else that drops for the other players, as I tend to do.

Edited April 1, 2013 by nateslice

[Fayrelle]

But why is their character more important? I play with my companion beside me every second im not playing a flashpoint and my companion is critical in my winning each mission. So i dont understand why their gaming is more important than mine. I dont understand this sense of entitlement that someone else has over another gamer. If you pay for a game it should not be dictated on someone elses terms how you play should it? As long as you arent cheating.

 

Maybe their character is more important because they are a live human being and not some pixelated CGI npc?? People like you really piss me off. I lost count of how many times I had run a fp over and over again to finally get that drop my toon NEEDED just to lose it to a greedy ninja like you. I never need for companions UNLESS there is no one else in group who needs it AND I ask first. It's simple consideration. Learn from it.

Edited April 1, 2013 by Fayrelle

[nateslice]

Another thing to keep in mind as far as that "I helped make that drop appear, so I get to roll Need on it" argument goes, is that loot drops are determined by the players in the group.

 

So, if a medium armor piece with Cunning drops, that only happened because there's a Smuggler or Agent in the group. You can help make loot drops appear all you like, but that specific piece only appeared because a player who can use it was in the group. The fact that you have Quinn or Tharan as a follower has no bearing on what drops.

 

You may have "helped create that piece", but it wouldn't have appeared in the first place without a player in the group who could use it on his character.

 

If rolling Need for companions became the rule, it would be especially unfair to Smuggler and Agent players, because Trooper is the only class that doesn't have a medium-armor-wearing, Cunning-based companion.

Edited April 1, 2013 by nateslice