The new addition that allows people to trade items actually complements my idea very nicely:

Let's say my sniper wins the roll for a lightsaber and the marauder in my group wants to have it.

Since we now can trade, I can sell the saber to him and we both are rewarded for killing the boss.

 

I still suggest that we all only use "need" and let the random generator decide for groupfinder teams.

It's as fair as it can be with the current loot system.

 

No matter how you spin it, that system is selfish. lol. If you get matched with a team of selfish people, all the power to you. Need to your little hearts content. But you're most likely not going to get that perfect match.

Why do you think you're entitled to a reward for every downed boss anyway? If you *REALLY* think you should have one, how about just being happy for someone else getting an upgrade? That should be enough of a reward. It is for me anyway. I even enjoy seeing random PuGs rejoice when they get an upgrade. I put myself in their shoes and remember all the times that I got my own.

It is objectively equal but NOT FAIR. Not by a long way. Yes, you are entitled to roll for it in the sense you mean it: the game mechanics allow it so you might as well. However, common decency and fairness might just stop you from rolling need on something you have no use for but would represent an upgrade for someone else.

 

Your proposed system reeks of the "winner takes it all, every man for himself, the strongest rules" mentality. Let's just fight for everything and those who have absolutely no shame about anything should come out on top. You say you want to eliminate loot drama but to me it seems you just want to punish polite and well-behaving players for the sake of those who want everything for themselves and have no regard for others at all.

 

With your system, loot drama would go like this: everyone rolls need. The Marauder who did not win the lightsaber would ask the Sniper why did he not pass on it? At that point, the Sniper might prove to be a decent chap and just give the utterly useless thing to the Mara - or, going by your warped version of entitlement, would just tell him to eff off. It would create a nice atmosphere, I'm sure. Unless you mean that everyone should know they always roll need on everything - which would mean adhering to an unwritten rule, an implied contract. Something you seem to be desperately against. Of course, after passing a few times, people would learn that only extreme selfishness gives them any chance in your system so they'd probably adapt after a while, turning them from decent guys with a sense of fairness into "I want everything for ME ME ME" loot ninjas.

 

Your suggestion would make some sense if you simply eliminated the option to pass as well. No need to roll, the random generator will decide everything. Would anyone play that game in 2012? No but that's none of your concern, you're ENTITLED to come up with stupid ideas. The current system is fine, most people are actually FAIR when it comes to using it and it should not be changed for selfish players with entitlement issues like yourself.

Yes, yes - nice long rant in support of social contract. And thanks for the insults too.

Your "social contract" system:

Player X runs 10 ops and gets nothing because nothing dropped that he was "allowed" to roll on.

Player Y runs 5 ops and is fully geared because everything dropped and only he was "allowed" to need on it.

My "random generator" system:

Player X runs 10 ops and gets at least some items he can trade/sell or use for his companions

Player Y gets the same chances as Player X.

Your system awards the lucky.

My system awards those who are persistent and work hard.

My system is equal AND fair, your's belongs in kindergarten.

Yes, yes - nice long rant in support of social contract. And thanks for the insults too.

 

Your "social contract" system:

Player X runs 10 ops and gets nothing because nothing dropped that he was "allowed" to roll on.

Player Y runs 5 ops and is fully geared because everything dropped and only he was "allowed" to need on it.

 

My "random generator" system:

Player X runs 10 ops and gets at least some items he can trade/sell or use for his companions

Player Y gets the same chances as Player X.

 

Your system awards the lucky.

My system awards those who are persistent and work hard.

 

My system is equal AND fair, your's belongs in kindergarten.

Aren't we forgetting 1 minor thing. Most things that drop in ops/fp are BoP, so you can't sell it and be honest, are dailies really 'that' hard your companion deserves it more than say someone who's still busy gearing up?

and example:

Your system would mean that I'd first need to get lucky enough for a class-piece to drop and then lucky enough to win a roll between 4 other people? Who might have no further need for it?

Almost everyone is able to communicate... If you want a piece for a companion or the mods for an alt, simply ask if it's ok if you need it. If everyone greeded it, I'm sure they don't mind, but it doesn't take long to type "mind if I greed for companion/alt?"

Yes, yes - nice long rant in support of social contract. And thanks for the insults too.

 

Your "social contract" system:

Player X runs 10 ops and gets nothing because nothing dropped that he was "allowed" to roll on.

Player Y runs 5 ops and is fully geared because everything dropped and only he was "allowed" to need on it.

 

My "random generator" system:

Player X runs 10 ops and gets at least some items he can trade/sell or use for his companions

Player Y gets the same chances as Player X.

 

Your system awards the lucky.

My system awards those who are persistent and work hard.

 

My system is equal AND fair, your's belongs in kindergarten.

And yet, for some strange reason, my 4 level 50s have had no problems getting gear by ONLY needing when it's a direct main spec upgrade, and greeding/passing on everything else.

Now lets look at this another way. Why would you want to win a Columi token that was not for your class when someone else could use it? And if that Columi MH finally dropped in lost island for your Consular, why should you roll against a Commando who not only can't use it, but doesn't have a companion that can?

And considering you get commendations for the daily and weekly, you still can gear up even if you didn't get that piece you wanted in a drop.

If everyone only needed then all involved would get more credits, sure. But if everyone only needs on class upgrades, they'll get geared faster, because they're not in competition with people that don't actually need it.

Yes, yes - nice long rant in support of social contract. And thanks for the insults too.

 

Your "social contract" system:

Player X runs 10 ops and gets nothing because nothing dropped that he was "allowed" to roll on.

Player Y runs 5 ops and is fully geared because everything dropped and only he was "allowed" to need on it.

 

My "random generator" system:

Player X runs 10 ops and gets at least some items he can trade/sell or use for his companions

Player Y gets the same chances as Player X.

 

Your system awards the lucky.

My system awards those who are persistent and work hard.

 

My system is equal AND fair, your's belongs in kindergarten.

I disagree because you are not allowing that both X and Y can be the same person. My smuggler was fully Rakata geared after running 1 HMFP, SM EV , SM KP, HM EV and HF KP. My Shadow skipped columi, but still took until I was doing SM EC and NIM KP before I got her geared to about the same level. Is one fair or unfair? No, it is the luck of the draw and what falls, but if you continue to go on raids with a pretty regular group and are not a jerk about needing gear, you will get the gear even if you end up with an almost entirely Jedi Consular group doing NIM KP just so you will have a chance at the mainhand. As to my smuggler I have gone on many, many SM and HM ops with her since getting geared for no other reason than to get others geared. She is BIS campaign level and she will still do SM EV if it will get someone else gear. Which does mean people will pass to allow me to get two offhands in a row in HM EC so I have skill barrels without me ever asking them to.

I can't see people doing stuff like that with your system.

...

 

My system is equal AND fair, your's belongs in kindergarten.

I wanted to say something else, because this comment in particular bugs me.

The "Need only on Main Spec Upgrades" is all about the big picture. I'm willing to "give away" this loot that I don't really need, because I expect that somewhere down the line someone else will "give away" loot that they don't need to me. This seems like an agreement between sensible people who have manners.

It only breaks down when you have people 'mineminemine' who need on loot their toon can't use, while there is someone else in the group that could get a direct gear upgrade -- call me crazy but that sounds more like kindergarten ...

Yes, yes - nice long rant in support of social contract. And thanks for the insults too.

 

Your "social contract" system:

Player X runs 10 ops and gets nothing because nothing dropped that he was "allowed" to roll on.

Player Y runs 5 ops and is fully geared because everything dropped and only he was "allowed" to need on it.

 

My "random generator" system:

Player X runs 10 ops and gets at least some items he can trade/sell or use for his companions

Player Y gets the same chances as Player X.

 

Your system awards the lucky.

My system awards those who are persistent and work hard.

 

My system is equal AND fair, your's belongs in kindergarten.

Your an idiot, enough said:cool:

. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘â€. . . . . . . . . .``~.,

. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-â€. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,

. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . â€:,

. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,

. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}

. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}

. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:â€. . . ./

. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./

. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./

. . . . . . /(_. . â€~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/

. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .â€=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~â€; /. .. .}

. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .â€=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /†. . . ./. .. ../

. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../

. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-â€

. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\

. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__

,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,

. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\

. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--

Your an idiot, enough said:cool:

This opinion from someone who doesn't know how to spell "you're."

I wanted to say something else, because this comment in particular bugs me.

 

The "Need only on Main Spec Upgrades" is all about the big picture. I'm willing to "give away" this loot that I don't really need, because I expect that somewhere down the line someone else will "give away" loot that they don't need to me. This seems like an agreement between sensible people who have manners.

 

It only breaks down when you have people 'mineminemine' who need on loot their toon can't use, while there is someone else in the group that could get a direct gear upgrade -- call me crazy but that sounds more like kindergarten ...

In Kindergarten, we teach our children to share, but later in life, the world teaches them not to.

Like I said many posts ago, an ideal loot system would award individual loot which takes the classes into account - but we don't have such a system here.

My point is and has always been this:

Almost all the complaints that I've been reading here have to do with "ninja looting" in groupfinder teams.

Groupfinder teams are random, hence the loot should be distributed randomly to make it fair and equal for everyone!

My system does just that, without the need of a vague, unenforcable "social contract".

Naturally, when pugging in a guild premade, the pug should abide by their loot sytem, whatever that may be.

Their ops, their rules - that simple.

In Kindergarten, we teach our children to share, but later in life, the world teaches them not to.

 

Like I said many posts ago, an ideal loot system would award individual loot which takes the classes into account - but we don't have such a system here.

 

My point is and has always been this:

Almost all the complaints that I've been reading here have to do with "ninja looting" in groupfinder teams.

Groupfinder teams are random, hence the loot should be distributed randomly to make it fair and equal for everyone!

My system does just that, without the need of a vague, unenforcable "social contract".

 

Naturally, when pugging in a guild premade, the pug should abide by their loot sytem, whatever that may be.

Their ops, their rules - that simple.

I dont know about you, but I would teach my children that you shouldnt take stuff you can neither use or want, just because you can. What was stated by the other dude is not about sharing, its about taking something because you can.

We actually did have random divided loot back in the days, but people who didnt think only of themselves didnt like it, because it made people in full rakata get columi drops, while others, who may have needed the drop, didnt get anything because it was randomly given to other people.

As far as Im concerned, the way it works now is the best way it could work. If you need it, hit need. If you're gonna sell it or give it to your companion, greed. I know some people considering their companion an extension of themselves, which is by all means fine. However:

1. The majority disagrees with the fact that companions are as important as player characters
   
2. Companions are only useful for solo gameplay (dailies at 50), while a PC is useful for every aspect of the game
   

In Kindergarten, we teach our children to share, but later in life, the world teaches them not to.

 

...

Cynical eh?

Are you the type of person who'd rather cut someone off trying to merge on the freeway, rather than letting them in? Hey I've had people cut me off. Is that a "life lesson" I should take to heart and be sure to do it do everyone else?

yeah Op you were in the wrong man, greed is for companions need is only for you.

on the flip side at least you had the wisdom to check.

luck in the future.

I dont know about you, but I would teach my children that you shouldnt take stuff you can neither use or want, just because you can. What was stated by the other dude is not about sharing, its about taking something because you can. <snip>

I teach mine to take what they are entitled to - no more, no less.

AFKing and other douchebaggery aside, each member of the team contributes to killing the boss.

Hence each member of the team is entitled to a roll for the loot.

It is irrelevant if they can use the loot or not, they are still entitled to the roll because they did the work.

Cynical eh?

 

Are you the type of person who'd rather cut someone off trying to merge on the freeway, rather than letting them in? Hey I've had people cut me off. Is that a "life lesson" I should take to heart and be sure to do it do everyone else?

By no means cynical, just realistic.

Greed is the foundation of capitalism - if it were any different, we would all be little commies.

In none of my posts have I said anything about retaliation or vengence - please don't take this discussion there.

...

 

It is irrelevant if they can use the loot or not, they are still entitled to the roll because they did the work.

 

...

Alright, let me take this point in specific.

You are 100% correct. They are absolutely entitled to an equal portion of the loot as they contributed the work.

But this is a very short-sighted look at things, and will actually SLOW your own personal gear progression. This is due to the fact that end-game loot drops (with the exception of Campaign and Dread Guard) are class specific. So when you go into a HM FP with 4 different classes, not only is there a 25% chance to win the roll, it is on top of an additional 25% chance that the drop will be for your class.

In the above example, you end up with a 6.25% chance to get the HM FP Columi token you need.

By restricting "Need" to direct personal gear upgrades, everyone would get geared up faster! See, if everyone needs on everything, sure they'll make more money, but have less opportunity to get the gear they can actually use. This is a bit like the Prisoner's Dilemma, actually.

And many smart Capitalists will favor the long-term greed over the short-term greed. Example: My business has given hefty discounts to clients in a market we just entered, for the purpose of building up a portfolio in that market. Two years later we can attract big fish who pay the big bucks.

To sum:

Everyone Needs on everything == Takes longer to gear up

Everyone Greeds on everything but Needs on direct main upgrades == Quicker to gear up

THAT'S why it's better.

It is irrelevant if they can use the loot or not, they are still entitled to the roll because they did the work.

I will also say for a fact F2P is going to make sharing ignore list more prevalent not less.

Alright, let me take this point in specific.

 

You are 100% correct. They are absolutely entitled to an equal portion of the loot as they contributed the work.

 

But this is a very short-sighted look at things, and will actually SLOW your own personal gear progression. This is due to the fact that end-game loot drops (with the exception of Campaign and Dread Guard) are class specific. So when you go into a HM FP with 4 different classes, not only is there a 25% chance to win the roll, it is on top of an additional 25% chance that the drop will be for your class.

<snip>

To sum:

Everyone Needs on everything == Takes longer to gear up

Everyone Greeds on everything but Needs on direct main upgrades == Quicker to gear up

 

THAT'S why it's better.

Yes, I understand that - but you misunderstood me.

I'm NOT talking about guild ops for Campaign or Dread gear, I'm talking about GROUPFINDER teams.

If I do an ops with my guild or pug with another guild, I will abide by whatever rules are agreed upon and I TRUST that everyone else in that ops also abides by those rules. If I can't trust my own guild, I wouldn't be in it.

But when I get teamed with random people through groupfinder, I don't know them and I certainly don't trust them.

Sorry, I'm not that naive.

Hence, if everyone rolls "need" on every loot, the random generator decides the outcome - fair and equal.

There will be no so-called ninja-looting, no violation of the "social contract".

But yes, you are correct - it will take longer to gear up. That's the price to pay to eliminate loot drama.

Yes, if they need they are entitled... entitled to get booted and entitled to get ignored. No big deal right? It could be when ignore list are shared on guild websites.

 

I will also say for a fact F2P is going to make sharing ignore list more prevalent not less.

F2P is EXACTLY why I'm proposing this system for groupfinder.

Just like you, I'm sure that F2P will introduce a whole lot of problems when it comes to looting.

My suggestion is simply meant to mitigate that.

Have you made any friends in these pugs you have been Needing in? You do understand these pugs are on your team. You should be fighting the other guys and gals, not your team.

I have meet and stayed in contact few from pugs in group finder, because I treat everyone I group with the same. I see no difference between a guild run and a pug run in my behavior. It is a group effort and needing just because you believe you are entitled defeats the entire purpose of playing a MMO.... If you want everything as if you are playing alone, go play a single player game.

Rather than assuming everyone else is untrustworthy, my approach is different. I just run my simple greed on everything (but main spec upgrades) regardless of what others are doing. I don't even wait to see what the others do. Loot comes up, not an upgrade, "Greed".

What's the worst that can happen? I lose a loot to a ninja? Heck, I've even been able to gear up several of my companions in Columi gear gotten from greed rolls.

What's the result my approach? NO DRAMA!

And for what it's worth almost every pug I've been in (and I've done a TON through the group finder on 4 different level 50s) have acted this exact same way, even without prior discussion. Only a handful of times was someone hitting the need button all the time. Two stopped when asked politely and everything went fine after, the others were added my ignore list and life went on.

C'est la vie

I love how people keep mentioning a universal server rule. I myself was not aware of the case until I came across this thread. What does this tell you? That you should not rely on an unspoken "universal rule" to govern loot distributions.

Anyone with standard common sense will roll greed for off-spec, credits, or companions. They will roll need on any item that is an immediate upgrade to what they currently have. This has been the defined 'proper group manners' since the early days of EverQuest in the very least. (For those that remember... FBSS groups.) However not everyone thinks with the same common sense, and with reason SWTOR makes it a little harder to define. Some people may consider companions a 'need' due to how often we use them.

Sure, are companions are only useful to -me-, -myself- and -I-. But what if my mentality puts my companion's equipment and survivability on the same level as my main spec gear? I am not in the wrong for thinking this way and both parties are at fault for the lack of communication and clarification. The thread creator mentioned that s/he noted there were no rules mentioned at the start of the group or at any point. Why did s/he simply not ask if there was a preference?

You will suffer similar problems when you are a pick-up' that gets thrown into a partial guild group. What if they are needing on companion gear and don't even think to consider that their PuG actually needs the gear? Different games generate different methods of acceptable loot practice. DCUO, it is not uncommon to get into a Duo or Alert and have one or two players rolling need on absolutely everything they are allowed to hit the button on. In WoW this practice is accepted at lower levels, but not tolerated very much in the higher level instances.

Even in SWToR we are getting mixed responses. "Big deal, loot is plentiful." "Shame on you, you should know better!." these type of responses only indicates that SWToR has yet to fall into a comfort zone. -slightly sarcastic comment follows- Not to worry though, when the game goes Free to Play I am sure it will shift more towards "take everything you can," for a while.

Rather than assuming everyone else is untrustworthy, my approach is different. I just run my simple greed on everything (but main spec upgrades) regardless of what others are doing. I don't even wait to see what the others do. Loot comes up, not an upgrade, "Greed".

 

What's the worst that can happen? I lose a loot to a ninja? Heck, I've even been able to gear up several of my companions in Columi gear gotten from greed rolls.

 

What's the result my approach? NO DRAMA!

<snip>

Have you made any friends in these pugs you have been Needing in? You do understand these pugs are on your team. You should be fighting the other guys and gals, not your team.

 

I have meet and stayed in contact few from pugs in group finder, because I treat everyone I group with the same. I see no difference between a guild run and a pug run in my behavior. It is a group effort and needing just because you believe you are entitled defeats the entire purpose of playing a MMO.... If you want everything as if you are playing alone, go play a single player game.

Hmm, my personal practice was really not up for discussion - but just to humor you folks:

I practically pass on every single loot in every FP or OPS. I can literally count the loot items I've gotten since December on one hand. All my toons are fully or partially geared through PVP, dailies, bh comms or GTN - same goes for the companions I use. *I*, personally, could care less what loot rules are followed or not.

My idea was simply in response to the numerous complaints (here and in-game) about what was perceived as "ninja looting" in groupfinder teams and the expected increase of such complaints with the imment introduction of F2P.

Obviously, I a) failed to clarify that sufficiently and b) am now convinced that people rather complain than change the system. Kinda like politics - we vote for the same crappy parties every time and then b*tch about the results.

...

 

Obviously, I a) failed to clarify that sufficiently and b) am now convinced that people rather complain than change the system. Kinda like politics - we vote for the same crappy parties every time and then b*tch about the results.

Sigh.

I'm not complaining about the system, the people using it, or even the people abusing it. I'm not only happy with the system as it stands, I've had personal benefit and have seen others benefit. I post on threads like this to encourage a spirit of cooperation rather than one of selfishness. It tends to make pugs more enjoyable.

Plus I suppose your kindergarten comment was a successful troll attempt, as it kinda p****d me off and I had to respond.

Here's my viewpoint. When I'm on the last story boss and he's kicking my ***, who's at my side? Another player? No...my companion. And given the difficulty of the fight, my comp should be geared just as well as I am. So yeah, I say need for companions. And for those who whine about it, here's a brand new concept for you: you can need for your comps too!

Sigh.

Or here's another thought...the devs add companion-only gear to the flashpoint and op drops(in addition to the regular drops. Basically twice the gear would drop. Half player, half comp).

Here's my viewpoint. When I'm on the last story boss and he's kicking my ***, who's at my side? Another player? No...my companion. And given the difficulty of the fight, my comp should be geared just as well as I am. So yeah, I say need for companions. And for those who whine about it, here's a brand new concept for you: you can need for your comps too!

Yeah great. Do that if you like; enjoy being on my ignore list. I've never, ever seen a group turn down someone's request to need for a companion, provided no-one else already needed for their main spec. Literally never. It's just common courtesy.

If you can't do the last story boss without needing better gear on your companion than the regular blue and green drops you get through questing, you either need to learn to play your classes better or to ensure you're not too far below the recommended level. I've killed the final bosses for Consular, Smuggler, Agent and Inquisitor without any help and without over-geared companions. The only one that gave me any difficulty was Consular, and that was because of tricky fight mechanics that had to be learnt, not gear.