Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

No, You May Not Roll on Items for Another Class and Strip Out the Mods

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > General Discussion
No, You May Not Roll on Items for Another Class and Strip Out the Mods

Setanian's Avatar


Setanian
01.27.2012 , 02:53 PM | #1071
Quote: Originally Posted by TonyACT View Post
Game communities are all about social conventions - you break the conventions the sense of community suffers.

This thread is all about discussing agreed conventions - of course anyone is free to break them and face the consequences.
No, this thread is about 'forcing' the convention that if accepted allows people to dictate that gear is more suitable to them and that others should not use their roll how they choose but as the people here choose. Because, by so doing, the chances of gaining loot are increased for these people.

The irony is need before greed is exactly the opposite in effect. It's the greedy demanding the 'need' be passed to them.
What is that baseball bat in your signature? Oh! It's a lightsaber! How cute is that !

Creed_Buhallin's Avatar


Creed_Buhallin
01.27.2012 , 02:54 PM | #1072
Quote: Originally Posted by TonyACT View Post
Game communities are all about social conventions - you break the conventions the sense of community suffers.

This thread is all about discussing agreed conventions - of course anyone is free to break them and face the consequences.
The problem is that those social conventions are being carried over from other games, and simply haven't kept up with the realities of TOR.

Let's consider an alternative: Assume (I don't know if it does) that in WoW, Intelligence as a stat boosted both a Mage's direct damage, and the toughness of a Warlock's pet.

Would it be acceptable for the warlock to roll need on an Intelligence item, even though it only improves his pet? And even then, would only be a meaningful improvement for his Voidwalker?

DrunkenGundark's Avatar


DrunkenGundark
01.27.2012 , 02:57 PM | #1073
Quote: Originally Posted by ferroz View Post
False dilemma.

The actual choices are between
Everyone gets a chance at loot they want where I dictate the correct priorities and whether they are allowed priority.
vs
Everyone gets a chance at loot they want,


I much prefer the latter; you have no business setting my priorities.
Here's the problem with that. When everyone has different priorities that clearly act to the detriment of the rest of the group? Then I'd argue that we should have the right to say/do something.

And no, just because our views differ from someone else's and just because we are trying to exert our influence does not necessarily make us oppressive and/or tyrannical. You're arguing an extreme viewpoint. You want a completely hands-off system were nobody, anywhere, gets to dictate anything. All well and good if everybody could be trusted to act towards the common good. They can't.

What gives me the right to determine whether my priorities should have any bearing on what gets said/done in a group? Only my actions and my continued good will. If I do anything that works contrary to the best interests of the party, then you stop me. If my interests conflict with the best interests of the party, then you stop me. But until then, you're damn right I see the need to prioritize things like loot management. Give upgrades to those who can make honest use of them. Make the most effective use of the resources the group is given.

But this fanatical adherence to "You can't tell me what to do. NOBODY tells me what to do," isn't productive.

Edryk's Avatar


Edryk
01.27.2012 , 02:57 PM | #1074
Quote: Originally Posted by ispanolfw View Post
I'm not enforcing anything. It's already that way, if Bioware didn't intend it to be that way, it would not be that way. And if it was a mistake on their end, they will change it. I don't force others to pass on gear because it's a bigger upgrade to someone else. I just expect that in the ABSENCE of an agreement among players, that the rules of the game will allow what they will, and I will never complain of such.

And it's not hypocritical. The rules are what they are, I had no say in them being made, and neither likely did you. As people have stated before, this is about as close to "fair" as you can get. And why we say the "social" or "moral" or whatever side is forcing? Because they want to force THEIR views on everyone else. I do not. My views are actually different than the system in place, but I understand they are that way for a reason.
So why are you even here if your opinion is that Bioware will make the rules and you'll live by them?

I don't want to force my views on anyone else. I just want to play with people that share my opinions. And I'd like to know beforehand if not.

I CAN'T force my views on anyone else. I can't MAKE anyone pass. However, people can roll on everything even if they have no use for it, and the game allows that. Sorry that I don't share your idea of 'fair'.

I'd like to play the way I want, and I'll let you go play the way you want. But the only way we can both do so is if I remove you from the group, or I leave. Otherwise you get to do things your way and I can't stop you.

Eldren's Avatar


Eldren
01.27.2012 , 02:58 PM | #1075
Quote: Originally Posted by Creed_Buhallin View Post
The problem is that those social conventions are being carried over from other games, and simply haven't kept up with the realities of TOR.

Let's consider an alternative: Assume (I don't know if it does) that in WoW, Intelligence as a stat boosted both a Mage's direct damage, and the toughness of a Warlock's pet.

Would it be acceptable for the warlock to roll need on an Intelligence item, even though it only improves his pet? And even then, would only be a meaningful improvement for his Voidwalker?
Probably a better question for that game's forums.

What I know is this: if that lightsaber is an upgrade for Jaesa, I'm rolling Need on it regardless of a Sith Inquisitor being in my group.
<character name> of the <name> legacy, of <guild name>, a <type> guild on <server>
Referral link. Get a frack-ton of unlocks & help me out too! Click me for goodies.

Galbatorrix's Avatar


Galbatorrix
01.27.2012 , 02:59 PM | #1076
Quote: Originally Posted by Vydor_HC View Post
My guess would be, if they don't have a need for an item, they wouldn't roll need.
These are people that would need on an orange item for appearances sake over someone in their group who actually uses those stats and would get a huge boost from it. Nothing they could do would surprise me at this point.


Honestly though, this thread is the number one reason why everyone should consider joining a guild. Guild runs are so much more pleasant. It's nice to know that if a cool gun drops for my Gunslinger, I'll win it and get a big ol "Congrats!" from them over losing it to the Sentinel because "My Little droid here uses pistols and I can mod it for AIM".


Seriously people, join a guild and have fun. Or PuG and deal with the ninjas in this thread.

ferroz's Avatar


ferroz
01.27.2012 , 03:00 PM | #1077
Quote: Originally Posted by TonyACT View Post
This thread is all about discussing agreed conventions - of course anyone is free to break them and face the consequences.
Actually, it's about whether those actually are conventions in the is game, and the fact that they aren't agreed on...

ispanolfw's Avatar


ispanolfw
01.27.2012 , 03:02 PM | #1078
Quote: Originally Posted by Edryk View Post
So why are you even here if your opinion is that Bioware will make the rules and you'll live by them?

I don't want to force my views on anyone else. I just want to play with people that share my opinions. And I'd like to know beforehand if not.

I CAN'T force my views on anyone else. I can't MAKE anyone pass. However, people can roll on everything even if they have no use for it, and the game allows that. Sorry that I don't share your idea of 'fair'.

I'd like to play the way I want, and I'll let you go play the way you want. But the only way we can both do so is if I remove you from the group, or I leave. Otherwise you get to do things your way and I can't stop you.
It's not my idea of fair. If all parties involved have an equal chance at what drops, it just is fair. Fair means something pretty specific, not what you or I feel it means.

1.
free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge.

ie if everyone has the same chance to roll, with no bias or any other outside influence to not roll, it is fair. And to a degree you CAN force them. If you do not discuss prior, and then kick them for rolling by the rules set in the game, that is paramount to enforcing your view. If you DO discuss it and they agree but then break said agreement, by all means. They agreed, and failed to follow, they broke the rule and you forced nothing.

Eldren's Avatar


Eldren
01.27.2012 , 03:02 PM | #1079
Quote: Originally Posted by DrunkenGundark View Post
Here's the problem with that. When everyone has different priorities that clearly act to the detriment of the rest of the group? Then I'd argue that we should have the right to say/do something.

And no, just because our views differ from someone else's and just because we are trying to exert our influence does not necessarily make us oppressive and/or tyrannical. You're arguing an extreme viewpoint. You want a completely hands-off system were nobody, anywhere, gets to dictate anything. All well and good if everybody could be trusted to act towards the common good. They can't.

What gives me the right to determine whether my priorities should have any bearing on what gets said/done in a group? Only my actions and my continued good will. If I do anything that works contrary to the best interests of the party, then you stop me. If my interests conflict with the best interests of the party, then you stop me. But until then, you're damn right I see the need to prioritize things like loot management. Give upgrades to those who can make honest use of them. Make the most effective use of the resources the group is given.

But this fanatical adherence to "You can't tell me what to do. NOBODY tells me what to do," isn't productive.
This isn't about the "common good", which isn't even defined in this (or any other) game. If the "common good" is about putting the group's needs above the individual's, then no one gets anything because everyone's passing so someone else can have it. Then to distribute anything, you require an impartial system, unaffectable by anyone involved, to determine disbursement.

Oh wait, we have that already!

Yes, a fanatical adherence in this particular argument to "You can't tell me what to do" is quite germane, as it's the fundamental underpinning of the argument from those who say "You should not do as you like if it keeps me from getting what I want."

At least those who say "Roll for everything" are willing to let whoever wins the roll have what they won. They aren't attempting to restrict others' freedoms.

The key word is "attempting", as no one here can actually restrict the freedom of another player to roll as they personally desire when loot pops up.
<character name> of the <name> legacy, of <guild name>, a <type> guild on <server>
Referral link. Get a frack-ton of unlocks & help me out too! Click me for goodies.

Vydor_HC's Avatar


Vydor_HC
01.27.2012 , 03:03 PM | #1080
Quote: Originally Posted by Galbatorrix View Post
These are people that would need on an orange item for appearances sake over someone in their group who actually uses those stats and would get a huge boost from it. Nothing they could do would surprise me at this point.
-nods-

If they felt they needed it, I have zero problem with it. I have the same odds as they do at winning the item. So, the need was there..I am in to place to determine otherwise. Use/Equipping of an item is only one way to use something.

-shrugs-

Anyways, I'm sure if you and I grouped we'd be able to work out a compromise on loot rules.