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

I agree with you, but at the same time, I'd MUCH rather never get anything that is for aesthetics purposes only than get upgrades stolen by someone that is needing for a + endurance mod.

They should give a roll bonus to those that use the primary stat. This way, if a Trooper rolls need on AIM, he'll automatically win it (unless there's another trooper in the group) and at the same time, people needing for aesthetics/companions can also need and if the trooper passes/greeds, they have a chance at winning the item.

I don't think the design needs to change at all. I dislike it when folks ninja gear, but thank god we have the ability to police our own servers here. People that do this will quickly change their ways or find themselves blacklisted from end-game PvE activities, especially raids. It's part of a strong community, and it's something I like about TOR compared to other games that have streamlined the grouping process so much that actions such as ninja looting have no consequences.

Curious as to how many of the people that will need on whatever just because they can are in a guild?

That works - a bonus for class on Need items. That way, if everyone hits Greed, and I roll Need as a Guardian, then either:

A. I get the item, and the party warns me or kicks me for not checking with them first, or

2. I get the item, and everyone thanks me for checking with them first.

It is not about behaving like adults. Age has very little to do with how people behave. Before MMOs went mainstream, few select people were playing the game and they were playing because they enjoyed the genre. When the game went mainstream, we have players that do not care about the genre. They are playing MMOs because they are the next hot thing. Currently we can police ourselves, to an extent but nothing is forcing people to actually learn how MMOs function.

How often do you see people saying "I am a solo player..." What? People play Massively Multiplayer Online game to play alone?

Oh really? I'm no expert, but I would bet every paycheck every 2 weeks that there's a STRONG correlation between age and maturity (adult behavior).

That's not an analogous situation.

The rules of the system do allow him to hit need.
The rules of the system do not allow you to cut in front of people in line.


I find it kind of ironic that you're going to throw around the word speculative like that. Looting items only benefits the subset of that clique you play with where that particular piece of gear made the difference between success and failure in some particular fight... and whether that is a non-empty set is speculative.

It doesn't really matter whether they're insulated to their clique or not. The only person that definitely benefits is the person that loots it.

It's a counter example showing a the flaw in that argument, and how arguing that X winning an item is best for the community is a worthless argument. I'm glad that you seem to agree.

Different paradigm? It's exactly the same, hard mode dungeons, raids and hard mode raids.

Maybe you're using paradigm in some sort of obscure meaning that I'm not familiar with?

again, I'm showing examples of flaws in the "it helps the community" argument, and this clearly shows one of those flaws, and that whether it helps the community or not is indeterminate.

This does not negate the fact that some people are negatively affected by it.

No, reductio ad absurdum is that increasing a specific individual does not uniformly help the collective; the fact that I'm offering counter examples that are ever true shows how silly the notion that you getting loot helps the community is.

you're contradicting yourself. (I read this in the style of the argument sketch)


Bad analogy; you're incorporating circular reasoning here, equating "I can use the item" with "can spend the deposit in the way that is best for the community"

You're also presupposing "can use all of the stats on the item at this moment" is equivalent to "best qualified to maximise gain from that is given control of the deposit" ... I've already pointed out that there are flaws here. One of them is the time factor that I pointed out above; so at best it might be equivelant to "best qualified to get the most immediate gain from that is given control of the deposit, but might not have the best long term gain, and it's totally indeterminate whether he gives the biggest long term enhancement to the community" ... but that doesn't roll off the tongue so well.

And again the analogy doesn't include the possibility of negative impacts to the community.

No, there are clearly cases where the increase in gear to a person who buys it on the GTN is bigger than the person that won it. Since you made the speculative argument saying that someone gaining the item definitely brings more to the community, I'm simply showing "there exists" to counter the implied "for all" claim. So speculative is fine.

That's not what I said...

It's quite rational to point out that people who resort to ad hominem attacks make their own arguments look weak, even if they aren't making argument based on an ad hominem fallacy.

massive idiot

I'll be honest, this entire thread is pretty worthless. You've got people arguing two entirely different points.

1. Needing on mods that are an upgrade for yourself

2. Needing on gear vanity vs utility

So I really don't expect anything useful to come out of this. Obviously the marauder felt pretty dumb upon realizing he couldn't trade the mods to anyone and tried to save face. Just don't group with him again.

they need to follow wow and allow you to trade the item to a member of the team that was present for the kill. I have clicked need by mistake on a guild run and could not give it to the BH. (I gave him a nice + aim purple I had instead, but I still felt bad)