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

A raid has specific looting rules that make it not applicable to the situation.

Why should it matter if someone else minds? Why are your wants more important than person X's wants?

I have no problem with someone rolling for the stats of the item, as long as noone else minds. Or even if they do mind. Same goes for looks, or companions. Or whatever. They were there, they contributed to the kill, they're all equally entitled.

Because I'm not selfish enough to think that I'm somehow more entitled to the item than anyone else is...

and I'm, saying that you wind up with exactly the same loot drama over, eve if they're the same class.

I'm not arguing against the option, just the notion that it'll actually fix the problem.

The people who are opposed to someone acquiring loot they don't want that person to have is that they're arguing "You shouldn't place your needs above someone else's." The issue is this: in saying that, those people are placing their needs above someone else's. It's why there's never going to be a consensual resolution to this argument. All you're left with that both sides can rely on is this: if someone wants a piece that drops, they're going to take the necessary steps to try to get it.

That's all any of us can do, so all the drama is pointless.

Firstly, I apologise for taking so long to reply as I was preoccupied with Dinner. Secondly, this will be my last post on the matter but I will gladly read your erudite input beyond this point. I simply forgot my rule with regards to getting into protracted debates online, especially over something this trivial. I intend to correct for that.

You're quite correct; I should differentiate between reasonable speculation and baseless speculation. If we are in an MMO and the individual is participating in group content then we have a precedent for reasonably believing that they are likely to participate in group content in the future. Naturally, it is feasible that they will participate in group content once and refrain from participating again but I deem that unlikely. Whilst anecdotal, the prevalence of ‘LFG’ comments and the seemingly minor quantity of players insulated to their guild alone means I believe it is reasonable to believe that there is crossing-over between different social subsets. If they are isolated to their guild then they're not relevant to our considerations since they and their rules have no impact on anyone outside. Consequently, I think it is reasonable to believe that the community at large will benefit via collective advancement.

Further, you compartmentalise any gain rather than seeing it as successive and cumulative. Whilst it does benefit the group you are with in that particular fight, the acquisition of new items from that fight can increase ease for the next leap in difficulty or will also contribute to victory in other fights if the item(s) integral to success are not replaced. Consequently, that capacity for utilitarian gain is larger than a ‘particular fight’ since the composition of the groups you are with can easily rotate (unless you are a true clique that excludes others) thus increased success in fights means increased probability that others will gain access to new items too. They then pass that benefit on via their increased performance when participating in other groups. Naturally, this is something that holds true for every player in a group at a given time.

It makes absolutely no sense to view each Flashpoint or Operation in isolation because such is not realistic. If we are attempting to create an overarching convention that can be deviated from when appropriate, what is most likely and realistic has to guide us.

As stated above, there is a precedent for them participating in group so I think this is unnecessarily restrictive. I can appreciate your point since there is a quantifiable change to the composition of an individual’s character but I fail to see how any benefits are ‘definitely’ confined to them lest they choose to then focus on isolated, single-player content henceforth.

As with any decision, we can only use what we know in the present in a desperate, frail attempt to infer or guess what the future may hold. Consequently, what is a reasonable guess become paramount. For me, this means that attempting to estimate the likelihood of somebody replacing a mod sooner is truly worthless since you cannot predict the randomisation of items in fights. Flowing from this, I would remove assumptions about the future (except where reasonable to not do in the light of information pertinent to the specific situation or where overwhelmingly likely, such as whether they will participate in future group content as per the precedent of them being there to kill the appropriate NPC at all) and determine allocation in a utilitarian fashion.

You’re correct, now that I think about it the variations of class, stat usage, population composition, speed of item acquisition, disparities in difficulty, etc are within the present model rather than a new model in and of themselves. However, I believe my point still stands as we are unaware to the overarching impact of these considerable differences; things may be better or they may be worse. We cannot know yet so I regard it as useless to speculate until that point, we can only act on what we know in the present or can reasonably infer. If you regard similar outcomes as a reasonable inference then we’re simply disagreeing over probabilities.

As per above, I do not believe this reveals a flaw since we cannot know yet. I appreciate that you may disagree on this thus understand your perspective.

As an aside, I regard absolutist notions as childish. I prefer to have a ‘rule utilitarian’ approach to things so, naturally, there are cases where, say, a single mod within a piece of gear will give a greater cumulative upgrade than it would to the person ostensibly ‘intended’ to receive it due to design factors. However, if we’re trying to create a general convention which can be deviated from when appropriate then I don’t think the ‘everyone is equally entitled so everyone can roll’ attitude that yields overall community efficiency.

Of course not, I appreciate that detrimental elitist attitudes could become more prevalent as gear progresses but those attitudes exist at any level due to those that wish to feel superior. I will have to wait to see whether or not the levels of elitism increase or decrease, I cannot speculate as to that at present due to this being a new creation.

Firstly, I don’t care about getting loot as I participate primarily in PvP which, fortunately, allows me to avoid such questions whilst enjoying the group dynamics. If your usage of ‘you’ was generic in nature, then I apologise for misunderstanding.

I also disagree with your representation of the reduction; your original comment seems to state a universal via the idea that ‘pressure will be increased on those that recently reached the level cap.’ Consequently, this ‘negative pressure’ argument applies to any world, not just the utilitarian one, wherein people have disparities in gear so is a disincentive to gearing at all.

It seems I edited my post to correct this error whilst you were posting, it was supposed to state ‘no, it’s not analogical’ due to what I perceived as a straw-man.

Frankly, it’s no worse than yours. Also, how is it circular reasoning? One does not feedback into the other? If I had stated “whomever can use this item will benefit the community most. I can use this item thus I can benefit the community most” then I’d agree, but I didn’t state that.

I equate ‘best usage of the item given present knowledge’ with ‘can spend the deposit in the best way’ since the increased performance conferred on variable future groups and the present group by the attribution of an item to the person best suited to it means their actions are likely to improve the community via increased probability of NPCs being killed that yield items that improve others, so they are subsequently likely to increase the probability of killing NPCs with items capable of improving yet more others, etc.

As I said, it was hard to equate anything with reality given the vastly different dynamics, but you started the flawed analogy nonsense so I attempted to continue in the same vein. If we add that the person ‘best qualified’ becomes exclusively bound to that position, as per gear binding, at the point of decision then I think the above still applies. We can only act based on present knowledge so the person with the greatest quantifiable improvement being attributed an item seems directly equivalent to attributing control to the individual with the best qualifications at the time. Whilst there may be other, better people out there, they aren’t here are the present so we can’t rely on speculation when we’re trying to maximise an efficient, utilitarian outcome based on present knowledge and options.

I still don’t acknowledge your time argument or many of your arguments because we can only make decisions based on likelihoods in the present. Further, of course the elaboration applies but what else are you supposed to do in the presence of bound items and probabilities? You can’t exchange them or pass them to another later so arguments akin to ‘we only have guesses of varying reasonability so I’ll just yoink this because that's not enough’ are pathetic because we only ever have such reasonable guesses to judge the best course of action, whether online or in reality.

Conversely, if your entire focus is on BoE items then you’re discussing a vastly different area indeed, and the common convention that players share the same status when rolling on BoE, unless the group agrees that a player within that group is suited to it, supports you in that domain.

Your analogy was woeful and focused solely on the negatives, it seemed appropriate to ‘balance’ things by focusing solely on the positives.

Firstly, if it’s being sold on the GTN then it’s exclusively BoE and, as stated above, the argument changes considerably.

Secondly, errr, I didn’t state that? I stated that those ‘best suited’ using ‘present information,’ etc will most likely benefit the community. If I implied anything else then I apologise, it wasn’t my intention because I don't believe in absolutes.


So either you’re presupposing how other people will interpret things based on no evidence, so what are you using to presuppose? In all likelihood, you’re using ‘the masses’ as a displaced representation for your own interpretation. The very nature of subjectivity means that it has to ‘look’ that way to you in order for you to conceive of it and state it. As a result, I think you’re stating it in all but semantics.

If you’re genuinely claiming that this wasn’t some kind of vicarious ‘oh it’s not me, it’s they that believe this’ then, well, those people are cretins and weren't worth your time to begin with.

As to those that refer to this as being unenforceable, it’s convenient that it’s the egocentric (rather than those with any concept of utility) individuals stating this because you need to convince people it’s unenforceable and there’s genuine division for your survival. In reality, social contracts begin, or remain, convention-based and are enforced via social pressures or applying negative repercussions. It would take even the most cursory understanding of somebody akin to Dicey to understand that this applies even in the most important of settings. I see no reason why reality cannot apply here. Equally, expecting everything to be prescribed and proscribed is impractical and is resorted to as a justification by those that know very well that conventions rather than 'codification' exists yet simply wish to dodge that.

Personally, I regard both as 'selfish' but one as being more selfish simply because it has no concerns with concepts of utility and long-term degeneration, it focuses on the short-term self entirely.

It's good to set rules beforehand, however, if you're the group lead. And if you're in the group and rules are set, it's not at all unreasonable to expect you to follow them. In fact, it's a pretty colossal violation of the Wheaton Law if you do break those rules (if you don't like them, drop the group and form your own).

True, but I was refering specificallly to the OP's complaint of rolling Need on off-class gear. If two people are the same class in a group and that option was enabled when setting up the looting rules for the group, they could still both roll Need.

Having that looting rule option for the group lead would let the system enforce it and would make it clear to all members what kind of looting they are signing up for when they join. Or am I missing something?

Rolling for mods isn't rolling for off class. The mods are for your class if they have the right stats - regardless of what shell they may be contained in.

i dont think you shoujld be able to roll need on an item that doesnt match your class stat.

I always establish the loot rules for every group I run. If the rules are established and everyone agrees then problems like this do not come up.

In some rare cases I do prefer to use other class gear for my characters. Female Twi'leks for example lose their headbands whenever they are wearing what would be a hooded chest piece, which unfortunately makes up the bulk of Jedi gear. So, for my female Twi'lik Jedi Sentinel I prefer to use Smuggler chest pieces. The only way to get such items is through Flashpoints though. So, when I play that character I always make sure to ask the other people in the group. In most cases they are understanding and sympathetic. In some rare cases they demand that I do not roll Need. If that is the case I simply do not roll Need for the item. I can always try again next time.

That is the good thing about not having a dungeon finder. You can all the idiot out in general chat and let the community take care of it. My consular got out needed on a double bladed saber with willpower by a trooper. Asked him nicely for it, but he was being an *** about it. Called him out in chat and we now have less people that will group with him. He keeps needing out of class, the more trouble he will have finding people to group with.