I don't understand what you mean by "how the game actually works".

What good is, for example, BH gear for a sorcerer who doesn't even have an Aim-using companion? Why would a sorc need on a BH columi or rakata piece if not to just be an a*****e because he can or to sell the gear for a few credits that he could've made with 10mins of crafting?

It's still more than he would have had if he hadn't rolled "need." A penny here and a penny there have a way of adding up. He's got something to win, and nothing substantial to lose, if he rolls "need." Even getting kicked or /ignored doesn't matter, so long as there are people who have not yet kicked or /ignored him yet... which is pretty much as long as the game attracts new players.

 

Of course we'd like a different system better, but that's the one we have and we can make it work if we stop being greedy for a bit.

Yes, the world can be a wonderful place if we're all nice to each other. But that doesn't happen, does it? This thread (and all the others like it) should be evidence of that...

So, ultimately, no matter what Bioware does to fix a system that is not working as intended (with the exception of getting rid of it and replacing it with something new) there is no guarantee that people will not act greedy, because some people are innately greedy.

See, the thing is, I think the system does work as intended. I believe the need / greed system persists because it effectively makes players grind for longer than they would have otherwise. That means more concurrent users, longer play times for current content, and overall more subs.

 

Think about it. An item pops up for a roll. You* can see it, you want it, but you don't get it because someone else wins it, fairly or not. You may be disappointed this time, but now you know the item is out there and is, at least in theory, attainable. You may even get a sense of how frequently it will pop up.

 

And here's the trick: You may imagine that the item's frequency of appearance is basically your likelihood of getting it - but that likelihood is made much, much smaller by the fact that any Joe Schmoe can roll "need" on it. You may chalk up your lost rolls to bad luck or to some jerk you'll probably never see again. So you hop back on the merry-go-round thinking that this time you stand a better chance of getting the brass ring, even though you almost certainly don't.

 

This is exactly what the developers want (or should want, economically). You're grinding away, attributing your "misses" to bad luck or bad players instead of the system itself, all the while paying your sub and maybe buying stuff from the market. It may be cynical of me to believe that the developers realize this, and design to it - but, really, it's just a case of "follow the money."

 

It's easy to see that if everyone just played "nice," we'd all get what we want a little faster, so we make up our own in-game courtesy and etiquette and try to live by it. Ironically, however, the need / greed system punishes the people (and only those people) who live by such social rules.

 

* "You" as in anyone - not you specifically.

Edited December 30, 2012 by BobaTed

See, the thing is, I think the system does work as intended. I believe the need / greed system persists because it effectively makes players grind for longer than they would have otherwise. That means more concurrent users, longer play times for current content, and overall more subs.

 

Think about it. An item pops up for a roll. You* can see it, you want it, but you don't get it because someone else wins it, fairly or not. You may be disappointed this time, but now you know the item is out there and is, at least in theory, attainable. You may even get a sense of how frequently it will pop up.

* "You" as in anyone - not you specifically.

 

The system does NOT work as intended for that exact reason. The rolls are called NEED and GREED not WANT and SELL or MINE or F*** OFF ALL FOR ME

 

Need means you NEED the item not want the item, you need an item that you can use, you WANT an item you can sell (or your comp can use but thats just IMO). Given the situation described above, a BH rolling NEED on an item NEITHER HE NOR HIS COMP can use does not make that item needed, it makes that item WANTED.

 

If the system was working properly, people who roll need get the item they need. Just change it from need/greed/disassemble/pass to want/pass, roll want you all have the same shot at it, roll pass you get no shot at it. That would be the proper labeling of the current system, not Need/Greed.

Edited December 30, 2012 by Athena-Nike

The problem, actually, is stupidity, I think. If you're rolling "Need" on an item for a companion, then you obviously didn't need it in the first place. Clearly, the problem stems from a lack of understanding the English language. If you grew up in the United States of America or the United Kingdom, you obviously know English. Ergo, these people are stupid. They don't realize what they're doing despite the consequences of their actions being very obvious. I am, of course, assuming that these people's actions are not driven by ill will or a product of utter disregard for people's time and effort.

The system does NOT work as intended for that exact reason. The rolls are called NEED and GREED not WANT and SELL or MINE or F*** OFF ALL FOR ME

The system does not work the way you think it should. That does not mean that it is not working as intended by the people who put it in place.

 

Otherwise, I generally agree - even a "want / pass" system would be better from the players' point of view. Even then, though, people would complain about people who roll "want" on stuff they can't actually use...

Edited December 30, 2012 by BobaTed

Common courtesy tends to go out the window in an environment where you wont get your a$&* beat for your actions. - author unknown.

 

Yep, that's the joys of the digital age, everyone has the mindset that there are no retributions for their actions, so they don't have to act responsibly. We're pretty much going to have to get used to it I think, at least until our society colapses or Skynet takes over.

Edited December 30, 2012 by bahdasz

I don't know how the system works (in this game) as I don't group anything I can solo, and since I can solo anything inside of a level or two I don't need to group and prefer not to because of what this thread is about - in part. So this observation may already be the case but it doesn't sound like it.

 

It seems to me if the devs wanted ONLY people who can actually use an item to be able to roll 'need' on it - then the lists would be itemized and only classes that can use the item would have the option to need, everyone else would get 'greed' or 'pass'. Yes - it amounts to babysitting, but apparently some people 'need' that.

 

That being the case - working as intended. Though why they would intend this to be the case I don't know. I've not heard of dark points being awarded for being a troll in groups. Personally I think it's just a case of "We'll get good people in our game, we won't be like "That Other Game" with immature twits running around causing problems aggravating everyone just so they can feel all special" by the devs.

 

Hope springs eternal.

Quit bastardizing the term 'Ninja Looting'.

 

And while you are at it, quit caring about crappy loot that doesn't matter.

I just realized this, but the OP has so many problems getting in a group, and then he gets one and everyone ninja's all the loot... which is one of the many reasons people listed for not grouping in the first place... I think it's kind of funny. I guess this game isn't for everybody

I am seeing this more and more.

People ninjalooting stuff for alts, companions, because there new.

etc etc etc.

 

While i know this isnt wow i am getting tired of losing good gear to ninja's who claim it is for there companion.

 

Anyone else bother by this anoying excuees to jusify ninjalooting?

 

There are no "rules of looting", period.

 

Easy solution to the problem:

 

Everybody needs on everything, regardless if you can or cannot use it, and let the random roll decide.

(applies to GF teams, not to premades or guild runs)

 

No more ninjas, no more whining, no more unenforable social convention - just fair and equal loot distribution!

There are no "rules of looting", period.

 

Easy solution to the problem:

 

Everybody needs on everything, regardless if you can or cannot use it, and let the random roll decide.

(applies to GF teams, not to premades or guild runs)

 

No more ninjas, no more whining, no more unenforable social convention - just fair and equal loot distribution!

 

Yes the solution to all our problems is to encourage rudeness, selfishness, and arrogance rather then encouraging civility, fairness, teamwork, and harmony. No wonder the world is going to hell

Yes the solution to all our problems is to encourage rudeness, selfishness, and arrogance rather then encouraging civility, fairness, teamwork, and harmony. No wonder the world is going to hell

The need / greed system is inherently unfair. The only way to ensure fairness is to give everyone equal chance, which means everyone needing on everything. Or, of course, dropping need / greed for something more equitable.

 

This is not a social issue. This is a mechanics issue.

The need / greed system is inherently unfair. The only way to ensure fairness is to give everyone equal chance, which means everyone needing on everything. Or, of course, dropping need / greed for something more equitable.

 

This is not a social issue. This is a mechanics issue.

 

The mechanics of the system are ambiguous, its all up to how people decide to use the system we have. Its a tool, its neither good nor bad all that is dependent on the person using it. People can either work towards being civil and amiable or rude and selfish, both fit the system. Now instead of everyone deciding that because a few people can't share they will start acting like jerks on purpose just out of spite and vengeance, we can just ignore those rude selfish few and continue being civil with one another in hopes that others will learn.

 

The fact that people are actually advocating needing everything regardless of the circumstances shows that this is a social issue not a mechanics issue. The mechanics allow for us to distribute items based on character needs, its the social part that turns the outcome unpleasant.

The fact that people are actually advocating needing everything regardless of the circumstances shows that this is a social issue not a mechanics issue. The mechanics allow for us to distribute items based on character needs, its the social part that turns the outcome unpleasant.

As I've said before, it would be great if everyone would just get along, but that often just doesn't happen. Ok, sure, there's a social aspect - but it's not something that anyone's going to fix, certainly not by example, and especially not with a game mechanic that outright rewards selfish behavior.

 

If you're PUGging, and you want to ensure fairness, the only thing you can do, paradoxically, is tell everyone to need on everything. That's not being a selfish jerk, that's recognizing the game design for what it is. If you want to promote rules of fairness, that's fine - but don't expect them to be followed, and expect to lose out if you follow them yourself. If you're teaming with friends and guildies, people you have reason to trust, naturally that's a different situation - but that's not the sort of situation the OP (and others) are complaining about.

 

Personally, I'd rather see need / greed scrapped and replaced with something more inherently fair and equitable so that the issue just isn't an issue at all. The fewer potential sources of contention you have, the more positive the gaming experience for everyone.

Yes the solution to all our problems is to encourage rudeness, selfishness, and arrogance rather then encouraging civility, fairness, teamwork, and harmony. No wonder the world is going to hell

 

Quite the contrary!

I propose this system of "everyone uses need" to avoid rudeness, selfishness, etc. and encourage fairness and harmony!

 

Ideally, the loot system would be such that each team member is rewarded individually for their effort.

But we don't have such system at the moment.

 

Hence, the next best thing to assure fair and equal loot distribution is via RNG rolls.

If you don't get the item, it's because of an unlucky roll, not a selfish teammate.

Quite the contrary!

I propose this system of "everyone uses need" to avoid rudeness, selfishness, etc. and encourage fairness and harmony!

 

Ideally, the loot system would be such that each team member is rewarded individually for their effort.

But we don't have such system at the moment.

 

Hence, the next best thing to assure fair and equal loot distribution is via RNG rolls.

If you don't get the item, it's because of an unlucky roll, not a selfish teammate.

 

But with your system, I get stuck with an item I can't use or don't need, while some other team member gets the thing I needed, and they can't use. Not the best outcome, even if it has a sense of "fairness" to it

But with your system, I get stuck with an item I can't use or don't need, while some other team member gets the thing I needed, and they can't use. Not the best outcome, even if it has a sense of "fairness" to it

 

The problem is that we can't 'fix' it ourselves short of a 'need everything' approach and sort it out later - if possible. Unless enough people send in tickets about it - devs are unlikely to bother with it, as they have enough stuff to work on as it is - (HINT, HINT devs)

 

Having said that - there is no end to the problem, as the problem is people rather than design. If they used an approach where people just got handed their tokens (for example) to get items - then the ***** would be "people who don't contribute get their tokens for doing nothing, that isn't fair" wah wah wah - or something else would be the problem - albeit the loot issue would be solved insofar as everyone gets what they need. The problem is - people are individuals, and some don't see the need to contribute, play fair, STAY OUT OF OTHER PEOPLES QUEST ITEMS etc etc - so essentially, the problem will continue so long as other people play. Sometimes I wish PvP were optional, with looting, when someone is just being a douche.

@OP. There was a very large outcry about this issue during launch. PLayers were busy getting their companions geared, when for all intents and purposes the companions were "next to useless" at cap. I view it as no different than RNG working against you, and some players feeling that their game time is more important than your game time. While technically true everyones game time is more important than someone else when viewed subjectively it is still inconsiderate.

there is no end to the problem, as the problem is people rather than design.

Yes, the problem is people, however the people complaining in this thread aren't looking in the mirror enough either. If you invested half the energy of this thread into educating people about etiquette, and communicating those unspoken conventions up-front when you group with someone, or heck just communicating at all in a polite manner, most of the problem would be solved. Certainly those for whom it's their first MMO and they don't know some EQ etiquette from the 90s.

 

You can't stop people being total jerks, but that's always a small number compared to those who just aren't prepared to communicate and be pleasant & polite about these things.

 

Besides, people post as though there's one social convention for this because they happened to have only played WoW. There isn't. Not by a long shot. There was at launch a far longer far more contentious thread about just how many there were in truth, and the end result was 'tell people your preferences upfront when you group'. If you're the group leader, you have no excuse at all. A few seconds spent at the start of a PUG saves a lot of ranting later.

Edited January 2, 2013 by Grammarye

If you invested half the energy of this thread into educating people about etiquette, and communicating those unspoken conventions up-front when you group with someone, or heck just communicating at all in a polite manner, most of the problem would be solved. . . .

 

If people don't understand NOT to waltz in and snag a quest item from behind a boss someone is killing - then I don't know what to say.

If people don't understand they need aim by level 30 - or even 20 - rather than willpower on their merc, and therefore "NEEDing" that orange/purple/blue chest that clearly says "willpower' in the stats - then I don't know what to say.

 

If people are so socially obtuse that they don't understand a group means you all go after the same goal, therefore communicating what that goal might be before you slap a group invite on someone would be a good idea - then I don't know what to say. That part in itself is just as stupid as spamming guild invites at people all day. If your guild is so sad you have to dredge for members - then I sure as **** don't want any part of it.

 

You can't stop people being total jerks, but that's always a small number compared to those who just aren't prepared to communicate and be pleasant & polite about these things.

 

Small? Not where i'm playing. People are running around all over the place with no thought for anyone else but themselves. Yet I should accept a group invite? These same people litter chat with crap, troll newbies, and generally just make a nuisance of themselves - yet I should wade into that and try to 'communicate and be pleasant and polite' with them? /ignore works much better thanx - anything else is a waste of time.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Akiviri

Yes, the problem is people, however the people complaining in this thread aren't looking in the mirror enough either. If you invested half the energy of this thread into educating people about etiquette, and communicating those unspoken conventions up-front when you group with someone, or heck just communicating at all in a polite manner, most of the problem would be solved.

Right, because that's worked like a charm over the past decade or so...

 

Nope, the only games in which I don't see this issue are those games in which the need / greed system is absent - or where the game's population is so small and tightly knit that social censure actually means something (but that's bad for business).

 

Are there more misguided nice guys than jerks out there? Sure. Are most people amenable to explanations and such? Probably. But that just suggests to me that the jerks are jerks by choice, because they can be - because the game design not only allows it but rewards them for it. And those are the people who generate complaints like the OP's.

 

So, again, let's just remove the issue from the equation. Replace "need / greed" with something that doesn't reward greed. Will there still be jerks out there? Certainly, but you'd be surprised at how much jerkiness disappears when A) it's constrained, and B) it's no longer motivated by self-interest.

Here's what you do.

 

Have the team leader set the parameters for Need and Greed and inform the team members of them when they join.

Have the team leader kick anyone who violates those parameters after 1 warning.

 

Done.

 

Social problems have social solutions.

Edited January 3, 2013 by DoctorJest

But that just suggests to me that the jerks are jerks by choice, because they can be - because the game design not only allows it but rewards them for it. And those are the people who generate complaints like the OP's.

 

So, again, let's just remove the issue from the equation. Replace "need / greed" with something that doesn't reward greed. Will there still be jerks out there? Certainly, but you'd be surprised at how much jerkiness disappears when A) it's constrained, and B) it's no longer motivated by self-interest.

 

There's no patch for jerks. Jerks will always be jerks, and no matter how much you change the mechanics, they'll still find ways to be jerks. The only defense is to identify them as jerks then /ignore them.

Edited January 3, 2013 by DoctorJest

There's no patch for jerks. Jerks will always be jerks, and no matter how much you change the mechanics, they'll still find ways to be jerks. The only defense is to identify them as jerks then /ignore them.

In my experience, most jerks are lazy and opportunistic. The jerks who roll "need" on everything aren't necessarily going to try to find a replacement outlet for their jerkiness if they can no longer roll "need" on stuff.

In my experience, most jerks are lazy and opportunistic.

 

In my experience, they're opportunistic, but many are actually quite industrious about finding ways to be jerks. I've seen many griefers work overtime to try to find new ways to be exploitive to other players.

 

The jerks who roll "need" on everything aren't necessarily going to try to find a replacement outlet for their jerkiness if they can no longer roll "need" on stuff.

 

I don't agree. I think if they're motivated to be jerks, then they'll find a way to be jerks. Jerks are the ones who find exploits and ways to grief players, no matter how obscure. You don't discover that sort of thing without concentrated effort.

 

Sure, if there is an easy route they'll take it, but never in the history of the internet has any game, system, medium, or fora been able to implement a technological automated solution weed out jerks and their jerkiness. Further, technological attempts to weed out jerks often have unintended consequences that hurt non-jerks as well.

 

Communities, however, have been far more effective in policing jerks. Social problems have social solutions.

Edited January 3, 2013 by DoctorJest

In my experience, they're opportunistic, but many are actually quite industrious about finding ways to be jerks. I've seen many griefers work overtime to try to find new ways to be exploitive to other players.

If they're that dedicated, chances are they've already found new exploits. Seriously, how can you exploit a system that, say, gives everyone an equal and independent means of acquiring loot, in such a way that isn't being exploited? Hint: Saying "they'll find a way" is a cop-out.

 

Communities, however, have been far more effective in policing jerks. Social problems have social solutions.

Which is why we've have these threads on a regular basis, in this and other games, for over ten years, right?

 

You can't fix people. But, sometimes, you can fix mechanics. Not sure why you're implicitly defending the current system when it clearly rewards jerky behavior and when alternatives are clearly available.