test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Suggestion on Loot rolls: No "need" if you cant use the item.

13»

Comments

  • zlainfurryzlainfurry Banned Users Posts: 163 Bounty Hunter
    edited June 2013
    twodollar wrote: »
    My question would be what about people like me with 4 60s at 10k+gs and i want to play my cw but the group needs my DC so i get punished because i help the group out in what they need?

    It's called work around~ you still get your gear in your special situation if you communicate. Whiner.

    Why is this thread even in these forums?
  • aggropotatoaggropotato Member, Neverwinter Beta Users Posts: 114 Bounty Hunter
    edited June 2013
    I believe the mod moved this thread to the wrong forum! Accidentally I hope :D
    JtuEMvw.jpg
  • therealtedtherealted Member Posts: 31 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    My guess is they're trying to bury it by putting it in the subforum where it's least likely to get responses...
    ____________________

    The gorilla formerly known as Kolikos
  • dominemesisdominemesis Member Posts: 269 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    Ultimately I think they should implement personal loot for each party member when a boss is killed. The DD chest that ensures everyone gets loot is a good example of letting party members all get their own loot. Also would give no incentive for group leaders to kick the rest out of their groups at the end to get all the loot. Just have loot appear in party member's inventories from bosses. Regular trash loot etc doesn't matter, not leveling and most certainly not at end game, except for enchants.
  • visigoth18visigoth18 Member, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian Users Posts: 371 Bounty Hunter
    edited June 2013
    why is this Post in "The Foundry" section I don't get it...? is their a new mod? "take the time to actually read the thread"
    jlTYaLC.gif
    1.jpglXK5k1F.png
  • casten24casten24 Member Posts: 121 Bounty Hunter
    edited June 2013
    How bout this... You only need on items the current class you're playing can use and is what you consider an upgrade to slot. If one of your alts can use it, you ASK before needing it. Otherwise you roll greed to give others a fair chance, and if someone else in your current party needs it for an upgrade (to their currently played class), they'll have a better chance of getting it and not having the loot ninja'd. It's all about respect, people. If you're really that hard-up for ADs, don't expect to make many friends and don't expect to continue being able to run 5-mans... a bad name gets around.
    The Portrait Gray Campaign
    Prologue: Fort Neverember
    NW-DL2RVQ54C
    Chapter 1: The Gray Portrait
    NW-DHGEFBMGD
  • haelrahaelra Member Posts: 220 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    casten24 wrote: »
    How bout this... You only need on items the current class you're playing can use and is what you consider an upgrade to slot. If one of your alts can use it, you ASK before needing it. Otherwise you roll greed to give others a fair chance, and if someone else in your current party needs it for an upgrade (to their currently played class), they'll have a better chance of getting it and not having the loot ninja'd. It's all about respect, people. If you're really that hard-up for ADs, don't expect to make many friends and don't expect to continue being able to run 5-mans... a bad name gets around.

    Okay, so this is how you'd like it to work, and you think it would be more fair. Well, others disagree with you on whether this is fair. Perhaps you could offer a deeper justification about -why- you think this is more fair than, say, everyone on the team being given individual private loot? Or even more fair than everyone just rolling on the item? Please give an explanation, not just reiterate the same unsupported argument everyone else offered that boils down to do it this way because that's how we want it; steamroll the argument with blanket statements about respect, and then worse, imply that others who don't agree with your specific and unsupported assessment of the ethics will be shunned by everyone if they don't toe the line. I find little respectful about this.

    This theme being clung to is that it's self-evident that the class restricted item must only go to that class if they're present. I disagree, and reject it as fundamentally unfair. It is unfair to the others who were present and worked for the team win. They deserve a fair chance, i.e., at least equal-footing rolls for the most valuable items, regardless of their class-tags and the players' own classes. I offer the principle in raw form: it's fair if everyone has an equal chance at the predominant reward items from each dungeon run. If there isn't a fair chance at every item of major value, then the supposed fairness of the loot system is a sham. Even if everyone rolls, it's still bad -- four people still won't get an equitable reward for their efforts. Everyone should, ideally, get their own individual private loot. No rolling, no arguing, no bickering over items, no one person kicking people who only wanted their fair chance at reward for their effort and contribution.
  • casten24casten24 Member Posts: 121 Bounty Hunter
    edited June 2013
    haelra wrote: »
    Okay, so this is how you'd like it to work, and you think it would be more fair. Well, others disagree with you on whether this is fair. Perhaps you could offer a deeper justification about -why- you think this is more fair than, say, everyone on the team being given individual private loot? Or even more fair than everyone just rolling on the item? Please give an explanation, not just reiterate the same unsupported argument everyone else offered that boils down to do it this way because that's how we want it; steamroll the argument with blanket statements about respect, and then worse, imply that others who don't agree with your specific and unsupported assessment of the ethics will be shunned by everyone if they don't toe the line. I find little respectful about this.

    Obviously, it's how I'd like it to work. That's mainly why I began the whole statement with qualitative phrase "How bout this..." Your loot system points are well founded, but with the first, I'm NOT arguing to change the system, I'm making a suggestion of how to do things with the current system, so that first one is a moot point. As for your second, what's fair about having someone ninja a piece of equipment (they can't even use on the toon they're currently playing) that you've been running the dungeon for on the character that can use it, without word or warning that they would be rolling need for it? I'm sure you just absolutely LOVE it, when you've been running a dungeon for ages trying to get a particular item and when it drops someone else playing a class that can't even use it nabs it from under your nose.

    Not that my suggestion is about fairness anyway. It's about respecting the people that were willing enough to team up with you, and saying to yourself, "Hey, there must be a reason this guy is running that particular class and this particular dungeon. Maybe I should be cool, and let them have highest dibs at it, just in case they actually do need it as an upgrade right now or in the very near future (i.e. as soon as they level enough to equip it), and that is why they ran the dungeon with that class in the first place. So, I'll roll greed, because well, I don't need it, so, in essence I want it out of greed," or, "I need it for an alt, but this guy took the time to play that class, so I'll ask before needing it for my alt, because I'm cool like that, and I respect the time he took to help me through this dungeon. It is a group effort, after all."
    haelra wrote: »
    This theme being clung to is that it's self-evident that the class restricted item must only go to that class if they're present. I disagree, and reject it as fundamentally unfair. It is unfair to the others who were present and worked for the team win. They deserve a fair chance, i.e., at least equal-footing rolls for the most valuable items, regardless of their class-tags and the players' own classes. I offer the principle in raw form: it's fair if everyone has an equal chance at the predominant reward items from each dungeon run. If there isn't a fair chance at every item of major value, then the supposed fairness of the loot system is a sham. Even if everyone rolls, it's still bad -- four people still won't get an equitable reward for their efforts. Everyone should, ideally, get their own individual private loot. No rolling, no arguing, no bickering over items, no one person kicking people who only wanted their fair chance at reward for their effort and contribution.

    It's not about "must only." You're really misconstruing my words. It's about making sure the person that expressly needs it (as in they'll be equipping it as soon as they get it or as soon as they have the level for it on that character), get it. If they don't need it, then it's up for grabs. That's why there is a "greed" option and a "need" option, instead of just a single roll type. And, again, I reiterate, it's not about fairness, it's about being a cool player in the imperfect system in which we currently reside. You want to be an <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font>. and hog loot that you don't need for the toon you went into the dungeon with, that's your prerogative and it'll lose you potential friends and future potential dungeon delvers.

    Again, it's not about a fair system. It's about showing respect to others in a (very) imperfect system.
    The Portrait Gray Campaign
    Prologue: Fort Neverember
    NW-DL2RVQ54C
    Chapter 1: The Gray Portrait
    NW-DHGEFBMGD
  • ovaltine74ovaltine74 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    ah just ninja the stuff until they call you on it, then type. "sry englis not good you happy:)"
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    NW-DMIME87F5
    Awaiting a serious response from the developers on the abuse of the review system by other authors.

    Video Preview
  • haelrahaelra Member Posts: 220 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    casten24 wrote: »
    As for your second, what's fair about having someone ninja a piece of equipment (they can't even use on the toon they're currently playing) that you've been running the dungeon for on the character that can use it, without word or warning that they would be rolling need for it? I'm sure you just absolutely LOVE it, when you've been running a dungeon for ages trying to get a particular item and when it drops someone else playing a class that can't even use it nabs it from under your nose.
    A player doesn't deserve a specific piece of gear over anyone else just because they want it really, really badly. That's just greedy self-entitlement, and is disrespectful of others. If I lose a roll for a piece of gear I wanted that badly, I congratulate the winner and move on.
    casten24 wrote: »
    Not that my suggestion is about fairness anyway. It's about respecting the people that were willing enough to team up with you, and saying to yourself, "Hey, there must be a reason this guy is running that particular class and this particular dungeon. Maybe I should be cool, and let them have highest dibs at it, just in case they actually do need it as an upgrade right now or in the very near future (i.e. as soon as they level enough to equip it), and that is why they ran the dungeon with that class in the first place.
    I'm all for being charitable to other people; even to strangers. But if it's forced, even if only by peer pressure, it's not charity. It's something entirely unfair and disrespectful. In the case of the rule of behavior you suggested everyone follow, it's just wanting to force people to follow your personal notion of charity. And justifying it essentially because we'd all get along better if we just all did what you wanted us to.
    casten24 wrote: »
    It's not about "must only." You're really misconstruing my words.
    I read your post very carefully, twice now, and that's how it came across to me; especially with the threat that if people didn't follow your advice, they'd not make friends nor expect to run many teams -- a bad name gets around. How is that different than "You've got a nice shop here, I'd hate to see it burn to the ground by accident." I was moved to respond to your post on account of that tone; perhaps in retrospect you didn't intend or expect it to be read that way, but that's how it came across to me.
    casten24 wrote: »
    It's about making sure the person that expressly needs it (as in they'll be equipping it as soon as they get it or as soon as they have the level for it on that character), get it. If they don't need it, then it's up for grabs.
    If everyone were angels, we would not need a loot distribution system. They're not, and it's not reasonable to expect people to follow a golden-rule based system. It requires systematic equitability, or it's going to continue to generate argument and divisiveness in and out of game.
    casten24 wrote: »
    You want to be an <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font>. and hog loot that you don't need for the toon you went into the dungeon with, that's your prerogative and it'll lose you potential friends and future potential dungeon delvers.
    I'm going to assume you mean this rhetorically; since I've not posted how I choose to roll on loot for myself in this thread. Even as such, you feel strongly about this, and in that moment of self-righteousness you decide that those who consider the ethics of the situation differently than you must be <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font>'s. I'm sorry, they're not. They're disagreeing with you with good justification; it does not make them bad people. A lot of people have been conditioned to look at this as bad behavior; and I'm suggesting that -they- are the ones who're in the wrong, and who should reconsider how they look at other people. One cannot determine who needs an item most just by comparing classes or inspecting equipped gear, or anything like that. And even if you could, need does not define equitable reward. Those who choose to be charitable have my deep appreciation and admiration, even as I personally attempt to be charitable when I'm deciding on which loot to try or not try for. But, that's an individual choice to be made by each of us, free of any coercion.
    casten24 wrote: »
    Again, it's not about a fair system. It's about showing respect to others in a (very) imperfect system.
    All too often people stake out what they think is the moral high ground, and argue from it, but without more than superficial justification, and most often out of shear bandwagoning. Now, I hope, after reading the many responses I and others have offered throughout this thread, and especially my two responses to you, that you're willing to be more open-minded about where the respect in this may be.

    Finally, we do not have to be satisfied with the imperfect system -- the developers have stated they're working on it, and I hope this thread, along with the many others like it, will give them food for thought and that they will choose to throw the need/greed system out in favor of individual private loot.
  • apocrs1980apocrs1980 Member, Neverwinter Beta Users, Silverstars Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    This thread is in the wrong section :P
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The Cragsteep Crypt - BETA
    Ravenloft
    Look [email protected] or visit the main page here or Ravenloft here
  • casten24casten24 Member Posts: 121 Bounty Hunter
    edited June 2013
    haelra wrote: »
    A player doesn't deserve a specific piece of gear over anyone else just because they want it really, really badly. That's just greedy self-entitlement, and is disrespectful of others. If I lose a roll for a piece of gear I wanted that badly, I congratulate the winner and move on.

    What's disrespectful is shoving it back in the face of a person with a "tough &$^%" who calmly said, "Hey, I could have used that for this toon," or, "I wish you hadn't rolled need for that, that was an upgrade and I've been trying for ages. On the other hand, screaming, "Dude! That was mine! It's for my class and I could have used that! *#$hole!" is just as disrespectful. And is that really what you do? Than I congratulate you, you're better than most. Still, with human nature how it is, I'm sure you still feel a bit disgruntled about it, and I'm sure that if you recognize the name of the person who took the piece from you, you'll be less than inclined to run with him again. But, if you really want to talk self-entitlement, what about you? "A system that is more fair" you say? Any argument for "fairness" is self-entitlement.
    haelra wrote: »
    I'm all for being charitable to other people; even to strangers. But if it's forced, even if only by peer pressure, it's not charity. It's something entirely unfair and disrespectful. In the case of the rule of behavior you suggested everyone follow, it's just wanting to force people to follow your personal notion of charity. And justifying it essentially because we'd all get along better if we just all did what you wanted us to.

    The thing about peer pressure, it can be ignored, hence... not forced... making this a moot point. And you really need to look up the definitions of suggestion and enforcement. I could care less how they act (which is why I ended both of my posts with, "hey, you wanna {insert consequence here}, that's on you."
    haelra wrote: »
    I read your post very carefully, twice now, and that's how it came across to me; especially with the threat that if people didn't follow your advice, they'd not make friends nor expect to run many teams -- a bad name gets around. How is that different than "You've got a nice shop here, I'd hate to see it burn to the ground by accident." I was moved to respond to your post on account of that tone; perhaps in retrospect you didn't intend or expect it to be read that way, but that's how it came across to me.

    ...which is the definition of misconstrue. You inserted your own sense of... "force," let's call it... behind my words. Maybe out of pure eagerness to respond, maybe you're just overly defensive about someone thinking ill of you. Either way, doesn't matter... that's on you. You misconstrued my words. Because threat? Hahahah. If A tends to lead to B, it isn't a threat. It's an educated guess on outcome due to the habits of human nature. Your comparison doesn't even come close to matching my educated guess on outcome.
    haelra wrote: »
    If everyone were angels, we would not need a loot distribution system. They're not, and it's not reasonable to expect people to follow a golden-rule based system. It requires systematic equitability, or it's going to continue to generate argument and divisiveness in and out of game.

    Stating the obvious... and something completely moot. I wouldn't say my posts were about "respecting others" if people were perfect.
    haelra wrote: »
    I'm going to assume you mean this rhetorically; since I've not posted how I choose to roll on loot for myself in this thread. Even as such, you feel strongly about this, and in that moment of self-righteousness you decide that those who consider the ethics of the situation differently than you must be <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font>'s. I'm sorry, they're not. They're disagreeing with you with good justification; it does not make them bad people. A lot of people have been conditioned to look at this as bad behavior; and I'm suggesting that -they- are the ones who're in the wrong, and who should reconsider how they look at other people.

    Rhetorically? Rhetoric doesn't even come into someone being an <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font>. What does, though, is subjective opinion. And the thing about subjective opinion is that it's different for everyone. Seems you're the one being self-righteous and getting yourself a bit tied up in "you insulted me." If I think you're an <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font>. it's because you did something I find to be unkind. You may have a different view, that's fine, I don't care. I can still think you're an <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font>. I have a right to my opinion just as you do. You performed the action... accept responsibility and live with the consequences. Meh... Moot point, anyway, you're making an attack on me instead of the argument.
    haelra wrote: »
    One cannot determine who needs an item most just by comparing classes or inspecting equipped gear, or anything like that. And even if you could, need does not define equitable reward. Those who choose to be charitable have my deep appreciation and admiration, even as I personally attempt to be charitable when I'm deciding on which loot to try or not try for. But, that's an individual choice to be made by each of us, free of any coercion.

    You're right, you can't. But you can make educated assumptions, like, "when I run any particular class, I'm attempting to gear it, so, if I'd gear a class I was currently running, chances are good that they're trying to gear the class they're currently running." And Coercion? I can see that, don't understand it how you can think it so dire, though. So one to four less people want to run a dungeon with you (maybe more if they blab about it to their guilds), so what? Not much of a threat, really. It's a laughable attempt at coercion, at best. And hey, if you submit to it, then that's on you.
    haelra wrote: »
    All too often people stake out what they think is the moral high ground, and argue from it, but without more than superficial justification, and most often out of shear bandwagoning. Now, I hope, after reading the many responses I and others have offered throughout this thread, and especially my two responses to you, that you're willing to be more open-minded about where the respect in this may be.

    Seems you're trying to stake out the moral high-ground more than I am. I just made a suggestion of how to get along in the current system. You're the one trying to force their view down my throat. "Getting along" as you put it, is hardly ever about finding the moral high-ground. It's about finding the middle ground. And it's always so funny when people so adamant about their "rightness" use the term "open-minded." You're the one telling me what I should believe, I only made a suggestion.
    haelra wrote: »
    Finally, we do not have to be satisfied with the imperfect system -- the developers have stated they're working on it, and I hope this thread, along with the many others like it, will give them food for thought and that they will choose to throw the need/greed system out in favor of individual private loot.

    When did I ever say that we had to be satisfied with the system? I said my posts aren't about a fair system. They're about "respect" in the system we currently have. Nothing about being against its change.
    The Portrait Gray Campaign
    Prologue: Fort Neverember
    NW-DL2RVQ54C
    Chapter 1: The Gray Portrait
    NW-DHGEFBMGD
  • therealtedtherealted Member Posts: 31 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    Reposting casten24's suggestion for reference:
    casten24 wrote: »
    How bout this... You only need on items the current class you're playing can use and is what you consider an upgrade to slot. If one of your alts can use it, you ASK before needing it. Otherwise you roll greed to give others a fair chance, and if someone else in your current party needs it for an upgrade (to their currently played class), they'll have a better chance of getting it and not having the loot ninja'd. It's all about respect, people. If you're really that hard-up for ADs, don't expect to make many friends and don't expect to continue being able to run 5-mans... a bad name gets around.
    casten24 wrote: »
    I just made a suggestion of how to get along in the current system. You're the one trying to force their view down my throat. "Getting along" as you put it, is hardly ever about finding the moral high-ground. It's about finding the middle ground. And it's always so funny when people so adamant about their "rightness" use the term "open-minded." You're the one telling me what I should believe, I only made a suggestion.
    The thing is, your suggestion is unworkable. It's not a question of morals or ethics or whatever; it's not even about trying to force a view or opinion down your throat. The suggestion flies in the face of how the game works and what the game rewards. "Your" suggestion has been the received "wisdom" for about a decade now, and it clearly hasn't fixed anything. As you said, it depends on social censure, which you yourself admit isn't much of a threat.

    In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that the received wisdom has actually been a source for a lot of annoyance, frustration, and grief. Everyone who plays the dove makes the hawks that much fatter. It may work for guilds and friends and all, but it can (and does) quickly fall apart in PuGs for reasons that should be obvious.

    So it's not an answer.

    No, if we're stuck with the current system, then the only way to guarantee equitable (though not optimal) distribution in a pick-up group is if everyone rolls need on everything. If you're feeling generous, you can offer to trade with your teammates, or even just give it away (and maybe hope for reciprocity). In fact, this is one of the few games where this can actually work to the greater good; since bind-on-acquire items are relatively rare, that means the items will make their way to someone who can use them by direct means (by trading or giving), or indirectly (via the auction house), which means more people gear up quicker over time.

    As for the guy who really "needs" that precious item, well, why is he rolling with a PuG? You rolls yer dice, you takes yer chances. If people don't understand that, well, that's on them.

    Me, I can't wait for another MMO where gear isn't the end-all, be-all of your character. Maybe some day... Until then, I'd prefer individual loot rolls to anything that even vaguely sounds like NGP.
    ____________________

    The gorilla formerly known as Kolikos
  • casten24casten24 Member Posts: 121 Bounty Hunter
    edited June 2013
    therealted wrote: »
    The suggestion flies in the face of how the game works and what the game rewards.
    Don't know about that. How the game works and what the game rewards can be different for every person. Some may play it for the RPG action (where gear is the end-all, be-all) and yeah, the suggest flies in the face of that, but at the same time some may play it for its MMO aspects, which means that how the game works for them is tied to the level of sociability amongst players, the rewards being not being ostracized by the "doves" as you call them. So "flies in the face?" Wouldn't go that far.
    therealted wrote: »
    As you said, it depends on social censure, which you yourself admit isn't much of a threat.
    I never said it depended on social censure. I said social censure is a consequence of unsociable actions. It depends more on the unsociable actions. A single act of social censure is not much of a threat, because it's just one person up to four immediately possible with up to four possible guilds being the biggest amount... if people blab, but that's unlikely. What is likely is those one to four. But those one to four can add up, and eventually the unsociable actions committed will ostracize the person from the pugging community (in other words, a bad name gets around). What that does is it leaves the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the person responsible. You want to be unsociable with people you just met, they'll be unsociable back. Which brings it back around to being about respect. You offer little respect to those you just met, don't expect them to respect you back and don't expect all of them being willing to associate with you in the future.
    therealted wrote: »
    Everyone who plays the dove makes the hawks that much fatter.
    Until the hawk has pissed off enough doves that none will invite him to dinner (or leave once they realize he's coming in the case of PuGs)
    therealted wrote: »
    So it's not an answer.
    Oh, it is an answer. It's not just the answer.
    therealted wrote: »
    As for the guy who really "needs" that precious item, well, why is he rolling with a PuG? You rolls yer dice, you takes yer chances. If people don't understand that, well, that's on them.
    Same can be said about those that feel the need to roll "need" across the board, if they're so concerned about the court of popular opinion, then why are choose to be unsociable in a PuG? Their actions are on them.
    therealted wrote: »
    Me, I can't wait for another MMO where gear isn't the end-all, be-all of your character. Maybe some day...
    Try Farmville or LoL or Firefall (gear eventually gets to the point it's unrepairable, at the same time, though, it's a FPS style MMORPG {to give it some sort of classification}, so gear's not nearly as important as skill. Plus, as it stands now, all equipment is made through the molecular printer, so any important drops that may occur are strictly crafting materials)... or in the interum, just play single-player games... that's pretty much what individual loot rolls are... turning MMOs into single-player games with chat connectivity (for some reason this brings Diablo 3 to mind). Not that I'm against it... It's actually a pretty good idea. Either way, I could care less, not much of a social person to begin with.

    It's all basic causality. Until the system changes (everyone seems to be ignoring this aspect about my posts. I'm not, I repeat NOT, against the system changing), you'll have to live with it. My suggestion is merely a way to avoid that causality, you don't want to follow it, that's on you.
    The Portrait Gray Campaign
    Prologue: Fort Neverember
    NW-DL2RVQ54C
    Chapter 1: The Gray Portrait
    NW-DHGEFBMGD
  • therealtedtherealted Member Posts: 31 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    casten24 wrote: »
    Don't know about that. How the game works and what the game rewards can be different for every person. Some may play it for the RPG action (where gear is the end-all, be-all) and yeah, the suggest flies in the face of that, but at the same time some may play it for its MMO aspects, which means that how the game works for them is tied to the level of sociability amongst players, the rewards being not being ostracized by the "doves" as you call them. So "flies in the face?" Wouldn't go that far.
    The game mechanics provide no reward (and therefore no reinforcement) for this sociability aspect - that's what people bring to the game (or don't) and is therefore subjective. However, the game mechanics do provide "tangible" reward for people who roll need, directly in the form of virtual goodies, and indirectly as currency. This is one of two reasons that these "play nice" arguments fall flat - the game mechanic is clearly stacked against the "nice" guys.

    The other reason is that the whole censure argument is immaterial. It's nice to think that word gets around - but does it? Even if it does, does it stay around? MMOs live on churn - old players get bored and leave (taking their blacklists with them), while new players (perhaps bored with their old games) sign up regularly - or so the developers hope. This churn suggest that needers will always have a fertile environment (aided further with the whole trend in automating grouping, but that's another kettle of fish).

    Thus, respect becomes effectively irrelevant to those who value character progress over social interaction.
    Same can be said about those that feel the need to roll "need" across the board, if they're so concerned about the court of popular opinion, then why are choose to be unsociable in a PuG? Their actions are on them.
    What? Who said that people who roll need on everything are concerned about popular opinion? You're not mistaking explanation for self-justification, are you?
    that's pretty much what individual loot rolls are... turning MMOs into single-player games with chat connectivity (for some reason this brings Diablo 3 to mind).
    I'll see your "Diablo 3" and raise you a "City of Heroes." Of all the multiplayer online games I've played, that was the most team-friendly and player-interactive (IMO of course), and it had individual loot rolls. Think of it this way - the best way to prevent a silly, pointless argument is to remove the issue before it causes an argument.
    It's all basic causality. Until the system changes (everyone seems to be ignoring this aspect about my posts. I'm not, I repeat NOT, against the system changing), you'll have to live with it. My suggestion is merely a way to avoid that causality, you don't want to follow it, that's on you.
    What we all have to live with (for now) is the fact that there's no way to control what other people do. People are going to roll need on "your" stuff, and MMOs almost by their very nature tend to prevent social censure from having any significant effect. In other words, your suggestion means very little to anyone who isn't already following your suggestion.

    Conversely, the "all-need-all" suggestion (or, in a weaker form, "ignore the greed button"), takes the actual mechanic of game rewards into account. I get that it's not a comfortable one for many people, but the alternative is to deal with the reality of having loot "needed" out from under you.
    ____________________

    The gorilla formerly known as Kolikos
  • silithas97silithas97 Member Posts: 34
    edited June 2013
    There are a lot of walls of text here that I am not reading, but just to inform everyone this is in the patch notes they released
  • casten24casten24 Member Posts: 121 Bounty Hunter
    edited June 2013
    therealted wrote: »
    The game mechanics provide no reward (and therefore no reinforcement) for this sociability aspect - that's what people bring to the game (or don't) and is therefore subjective. However, the game mechanics do provide "tangible" reward for people who roll need, directly in the form of virtual goodies, and indirectly as currency. This is one of two reasons that these "play nice" arguments fall flat - the game mechanic is clearly stacked against the "nice" guys.
    Exactly, the sociability aspect is brought by the people, if you're playing an MMO, which is, by nature, inherently social, sociability aspects, no matter how subjective or intangible, becomes a factor. Hence, "flies in the face?" Wouldn't go that far.
    therealted wrote: »
    The other reason is that the whole censure argument is immaterial. It's nice to think that word gets around - but does it? Even if it does, does it stay around? MMOs live on churn - old players get bored and leave (taking their blacklists with them), while new players (perhaps bored with their old games) sign up regularly - or so the developers hope. This churn suggest that needers will always have a fertile environment (aided further with the whole trend in automating grouping, but that's another kettle of fish).
    Yes, needers will always have a fertile environment. But honestly, this just comes off as a, "why try?" argument. To which, the only answer is, "Because others try," which is hardly a sufficient answer, but still, suffices for a lot of people.

    therealted wrote: »
    Thus, respect becomes effectively irrelevant to those who value character progress over social interaction.
    Stating the obvious. Doesn't diminish the right of others to have a negative opinion about them.
    therealted wrote: »
    What? Who said that people who roll need on everything are concerned about popular opinion? You're not mistaking explanation for self-justification, are you?
    Yes, because all need-across-the-board-ers are incapable of caring or starting to care. Human beings aren't immutable. As for explanation and self-justification... Nope, it wasn't directed at you or Haelra, but do be careful, the fact that you think that it did, offers up the possibility of confirmation of assumptions. Not that I'm assuming anything about you, you haven't come off as self-defensive at all in your posts. That being said, that doesn't mean that some of the need-alls won't try to justify themselves or feel offended when someone raises a stink, hence, the "hey, you get what you ask for," goes both ways, which was the point of the statement you responded to with this particular quote.

    therealted wrote: »
    I'll see your "Diablo 3" and raise you a "City of Heroes." Of all the multiplayer online games I've played, that was the most team-friendly and player-interactive (IMO of course), and it had individual loot rolls. Think of it this way - the best way to prevent a silly, pointless argument is to remove the issue before it causes an argument.
    This seems a lot like cherry picking to further your attempt to persuade me that an individual loot system is ideal. You ignored the next few sentences where I say, "I'm not against it, in fact it's a good idea." "It's a good idea" meaning I think it would be ideal.
    therealted wrote: »
    What we all have to live with (for now) is the fact that there's no way to control what other people do. People are going to roll need on "your" stuff, and MMOs almost by their very nature tend to prevent social censure from having any significant effect. In other words, your suggestion means very little to anyone who isn't already following your suggestion.

    Conversely, the "all-need-all" suggestion (or, in a weaker form, "ignore the greed button"), takes the actual mechanic of game rewards into account. I get that it's not a comfortable one for many people, but the alternative is to deal with the reality of having loot "needed" out from under you.
    Stating the obvious. And honestly, the only thing needed throughout this all (both with your exchanges and Haelra's) was the last line of the first of these two paragraphs. To which I'd respond, "Hey, ya never know. It could get through to some... and until it's fixed, that's the best for which anyone can hope."
    The Portrait Gray Campaign
    Prologue: Fort Neverember
    NW-DL2RVQ54C
    Chapter 1: The Gray Portrait
    NW-DHGEFBMGD
  • therealtedtherealted Member Posts: 31 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    We're talking in circles at this point, but just wanted to respond to a few things.
    Yes, needers will always have a fertile environment. But honestly, this just comes off as a, "why try?" argument. To which, the only answer is, "Because others try," which is hardly a sufficient answer, but still, suffices for a lot of people.
    It is a "why try?" argument, for those who cite the generally accepted etiquette as if it would fix things. The very existence of this thread (and so many others like it) is proof that it doesn't. As far as I'm concerned, if one lives by a system of etiquette in an environment that is demonstrably unfriendly to it, one loses his/her right to complain when he/she gets a figurative bloody nose.

    Haelra (if I'm reading things right) takes it a step farther to ask, "why try" to patch a system that's fundamentally broken? Why not just replace it? To which I haven't seen a good answer.
    Nope, it wasn't directed at you or Haelra, but do be careful, the fact that you think that it did, offers up the possibility of confirmation of assumptions.
    Yeah, no, that's not gonna fly. The reason I brought it up is because haelra and I (and others who argue along similar lines) have been accused of being greedy <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font>.'s when the accusers had no basis for doing so. I'll admit it irks me, but it does so because it's a deliberate attempt to evade or dismiss arguments than actually understand and answer them. Sadly it's common enough that it has its own Latin name and wikipedia entry... Glad to see you're not (quite?) one of the accusers.
    This seems a lot like cherry picking to further your attempt to persuade me that an individual loot system is ideal.
    It's not cherry-picking; it's a counter-example to demonstrate that individual loot is neither necessary nor sufficient to turn a game single-player. Glad you like it, though; like I said, in my experience it works well enough.

    Of course, as silithas97 suggests, the upcoming patch notes may render this all null and void, but hey it's been fun.
    ____________________

    The gorilla formerly known as Kolikos
  • jintortlejintortle Member Posts: 655 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    This is not a foundry Issue!!!
    Genus Draco Fad and the [email protected]
    ID: NW-DD5FLOBTJ
    Cult of the Dragon Foundry Contest - Please participate and vote for your favourite - 26/6/2014 contest rating begins.

    Sir Camps A Lot. Mr SlingShot Boom. XX Phantasmagorical. Jinn Dragonfeast.
    SlingShot Boom Jr. Jocan Traders. Little Lord Forgatty, Dwarf Mean and introducing Necro Torquemada (The Warlock)
  • therealtedtherealted Member Posts: 31 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    Take it up with a mod. The thread was originally posted in General Discussion and moved here.
    ____________________

    The gorilla formerly known as Kolikos
  • casten24casten24 Member Posts: 121 Bounty Hunter
    edited June 2013
    therealted wrote: »
    We're talking in circles at this point, but just wanted to respond to a few things.
    Yes, we are, but I've my own clarifications.
    therealted wrote: »
    It is a "why try?" argument, for those who cite the generally accepted etiquette as if it would fix things. The very existence of this thread (and so many others like it) is proof that it doesn't. As far as I'm concerned, if one lives by a system of etiquette in an environment that is demonstrably unfriendly to it, one loses his/her right to complain when he/she gets a figurative bloody nose.

    Haelra (if I'm reading things right) takes it a step farther to ask, "why try" to patch a system that's fundamentally broken? Why not just replace it? To which I haven't seen a good answer.
    First, since the beginning, Haelra's arguments have been (un?)intentionally antagonistic. She could have stated at the very beginning, "It wouldn't be enough. It doesn't take into account, that those that don't really need items only they can use will get greedy and need when they should greed." She goes straight to the assumption that they will always need and backhandedly accuses all that do complain or, more politely, speak-up of being such; lumping those who actually follow the etiquette with those that simply want exclusive rights so they can be greedy (which are most likely the people who make the biggest stink, too). And hey, I back her on that. I think those people are <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font>.s, too.
    As for the "why try?" stuff, as I've said before it's not about fixing the system, it's about trying to get along. It is a way to get along, is it not? It may not be the best, and it may not be something everyone is willing to follow, but it works when it works, no? Don't get me wrong, when people throw a hissy-fit over it, it annoys me. But at the same time, though, if someone asks calmly, that's a different story.

    therealted wrote: »
    Yeah, no, that's not gonna fly. The reason I brought it up is because haelra and I (and others who argue along similar lines) have been accused of being greedy <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font>.'s when the accusers had no basis for doing so. I'll admit it irks me, but it does so because it's a deliberate attempt to evade or dismiss arguments than actually understand and answer them. Sadly it's common enough that it has its own Latin name and wikipedia entry... Glad to see you're not (quite?) one of the accusers.
    It doesn't matter if it won't logically fly. It will happen. It's human nature. People jump to conclusions. It comes with the territory. I believe neither you nor Haelra are need-alls (though I do believe that Haelra is overly antagonistic in her choosing of words, but that's beside the point). And again, you're cherry picking (not in the traditional argumentative reasoning sense, guessing I should use the term straw-manning? Maybe that's not quite the right term, either), because you missed the the context of the rest of that paragraph; that SOME of those that ARE need-alls get offended when, in-game, people throw a stink. Just as it's considered rude to tip when dining out in France or burping after a meal in Japan, people will throw a stink because you broke etiquette, expect it. Not that throwing a stink is right; calmly asking is a much better alternative when stuff like that happens. It allows the reflexively need-all (those that do it because they've fallen back on the "why try?" argument and also those most likely to get offended by such stinks) to see they made an "etiquette oops," without being forced into a completely defensive posture, so resolution becomes possible. And it allows those that follow the etiquette (for either etiquette's sake or for their own greedy reasons {in the case of "needing when they should be greeding" etiquette "followers"}) to add a naturally need-all to their ignore list.
    therealted wrote: »
    It's not cherry-picking; it's a counter-example to demonstrate that individual loot is neither necessary nor sufficient to turn a game single-player. Glad you like it, though; like I said, in my experience it works well enough.
    Your demonstration wasn't clear. The line about "removing an argument by removing the issue" takes the point in a whole other direction than what you apparently intended (which you made clear here); which was coming off as trying to convince me of something that I didn't need to be convinced about, which is quite patronizing. And, maybe cherry-picking wasn't the best term to use; as extrapolated in the previous paragraph.
    As for the demonstration, I don't know... The competitiveness and need for sociability becomes equal to that of a single-player game (reiterating... that's not a bad thing).
    therealted wrote: »
    Of course, as silithas97 suggests, the upcoming patch notes may render this all null and void, but hey it's been fun.
    Aye, that it has been fun.
    The Portrait Gray Campaign
    Prologue: Fort Neverember
    NW-DL2RVQ54C
    Chapter 1: The Gray Portrait
    NW-DHGEFBMGD
  • zebularzebular Member, Neverwinter Moderator, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 15,270 Community Moderator
    edited June 2013
    Not sure why this got moved to the Foundry. It's back here now though.
    shadomen wrote: »
    Pretty basic suggestion...

    Don't allow people to roll "need" if they cannot use the item.

    Thx!
    However, do note that what is asked in the OP is set to be in the Balance and Gameplay Update, as noted in the article here:
    Balance & Gameplay Update
    • Rewards
      • Fashion items now display properly in end-of-quest chests.
      • The "Need" button is now disabled for items your class cannot use.
      • The rewards from end-of-dungeon chests now properly display in the chest UI.
  • elessymelessym Member, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero Users, Neverwinter Guardian Users Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    zebular wrote: »
    However, do note that what is asked in the OP is set to be in the Balance and Gameplay Update, as noted in the article here:
    Balance & Gameplay Update

    Yep. Pity, I was all ready to post a contest to design a better loot system...
    "Participation in PVP-related activities is so low on an hourly, daily, weekly, and monthly basis that we could in fact just completely take it out of STO and it would not impact the overall number of people [who] log in to the game and play in any significant way." -Gozer, Cryptic PvP Dev
Sign In or Register to comment.