Jump to content

Backbones

Members
  • Posts

    94
  • Joined

Posts posted by Backbones

  1. Accepted practice is that you should not press need if you don't want the item and are just going to vendor/sell it.

     

    You should only press need on items that you want.

     

    But the person I am quoting says that I am entitled to and deserving of that item just as much as anyone else in the party. If I am entitled to and deserving of the item, why should I not click 'need' every time? (Besides the knowledge that I'll get kicked out of the group for being an idiot, I mean.)

  2. Yes, it is. You're complaining about people being self centered and greedy while you yourself are showing being even more self centered and greedy. That's being extremely hypocritical.

    I don't think I've called anyone self-centered or greedy, in fact.

     

    So, am I correct, then, that your opinion is that everyone in every group should click 'need' on every piece of loot that drops, as they are entitled and deserving of it, and any reason to click 'greed' or 'pass' is arbitrary and '[disagrees] with the design of the game'?

  3. I'm not sure how you can move to my claim that everyone is equally deserving of all loot to that... Are you just not reading?

     

    "I like how everything looks, it's more important than anything else to me!" means I can roll on every single thing that drops, according to you.

     

    I'm saying everyone is equally deserving of all of the loot; no one is more entitled to it than anyone else; insisting that you are entitled to it over someone else is extremely self centered.

     

    Are you saying that I am equally deserving of all loot, but that I shouldn't roll need on all of it? I deserve it but shouldn't try to get it?

     

    Who's being hypocritical?

  4. Seriously, how can you not see how hypocritical you're being?

     

    You're the guy who just said that thinking that you should be able to roll need on everything that drops isn't an entitlement issue.

     

    It's not hypocritical. Appearance isn't a stat. Your priorities do not mesh with progression priorities. Ergo, it's really on you to put it out in advance that you are going to roll need cross-class beforehand or, hopefully, learn to deal with getting kicked from groups.

  5. Not really. It's like rolling on a single blue piece that's an upgrade to one stat but a down grade to 3 other stats, but that one stat is worth so much to you that it's worth trading in for itself.

     

    I'm going to be wearing orange gear at the end game; I don't care if that chest piece is purple and has purple mods I can't take out of it, I'm not wearing it. Can you say the same for the mods that you're claiming are the end all be all of loot?

    "I like how it looks" is not a stat that people should be denying their groupmates progression over. I disagree so strongly with the sentiment that I can't even begin to address individual complaints beneath it.

     

    If you really must have a piece of orange gear, just grow up, take the not-a-huge-jerk option, inform everyone beforehand that you're going to snag gear from people even if it's useless to you (and, again, I can't acknowledge "I want to play dress-up!" to be a legitimate reason to deny someone an upgrade), and ideally, don't build groups where people legitimately need the stuff you want to gank.

     

    That's entitlement. The stance that that everyone is equally deserving of all loot is the opposite of entitlement. This way of thinking is opposite of centered and inconsiderate to everyone else in the group who is also putting in their time to complete the FP.

     

    Contrarily, your opinion comes across not as "Everyone is equally deserving" because that's moronic and contrary to the way progress works; your opinion is "I am entitled to all of the loot" and it's ... contrary to the way progress works.

     

    you're saying, "I need the opportunity to take everything from this FP and leave everyone behind." The other stance is "Everyone should just take what they can use, that way everyone can come out ahead."

  6. I'm, pretty sure that laziness has nothing to do with it. Based on what I've read, it looks like it's working as designed, and they intended people to need on stuff for companions.

     

    Then their design is awful, honestly.

     

    It should probably look more like this:

     

    Need | Companion | Greed

     

    With the 'need' box being limited to equipment that is of your highest equippable gear (so Heavy only for Guardians and Troopers, Medium only for Smugglers and Sentinels, etc, and only weapons that the class uses) that have some showing of the class' primary stat (no needing on Cunning for Troopers).

     

    Need gets primacy, then it goes to Companion rolls (which can be unhindered, I guess, but doesn't have to be), and then Greed at the end.

     

    Therefore, orange gear should be considered for its appearance (and armor type - tanks shouldn't be wearing light armor, even if they can) over the mods that it includes.

     

    Rolling on a piece of orange gear with the wrong mods is a lot like rolling 'need' on three blue items that you can't equip. It's a dick move. Build your group so that you won't be snagging an upgrade out from beneath someone who needs it if you absolutely must have an orange that doesn't drop geared for your class

  7. If I understand how things work at the academy, a master, of which there are probably at least several, will take on a handful of recruits and train them to be sith. Say, 5 people. He picks one and everyone else dies, or is killed along the way.

     

    Isn't that a tad inefficient? I know they're all about power but come on, 4 crappy Sith and 1 Elite Sith are better than just 1 Elite Sith. Don't they ever wonder why they're outnumbered 5 to 1 on the battlefield?

     

    The Sith as portrayed in this game are staggeringly inefficient and often just outright stupid. I have come to expect the most moronic, ***-on-head choice from any Sith I encounter in the game.

  8. For some reason, this reminds me of an issue that occurred in the British judiciary upon the appointment of Lady Butler-Sloss to the Court of Appeal. As no female had ever been appointed, she was referred to as ‘Lord’ for a while. It was such a patriarchal world that it took six years for Lady to become permissible.

     

    Whilst I wholly accept the lore argument, I happen to have other motivations for wanting its implementation too. Principally, I would like to reclaim ‘Lady’ from flimsy, whimsical notions of classical 19th Century femininity and give marked terms equal status. Beyond that, it always makes me feel uneasy when people make the traditional masculine title universal as it perpetuates the notion that male terms are ‘stronger’ therefore more desirable. If anything, if we are to have a single title for both genders then I would actually prefer ‘Lady’ just to give the classically female title more status and power for once. I find it worrying that so many people will so readily equate 'Lord' with greater strength, even after so much social change. :rolleyes:

     

    One of the primary reasons that I like Darth is that it is a wholly invented title thus, I presume, has no innate connotations of sex. If possible, I'll always prefer something conceived of independently of classical masculine or feminine titles that can apply to both. Sadly, 'Lord' is clearly derived from reality so inevitably jars when situations likes this arise.

     

    That is an excellent post.

  9. Actually the opposite, they control some very rare and valuable materials that are ONLY found in the Outer Rim. So strategically important, logistically unattainable without diplomatic relations with the Hutts.

     

    So not strategically unimportant, but like you said -- too far away and defended well enough that simply conquering Hutt space isn't a reasonable thing to do

  10. He isn't a poor team mate, he is a guy with a skill people need. It's called capitalism and its what makes America stand out (plus that whole freedom thing)

     

    It's working out so well for us right now.

     

    Selling services in a dungeon isn't unreasonable or unheard of, until you're charging but you also want to be a standard part of the party. An undergeared tank wouldn't have much luck charging for dungeon runs in WoW, for example -- if people are paying, they want their money's worth.

     

    So unless our OP is geared to the nines and doesn't need the gear from the dungeon, he's only going to hurt himself by charging; he'll alienate groups who don't want to pay, and in doing so, he'll be shorting himself on gear, which is, after all, the only thing you want credits for anyway.

  11. I was thinking on merc'ing my main out as a healer.... for say 100K up front and 100K at the end of the flashpoint. There is a major healing shortage in this game it seems, and companions don't even remotely compensate. So, do you guys think 200K total is a fair price?

     

    So you don't get any loot, right?

×
×
  • Create New...