People who ninja for their companions

[utio]

I'm finding it confusing that people putting the same amount of effort into a group are being labelled as scum and selfish simply due to the fact they want the exact same chance of getti g a reward as the other members.

Personally I join a group to help others and have fun, not for any reward. However, if I am one of four members in the group then it's only fair that I am entitled to the same rewards as the other three members, regardless of whatever I choose to do with that reward.

Someone throwing a hissy fit due to not winning a roll does not make the winner selfish, it makes the loser look immature and unable to deal with disappointment at not always getting what you want.

[VizMagc]

as should you. You are trying (unsuccessfully) to deny me my rights.

 

You've only got the rights that other people allow you to have. There is nothing natural about the concept of 'rights', they're defined by society through popular opinion! If other people have a problem with one of your self-defined 'rights' then don't expect to have it for very long. I'm afraid that this is probably one of them.

[Fiachsidhe]

On Tarris group of 16 level 32-37 take down ancient one world boss.

 

3 agents in group. A nice purple protype drops clearly meant for agents. All roll need.

 

A sith assasin also rolls need and wins, saying he needed it for his companion.

 

 

***

 

I wouldn't call it ninjaing, but I would say it's bad form, personally. Unless you had rules layed out at the start. In my opinion, if you're pugging, it's common courtesy to put mains before companions.

 

Also when pugging, it's best to lay the ground rules down before anything happens.

 

Even when I'm with friends I ask before rolling on something for my companion. I usually buy my companion gear.

 

Companions are just a new loot rule factor, that's going to need to be integrated into groups.

[Tyranthax]

Simple solution to this. Dont PuG...and if you do. Set the ground rules before time. If those rules are broken remove said person from the group. I have been doing this for a short bit now in my PuG groups and so far have had no issues.

[Acererak]

Here's a hypothetical to test the tenets that eldren claims to live by:

 

You are walking down the sidewalk and a bread truck is running a promotion, free bread! They are tossing it onto the sidewalk, one loaf per 5 blocks. They toss one directly between you and a what looks to be a very, very poor person. (You have no proof, but theres no reason to think they are not borderline homeless. This is your own estimation). You can reach out and try to grab this bread, and you have a 50% chance to snatch it.

 

Now, for the sake of the hypothetical, take these as givens, don't poke holes in the situation. There is a thing, you have a perfectly equal right to it as person 2, an equal chance to acquire it if you choose to pursue, except they NEED it more than you. You like bread, you can surely use it. But it provides them more marginal utility. (one last given: it will have no effect on whether or not this person survives.)

 

 

What do you do? And please, answer the hypo as given, then feel free to comment as you wish on the merit of the analogy to the current discussion.

 

It would be nice of you to give the bread to the homeless man, but there is no moral obligation for you to do so and like you said, you have equal right to that bread.

 

Here is a video that I think sums up the concept giving everything to the most needy without giving anyone else a chance.

 

[Setanian]

You've only got the rights that other people allow you to have. There is nothing natural about the concept of 'rights', they're defined by society through popular opinion! If other people have a problem with one of your self-defined 'rights' then don't expect to have it for very long. I'm afraid that this is probably one of them.

 

Popular opinion? Do you have figures to back this up? And opinion is opinion, nothing more nothing less and does gives you right to deny me mine.

[Errathe]

You're not arguing on the behalf of others, you're arguing that you should get to play however you want even if it upsets everyone else. You're not being altruistic or noble by claiming that you treat everyone equally and do not care how they play, you're just being apathetic. It's an entirely self-interested argument, some might say it's even 'selfish'!

If everyone cared about the thoughts and feelings of other players then there wouldn't be a problem.

 

Actually, that's incorrect. I am not arguing for the right to do as I please to the point of upsetting people - even though, technically, if someone gets upset at what I do in a videogame, that's their problem.

 

What I am arguing for is that everyone who helps defeat a boss (in this particular case) should have the right to roll on the dropped item.

 

That is simply treating people as equals. To do otherwise - to assign priorities on who gets what - is to put one's own needs above the needs of others, which is part of the definition of selfishness.

 

Unfortunately, the common counter argument to this viewpoint seems to be factless judgementalism, and often rude behaviour such as name-calling.

 

The reason why Eldren's point of view and debate is so easy to understand, and easy to subscribe to, is because he/she manages to write in a clear, concise manner, and manages to remove emotion from the equation to bring the issue down to simple elements.

 

The emotion should have nothing to do with the article being discussed. This is one of the reasons I personally do not mind if someone needs (and wins) an item I wanted too. I don't attach the same amount of emotion to a virtual lightsaber as perhaps some other people do. If I don't win it, sure, I'm sad for a few minutes. But the item will come around again. In fact, I'd dare say developers make such instances repeatable, and then use the NGD system, to keep you running that treadmill a while long, thereby keeping you paying.

 

But let us stick with the logic facts at hand:

 

Unless Bioware publishes an addendum to the EULA where it states that it is forbidden to roll Need on an item for a Companion, then people should not be judged for using the system 'as is', and that is working 'as intended'.

 

And yet they are labelled as 'ninjas' (which is incorrect, the plural of 'ninja' is 'ninja'), 'scum', 'selfish' and all other manner of derogatory names. That actually says more about a person's behaviour and level of selfishness compared to someone who simply clicks a button and 'lets God decide'.

 

I could go on and on, trying to explain and debate why one pattern of behaviour is more or less selfish than the other, but there's no point.

 

What it comes down to, is this:

 

Assigning your personal, emotional opinions and rules onto others with regards to loot (when you have happily accepted their assistance for the last hour or so) means you are being selfish.

 

Allowing everyone in the same group the same right to roll shows your ability to treat others as equals.

 

I don't know how to make it any simpler to understand:

 

* Assigning priorities (based on personal opinion) to who may roll for what = you hold your priorities higher than other's = selfishness

 

* Giving everyone participates the right to roll Need (regardless of outcome) = treating all equally = unselfish

[Errathe]

You've only got the rights that other people allow you to have. There is nothing natural about the concept of 'rights', they're defined by society through popular opinion! If other people have a problem with one of your self-defined 'rights' then don't expect to have it for very long. I'm afraid that this is probably one of them.

 

Incorrect. In this particular context, society does not define my rights. Nor do you. The rights and boundaries are defined by the game software and Bioware.

 

If we are talking about the rights mandated and given by a society with rules and laws, then I'd agree. But we are talking about a videogame.

 

In addition, 'popular opinion' only defines the rights of those who are lacking enough self-awareness and mental aptitude to do anything but follow them.

 

And that's one of the major problems here: 'popular opinion' says - definitively, with no room for discussion - that 'the game is played this way, and you are wrong, and anathema if you don't play how we say.

 

It has been successfully, and politely argued why this mode of thinking and behaviour is wrong. If someone still cannot understand why the above statement is wrong, then I am sad for them.

Edited January 14, 2012 by Errathe

[VizMagc]

Actually, that's incorrect. I am not arguing for the right to do as I please to the point of upsetting people - even though, technically, if someone gets upset at what I do in a videogame, that's their problem.

 

What I am arguing for is that everyone who helps defeat a boss (in this particular case) should have the right to roll on the dropped item.

 

That is simply treating people as equals. To do otherwise - to assign priorities on who gets what - is to put one's own needs above the needs of others, which is part of the definition of selfishness.

 

Unfortunately, the common counter argument to this viewpoint seems to be factless judgementalism, and often rude behaviour such as name-calling.

 

The reason why Eldren's point of view and debate is so easy to understand, and easy to subscribe to, is because he/she manages to write in a clear, concise manner, and manages to remove emotion from the equation to bring the issue down to simple elements.

 

The emotion should have nothing to do with the article being discussed. This is one of the reasons I personally do not mind if someone needs (and wins) an item I wanted too. I don't attach the same amount of emotion to a virtual lightsaber as perhaps some other people do. If I don't win it, sure, I'm sad for a few minutes. But the item will come around again. In fact, I'd dare say developers make such instances repeatable, and then use the NGD system, to keep you running that treadmill a while long, thereby keeping you paying.

 

But let us stick with the logic facts at hand:

 

Unless Bioware publishes an addendum to the EULA where it states that it is forbidden to roll Need on an item for a Companion, then people should not be judged for using the system 'as is', and that is working 'as intended'.

 

And yet they are labelled as 'ninjas' (which is incorrect, the plural of 'ninja' is 'ninja'), 'scum', 'selfish' and all other manner of derogatory names. That actually says more about a person's behaviour and level of selfishness compared to someone who simply clicks a button and 'lets God decide'.

 

I could go on and on, trying to explain and debate why one pattern of behaviour is more or less selfish than the other, but there's no point.

 

What it comes down to, is this:

 

Assigning your personal, emotional opinions and rules onto others with regards to loot (when you have happily accepted their assistance for the last hour or so) means you are being selfish.

 

Allowing everyone in the same group the same right to roll shows your ability to treat others as equals.

 

I don't know how to make it any simpler to understand:

 

* Assigning priorities (based on personal opinion) to who may roll for what = you hold your priorities higher than other's = selfishness

 

* Giving everyone participates the right to roll Need (regardless of outcome) = treating all equally = unselfish

 

lol

 

I should have known that the reason this thread is so long is because of 'logical' people attempting to frame their selfish behavior as completely rational and untainted by the impurity of emotion because they cherry-pick some 'logic facts'. It's not about whether you can do it or not, it's about whether you should and I think you'll find that a lot of people don't think you should! Which is why a companion roll is necessary, you can't be trusted to use the 'need' option like everyone else uses it.

Your defense, lol, is of course that you believe everyone else has the right to be just as selfish.

 

Keep on condescending though! It's easy to make a simple argument when you ignore all of the variables that don't immediately concern you.

 

But hey lets look at this logically, you're rolling 'need' on something that only benefits yourself. It will not come into play in a group, you don't have your companion out. When a player character receives loot, it will actually factor into the success of future groups and that benefits everyone. Not just you. Maybe that's why people get upset and call you selfish? Because you're selfish.

[Lazzerswords]

Easy solution would be if BW added roll for companion-option, that would allways come after main character rolls. At the same time they should do so that if you roll for yourself, you couldn't actually give it to your companion after that.

 

 

Good idea, but they must allow you to roll need only on items with your main stat ( ie aim cunning)

[VizMagc]

Incorrect. In this particular context, society does not define my rights. Nor do you. The rights and boundaries are defined by the game software and Bioware.

 

If we are talking about the rights mandated and given by a society with rules and laws, then I'd agree. But we are talking about a videogame.

 

In addition, 'popular opinion' only defines the rights of those who are lacking enough self-awareness and mental aptitude to do anything but follow them.

 

And that's one of the major problems here: 'popular opinion' says - definitively, with no room for discussion - that 'the game is played this way, and you are wrong, and anathema if you don't play how we say.

 

It has been successfully, and politely argued why this mode of thinking and behaviour is wrong. If someone still cannot understand why the above statement is wrong, then I am sad for them.

 

Bioware has to cede to popular demand to maintain subscribers. If people needing for companions becomes an exceptionally large problem then they will of course limit your 'rights'. Really it could have taken you only a few seconds to figure that out but keep on with your pseudointellectual babbling. It doesn't matter how you format your text if you haven't got any content.

Edited January 14, 2012 by VizMagc

[Tsillah]

Hmmm, ninja looting is something that a lot of people hate, but isn't actually against the rules.

 

From a basic point of view that most game companies have, every person who participates in a run, raid, flash point, whatever has the right to roll for loot since he/she participated just as much as the rest basically.

 

This is why most MMOs don't disallow ninja looting. Now, on a social level this might be undesirable and I agree with that, but it's something that you need to discuss before going in and in PUGs you can always expect someone to do it anyway. It's about getting to know people and knowing who to trust. Kinda like real life.

 

So, in the end, I wouldn't expect a game company to actually forbid ninja looting because anybody can roll as they participated and rolling greed instead of need is a courtesy towards fellow players.

 

You tell me which country actually has a law that forbids a person to be an ******e? I guess it's how it is. Sad perhaps, but I can kinda see why things are the way they are.

[Setanian]

lol

 

I should have known that the reason this thread is so long is because of 'logical' people attempting to frame their selfish behavior as completely rational and untainted by the impurity of emotion because they cherry-pick some 'logic facts'. It's not about whether you can do it or not, it's about whether you should and I think you'll find that a lot of people don't think you should! Which is why a companion roll is necessary, you can't be trusted to use the 'need' option like everyone else uses it.

Your defense, lol, is of course that you believe everyone else has the right to be just as selfish.

 

It has already been proven to you how your argument is as selfish as any other. Ignoring the facts will not make it right.

 

Keep on condescending though! It's easy to make a simple argument when you ignore all of the variables that don't immediately concern you.

The only variable of concern is whether someone helped to down a boss or not. If they didn't they have no right to nor have they the option to, roll. If they did the only variable of consequence is what they rolled. Why they rolled is none of your business.

 

lBut hey lets look at this logically,

 

You have already proven beyond recourse, that when given a logical definition and result which does not conform to your way of thinking that you ignore it. But let's continue;

 

lyou're rolling 'need' on something that only benefits yourself. It will not come into play in a group, you don't have your companion out. When a player character receives loot, it will actually factor into the success of future groups and that benefits everyone.

 

This is correct. If I gear my companion as I see fit, I will advance in the game and be available to help others if they so wish. Whether my companion is in or out in a group setting is irrelevant to the discussion. Your implication is that when it comes time to roll, I have no right to roll if you deem the item more useful to you. Besides being selfish, that is not how the real world works. If I can use something, I buy it. If I have the option of winning in in a dice roll, I roll the dice.

 

Your ideal that you have more claim to any item is just false. It is fostered in the belief that because you are a certain class and a same class item drops that you should in some way be allowed to have it. The belief is just wrong. The only right you have at loot time is to roll with everyone else and take your chance. If you win great, if not, be happy for the other person.

 

l Not just you. Maybe that's why people get upset and call you selfish? Because you're selfish.

 

You can assert that claim all day. Until you can provide facts to back up that assertion that all it is. An assertion in your opinion. And while you are entitled to an opinion, there is nothing to deem that opinion as fact.

[Setanian]

Bioware has to cede to popular demand to maintain subscribers. If people needing for companions becomes an exceptionally large problem then they will of course limit your 'rights'. Really it could have taken you only a few seconds to figure that out but keep on with your pseudointellectual babbling. It doesn't matter how you format your text if you haven't got any content.

 

How do you know what popular demand is? Have you seen the figures? Have you got an inside track into Bioware?

 

If you haven't got facts and figures to back up your insults, then I'm afraid, it is you who has no content.

[zuile]

Rolling need for companions is ridiculous needs to be a lockout mode that does rolls as ordinary but you can only roll if it is gear for your actual class, rolling need for bloody pets, good grief, glad I've not run into any of you yet.

[rawhead_wrecker]

Can't help but think that some of the folks on this thread supporting Need rolls for companions are only on the thread because they can't find anyone to group with any more

 

Need for companioN without asking = boot from any group i'm in

[ChrisJSY]

There's a reason everyone I've ever teamed with rolls for players needs first, then companion, then greed.

 

Why? Because it's the right thing to do, if you continually keep getting bad gear and at 50, the chances of seeing a drop you need is very rare (2 pieces in 30 runs) it will be abhorrant behaviour of someone to take it off someone else for a companion that will NEVER run in hardmodes or operations.

 

People say its selfish but forget one thing, we don't do it to other people, we let them get their stuff before our companions.

 

Luckily 100% of people I've teamed with on Niman think the same and companion needing ninjas are thought of as bad people. Doesn't mean all people on Niman are, just an overwhelming majority in MY experience of the game.

[Setanian]

Rolling need for companions is ridiculous needs to be a lockout mode that does rolls as ordinary but you can only roll if it is gear for your actual class, rolling need for bloody pets, good grief, glad I've not run into any of you yet.

 

Like I said before, they could just remove 'Need' and it would fix everything.

[Setanian]

There's a reason everyone I've ever teamed with rolls for players needs first, then companion, then greed.

 

Why? Because it's the right thing to do, if you continually keep getting bad gear and at 50, the chances of seeing a drop you need is very rare (2 pieces in 30 runs) it will be abhorrant behaviour of someone to take it off someone else for a companion that will NEVER run in hardmodes or operations.

 

People say its selfish but forget one thing, we don't do it to other people, we let them get their stuff before our companions.

 

Luckily 100% of people I've teamed with on Niman think the same and companion needing ninjas are thought of as bad people. Doesn't mean all people on Niman are, just an overwhelming majority in MY experience of the game.

 

You get the same chance as everyone else to roll. What more do you want? The item just handed to you?

 

Why 'is it the right thing to do'? Is there any fact to back that up? To me it's wrong thing to do. I pay a sub, I am entitled to play the game and get loot as part of the random process that everyone else subscribes to. Why are you so special that you should get further benefits?

 

What I do with the loot I win is none of your business. It never was and it never will be.

[Setanian]

we don't do it to other people

 

Who is 'we'?

 

And regardless of that, what you do with your won loot is none of my business.

[VizMagc]

How do you know what popular demand is? Have you seen the figures? Have you got an inside track into Bioware?

 

If you haven't got facts and figures to back up your insults, then I'm afraid, it is you who has no content.

 

This is funny actually because I used 'if'. It was just short explanation of how popular opinion can and will influence and limit player behavior. Like rights in the sense of a society, they are subject to the whims of the public. I claim no knowledge of what the majority believes but I would earnestly like to believe they are not this dumb!

 

No one has explained why I am wrong though. I am just told I am wrong and directed to the 'correct' conclusion. It's something that commonly happens when someone believes in something that they don't understand and are asked to explain it.

 

Apparently at some point someone using an infallible logical argument that invalidated any and every conflicting opinion on this issue. I'm totally sure it is in no way subjective!

 

Ok and for the last time why so sore about being called selfish when you are being selfish?

[Errathe]

lol

 

I should have known that the reason this thread is so long is because of 'logical' people attempting to frame their selfish behavior as completely rational and untainted by the impurity of emotion because they cherry-pick some 'logic facts'. It's not about whether you can do it or not, it's about whether you should and I think you'll find that a lot of people don't think you should! Which is why a companion roll is necessary, you can't be trusted to use the 'need' option like everyone else uses it.

Your defense, lol, is of course that you believe everyone else has the right to be just as selfish.

 

Keep on condescending though! It's easy to make a simple argument when you ignore all of the variables that don't immediately concern you.

 

But hey lets look at this logically, you're rolling 'need' on something that only benefits yourself. It will not come into play in a group, you don't have your companion out. When a player character receives loot, it will actually factor into the success of future groups and that benefits everyone. Not just you. Maybe that's why people get upset and call you selfish? Because you're selfish.

 

Your argument here is based around the assumption that I am not using my companion in the Flashpoint activity. But what if I am using my companion? Let's take it a step further; you are controlling only your own character, and I am controlling my character and my companion. Am I still not allowed to roll Need for my companion? I did, arguably, twice the work that you did.

 

Who has more 'rights' in this instance? My point of view is that all who participate have the same right to a random roll. I think that demonstrates quite adequately my level (or lack) of selfishness.

 

It has nothing to do with an imagined (on your part) defense of selfish behaviour. I am treating everyone in my group equally. Please tell me how that is being selfish?

 

Also, I have neither written nor implied any level of condascension. If you read that in my post, then that is unfortunate. I prefer to remove emotion from the equation precisely so as to avoid this kind of misunderstanding, and have a polite, logical discussion with others.

 

So you go on to bring up facts, logic, and then finish by simpling judging, and labelling me selfish, when in fact, you have no factual evidence that this is the case. You are implying, and stating as fact, something that you cannot prove without grouping with me. You are also assuming that I play a certain way that you and others find unacceptable.

 

So, let me clarfiy my gaming style when it comes to groups: when I accept an invite to a PUG, I communicate. Firstly, as a means of guaging my fellow players, and secondly, as a means to establish ground rules. The ground rules help to avoid misunderstandings. Now, if I do not agree, I am free to drop from that group, and find another, with no hard feelings either way (it is, after all, just a game, not a reflection of real life).

If either no rules have been established, or it has been stated to be acceptable, I will roll Need for a companion item, if it is an upgrade.

Quite often, if the item is of no real interest to me, I will Pass. Even if the item is worth credits.

 

I think you can agree that this is quite an agreeable form of behaviour, yes?

 

But with regards to facts and logic, let us approach an issue from the following angle.

 

If one side of an argument cannot be substantiated and proven, then the other side of the argument must be correct, right?

 

The two sides, in this case, are - and let's remove our personal opinions of what constitutes selfish behaviour from the discussion:

 

A. Follows the rules as set by the game owners (Bioware), no more and no less

B. Follows the rules as set by the game owners (Bioware), but add their own addendum to the rules, and goes so far as to proclaim that 'they are right'

 

Since Side B cannot prove or substantiate that they 'are right', and Side A can - because Bioware makes it quite clear what is and is not acceptable - then surely Side A must be correct.

 

This is the pattern I am seeing in these discussions:

 

Side B: believes in the equal, game-given right that everyone who participates should get their fair share, with no restrictions, and does not get upset when they lose the roll. On occasion, Side B comes off as cold, callous and uncaring toward others, though this is generally implied by Side A, and in no way proven.

 

Side A: believes that certain game-driven entities and players deserve more priority than others, and that to believe otherwise is 'selfish'. Side A then goes on to the forums, often using harsh language and derogatory terms and threats, in attempt to 'shout down' Side B using mob-rule tactics and arguments.

 

Again, please tell me which of those is more selfish?

[Errathe]

Bioware has to cede to popular demand to maintain subscribers. If people needing for companions becomes an exceptionally large problem then they will of course limit your 'rights'. Really it could have taken you only a few seconds to figure that out but keep on with your pseudointellectual babbling. It doesn't matter how you format your text if you haven't got any content.

 

You're missing one thing here: if Bioware do change the rules, and the rights they give me, then naturally the way I play the game, and how I interact with other players will change to abide by those rules.

 

Again, there seems to be this belligerancy among those 'against Needing for companions', where they automatically seem to think, by default, that because I am arguing for or against a certain basic concept, that I am some evil, sociopathic human being.

 

If this is going to continue being the only argument, then I invite any of you who think this way, to join me on Primogenitor (same character name as here on the Forums) and run a Flashpoint with me. I'm quite certain that we'd have an ace time together, have a few laughs, and get some 'phat lewts'.

 

But, unfortunately, for some people, it just seems like it is easier to throw out some insults, slurs and labels, and leave it at that, instead of sitting down like the bunch of gamers we ought to be, and discuss differences in opinion with each other.

 

If you want, I can just call you all a bunch of d'bags for telling me how to play, or some other popular internet meme, and then leave. But that doesn't really achieve anything.

I'd rather acheive something through meaningful discussion, even if it means my opinions change, because you're all my fellow gamers at the end of the day, and the whole point of this hobby is the shared experiences it offers.

Edited January 14, 2012 by Errathe

[Setanian]

This is funny actually because I used 'if'. It was just short explanation of how popular opinion can and will influence and limit player behavior. Like rights in the sense of a society, they are subject to the whims of the public. I claim no knowledge of what the majority believes but I would earnestly like to believe they are not this dumb!

 

Insults will rarely get you anywhere, I suggest you stick to the issue.

 

No one has explained why I am wrong though. I am just told I am wrong and directed to the 'correct' conclusion. It's something that commonly happens when someone believes in something that they don't understand and are asked to explain it.

 

Apparently at some point someone using an infallible logical argument that invalidated any and every conflicting opinion on this issue. I'm totally sure it is in no way subjective!

 

They have but you have chosen to ignore it in favour of insults and non-factual information.

 

 

Ok and for the last time why so sore about being called selfish when you are being selfish?

 

I am not 'sore' at being called anything, I'm above juvenile insults.

 

You have yet to prove I am selfish in any way. I'll ask you again; How am I being selfish when I roll on loot I helped win?

 

I have stated before, your class has nothing to do with the loot roll. You helped kill the boss and then you can roll on the loot. What you do with it if you win is not my business, and conversely if I win, it is none of your business what I do with it.

Edited January 14, 2012 by Setanian

[VizMagc]

If either no rules have been established, or it has been stated to be acceptable, I will roll Need for a companion item, if it is an upgrade.

Quite often, if the item is of no real interest to me, I will Pass. Even if the item is worth credits.

 

I think you can agree that this is quite an agreeable form of behaviour, yes?

 

NO. Finally you've said it. The thing people are getting upset about. Someone needing a companion item without asking if it's ok to do so. That's why people are mad. So. Simple.

 

 

Also when you claim to speak without emotion, purely basing every conclusion on logic and then proceed to categorize the different types of people who post in this thread, well... that's condescending http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/condescend here is a link for you brobot