People who ninja for their companions

[Jedi_Wannabe]

whose says players come before companions? is this BW rule i never heard of before or is this you pushing your gameplay opinions onto others?

 

And your compainion can bbe in four man flashpoints, i have taken my along with me. if there is only a total of 3 players, the 4th slot is filled by a companion.

 

It's players pushing their opinions on other players. Just like "My companion's needs are just as important as the needs of your character" is an example of a player pushing their opinion on other players.

 

You don't have to follow their rules.

 

They don't have to group with you again.

 

Simple.

[Mr_Crueak]

when will people understand that a PLAYER is more entitled than a NON PLAYER NPC to a piece of gear? I really don't care how you wish to justify it in your own mind. Need vs. Greed is in place to give the people who can use the gear and will equip the gear a shot at it.

 

Players should always get priority. You should ALWAYS ask first if you want it for your companion.

 

who decides who is entitled to what? let me get this straight you as a player gets to tell me as another player what i'm entitled to?

 

I'll decide what i'm entitled to, thanks.

[Mr_Crueak]

It's players pushing their opinions on other players. Just like "My companion's needs are just as important as the needs of your character" is an example of a player pushing their opinion on other players.

 

You don't have to follow their rules.

 

They don't have to group with you again.

 

Simple.

 

i never said i wouldn't follow their rules, but if those rules are not stated before hand then no rules exist to follow. Rules are to be stated when the group forms as they are different on a group by group basis.

Edited January 17, 2012 by Mr_Crueak

[Holden_Dissent]

who decides who is entitled to what? let me get this straight you as a player gets to tell me as another player what i'm entitled to?

 

I'll decide what i'm entitled to, thanks.

 

A lifetime of solo content. Enjoy.

[Mr_Crueak]

A lifetime of solo content. Enjoy.

 

PUGS are easy to come by, i have had no problems grouping at all. I have had no complaints on what i roll on either. Seems to me you guys that have issues with it are the minority.

[Eldren]

If you played this game anywhere past the first Flashpoint, you would know the correct answer. Needing on companions without asking/discussing with group is a noob move or an "I don't give a crap about others" move.

 

Enjoy doing Operations alone with your well equipped companion. You sure wont have many friends by stealing loot from other players.

 

Now let's see if you can make an argument not based completely in emotion.

 

1) Was the player in the instance? If yes, go to 2

2) Did the player help down the boss? If yes, go to 3

3) Is the piece in question an upgrade for the player's character? If yes, roll Need.

 

You can throw insults around all you like, but this is what it is. If you need it for an upgrade, roll Need. Your companion requires upgrades as well. It's up to you as an individual player to decide if you're fine with the companion having gear just from quests and GTN purchases, or if you want them to have gear from Flashpoints as well. No other player has the right to take that choice away from you.

 

Your dire predictions of being so blacklisted that one can't run Operations have yet to pass that I've heard of on either the forums or in the game itself. You can be upset about it all you like, but you don't get to determine how other players acquire their gear, even though that's what you're hoping to come about here.

 

I don't mind if another player gets a piece I wanted in a Flashpoint. That's how group content works: one person inevitably gets something someone else wanted. You either find another upgrade, or you run the content again til you get that particular piece.

[Jedi_Wannabe]

when will people understand that a PLAYER is more entitled than a NON PLAYER NPC to a piece of gear?

 

When the populations of the servers drop, and finding groups becomes more difficult, they will say "It's a good thing I geared my companion because people won't let me group with them. anymore."

[Tahana]

Common sense and universal rule according to whom? Show me where this rule was established and where we were all forced to obey it? Did BioWare say it? They're the only authority in this game.

 

Oh, you just mean it's what you and other players who agree with you want. That isn't a rule.

 

When your companion contributes to killing something in a four man, i vote for him to be given the ability to roll on it himself. Until then it is only limited to people pushing the buttons. Your attempt at covering up that your nothing more than a ninja isn't working.

[BigBadEdward]

So, a group of you take down a boss. This is a one time group to kill one opponent.

 

A piece of loot drops and you say that a special few of these people get first dibs, right?

 

What kind of special short-bus knucklehead came up with that idea?

[gurugeorge]

People use the term "ninja" in an inaccurate fashion because it's an emotionally charged word in MMO circles, and will get them a response.

 

Did you help down the boss that dropped it? You aren't a ninja for rolling for it.

Can you equip it as an upgrade? Roll Need on it.

Can your companion equip it as an upgrade? Roll Need on it.

Are you going to vendor it/put it on the GTN/give it to a guild mate/friend? Roll Greed on it.

 

That wasn't so hard, was it?

 

I think that's pretty reasonable - so long as it's a Companion you used in the gig that helped you down the boss. If the Companion was not present and didn't contribute UNDER YOUR CONTROL, to beating the boss, then rolling need for any of your Companions is more like rolling for an alt.

 

Logically, if BioWare put Need/Greed in, they must have gone to the effort of coding it for for some reason, otherwise a straight roll would be fine. The general idea of Need/Greed is surely connected to three things:

 

1) the

effort

you put into beating the boss as part of a team, plus

 

2) a slight

weighting

towards what your character "needs" to improve it, plus

 

3) the fact of

verifiability

(i.e. the fact that your companions can easily tell just by looking at you, your class, if your character genuinely "needs" or not).

 

I think it's safe to say that some combination of these three is what BioWare had in mind when they put in a Need/Greed system. (BioWare can you confirm?)

 

In this context, if YOU contributed VIA your Companion (as a 4th member of the team), then yes, your Companion should count, it's an extension of you, your use of it is not much different from your use of your main avatar, and your teammates can verify that a Need roll in this instance is honest.

 

However, if your Companion was not present and didn't contribute towards downing the boss, and you're rolling for a Companion that your teammates know nothing about, then that's not fair to the others in your team (how are they to verify whether you aren't being honest, and you won't just sell the crap?), and it sort of nullifies any purpose to the 2-tiered Need/Greed idea, you might as well just have a straight random roll for everybody.

 

The point about your teammates being able to verify is extremely important. The ninja looter is someone who greedily takes as much loot as possible regardless of whether they need it or not. The value of the Need/Greed system is that your character (or in my point above, also your Companion) is visible to your teammates, so they can verify your honesty.

 

(This is related to a well-known problem in the philosophy of ethics and politics, it's called the "free rider" problem. Any social system will have some people who break the social agreement and selfishly do what everyone could do (has the capability of doing), but refrains from doing, for the sake of a social order that benefits the whole more, in the long run. )

[JackalTurner]

There is a reason its called a need or greed system.

 

You dont NEED the item for your companion, since you dont NEED your companion. You can group with others to fill that companion role. A companion is not something you NEED.

 

If the item drops for a tank, and that tank would be better off in their role if they got that item, and they have been tanking for you, putting in their time and effort to tank for you, then they NEED that item, and they DESERVE that item.

 

You dont NEED the item for your companion, you WANT the item for your companion. Thats why its called GREED. So roll greed, because thats what you are being, you are being greedy.

 

Rolling need for a companion is just inconsiderate of other players.

 

In flashpoints and against world bosses companions are useless. In a full group they arent there, and against a world boss they dont even fight. Your companion hasnt done any work for that item, while an actual player has. You've deprived another player of an item that is ment for their class so that your yourself can benefit while soloing. Thats called greed, which is why you are suppost to push the greed button.

 

If need was acceptable for companions then that throws the entire need or greed system completely into anarchy. I mean, everyone gets a companion to fill every role, so everyone could just push need for everything.

[notebene]

I think they ought to just pop-up a mission reward window after each boss that has 2-3 random items that boss usually drops and let you pick one. That way your Need/Greed choices for the big items don't affect anyone else's.

 

And then let standard rolls 'roll' on for all the stuff that just happens to drop from other things.

 

This would be especially useful for something like the Hammer Initiate's Tunic that I 'really' wanted for my agent, but technically it's filled with str/end mods (which as a CT doesn't matter much to me, as I'd fill it with whatever I want). I didn't get it until I could go solo the instance, as it seemed like when I'd ask if it was OK if I rolled need on it, provided there wasn't a medium/str/end person that needed it, I was met with a surprising amount of anger.

[Setanian]

When your companion contributes to killing something in a four man, i vote for him to be given the ability to roll on it himself. Until then it is only limited to people pushing the buttons. Your attempt at covering up that your nothing more than a ninja isn't working.

 

The problem for you is, you don't get to vote on what someone else does or does not do. Just because some people will not rally to your cause, does not make them a ninja.

 

Look it up. Someone who takes something they did not deserve.

 

By simply completing whatever the event was, entitles each player to roll on the loot. You don't get to choose for anyone else or *vote* how they choose. Them's the facts.

[Eldren]

The issue that arises in the defense of "The companion wasn't in the instance" is this: once you're out of the instance as a player, that gear you got isn't helping anyone else from your group. You're out questing solo again (or doing dailies if you're at cap), and you're the only one benefitting from that upgrade you received.

 

Companions are additional upgrade slots requiring upgrades to remain effective in level-appropriate content. The argument isn't about whether they can do sufficiently in quest greens to save Flashpoint greens, blues and purples (and the odd orange) for players. The argument is simpler: they require upgrades, which have to come from somewhere. There's no rule indicating Flashpoints are off-limits as a resource for upgrades for them. I know some people would like such a rule to be in place, but it isn't (yet).

 

If I go on a quest with Jaesa and I get a reward for Quinn, using this logic Quinn should never get the upgrade. He didn't help with the quest. Yet people do it, because <insert companion> is one they use often enough, even if not at that particular moment, that upgrades improve the quality of life of their gameplay.

 

You, as a player, have a right to roll on anything you want from content you assisted in overcoming. There's no need to complicate it further. What you do with what you win is up to you, and no one else's business.

 

You aren't "taking it" from another player. They had just as much right to roll on the same priority level as you did. If they chose not to, that was their own choice, and they have to deal with the consequences (good or bad) of that choice.

[Mr_Crueak]

There is a reason its called a need or greed system.

 

You dont NEED the item for your companion, since you dont NEED your companion. You can group with others to fill that companion role. A companion is not something you NEED.

 

.

 

simply your opinion. Your opinion is no more or less valid than mine neither of them are facts.

 

I feel a compainion is an extension of your character, you do not. We don't agree and we don't have to but one thing we should agree on is that no one can force a playstyle or opinion on to another one.

 

These type of gameplay rules need to be stated when pugs form, if they are not stated to be followed then there are no rules to be followed. In this instance you have choice to follow the pugs rules or not join.

Edited January 17, 2012 by Mr_Crueak

[Zhothon]

Your dire predictions of being so blacklisted that one can't run Operations have yet to pass that I've heard of on either the forums or in the game itself. You can be upset about it all you like, but you don't get to determine how other players acquire their gear, even though that's what you're hoping to come about here.

 

I don't mind if another player gets a piece I wanted in a Flashpoint. That's how group content works: one person inevitably gets something someone else wanted. You either find another upgrade, or you run the content again til you get that particular piece.

Keep telling yourself that all you want. I have played this game for 7 months. Yes, I was in beta. I have done tons of FP and group content. After Esseless or BT, you really don't see people "ninja looting".

 

99% of the players accept the norm of players need > companions. I have seen a few instances where someone accidentally needed or didn't understand. After the others in group got upset, they apologize and don't do it again.

 

I actually have yet to see anyone blatantly needing on companions without asking if real players need first. You are in a extreme minority and are an anomaly. If you don't care about it, that's your problem. Anyone arguing that companions need = players need would get the auto-boot from me.

[ferroz]

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.

 

 

***

did the raid leader actually spell out anything for loot rules? Because if he didn't, that's not ninjalooting.

[CommanderFrog]

Not ninjaing, though I usually wait for everyone to roll/ask if I am needing for a companion..but companions are a huge part of this game, they are as strong/stronger then you, get used to it bud :|

[Vydor_HC]

The issue that arises in the defense of "The companion wasn't in the instance" is this: once you're out of the instance as a player, that gear you got isn't helping anyone else from your group. You're out questing solo again (or doing dailies if you're at cap), and you're the only one benefitting from that upgrade you received.

 

Companions are additional upgrade slots requiring upgrades to remain effective in level-appropriate content. The argument isn't about whether they can do sufficiently in quest greens to save Flashpoint greens, blues and purples (and the odd orange) for players. The argument is simpler: they require upgrades, which have to come from somewhere. There's no rule indicating Flashpoints are off-limits as a resource for upgrades for them. I know some people would like such a rule to be in place, but it isn't (yet).

 

If I go on a quest with Jaesa and I get a reward for Quinn, using this logic Quinn should never get the upgrade. He didn't help with the quest. Yet people do it, because <insert companion> is one they use often enough, even if not at that particular moment, that upgrades improve the quality of life of their gameplay.

 

You, as a player, have a right to roll on anything you want from content you assisted in overcoming. There's no need to complicate it further. What you do with what you win is up to you, and no one else's business.

 

You aren't "taking it" from another player. They had just as much right to roll on the same priority level as you did. If they chose not to, that was their own choice, and they have to deal with the consequences (good or bad) of that choice.

 

Spot on.

[ferroz]

Players should always get priority.

Player's can't wear the gear; players are real people in the real world and can't wear any of these pixels. Companions can wear the gear; companions should get priority over players.

 

As for priority, I fail to see the difference. I have 5 companions (including 1 droid). So I have 5 wrist slots (since the droid doesn't wear a wrist item). If a piece of heavy armor drops, and I can wear it in one or more of my 5 wrist slots, it's an upgrade and I should be able to hit need. If you want a different set of loot rules, you should specify that at be beginning of the group. If you don't, you have no call to excuse about when someone doesn't obey your arbitrary unwritten unspoken rule.

[Setanian]

Logically, if BioWare put Need/Greed in, they must have gone to the effort of coding it for for some reason, otherwise a straight roll would be fine. The general idea of Need/Greed is surely connected to three things:

 

1) the

effort

you put into beating the boss as part of a team, plus

 

2) a slight

weighting

towards what your character "needs" to improve it, plus

 

3) the fact of

verifiability

(i.e. the fact that your companions can easily tell just by looking at you, your class, if your character genuinely "needs" or not).

 

I think it's safe to say that some combination of these three is what BioWare had in mind when they put in a Need/Greed system. (BioWare can you confirm?)

 

Until such time as Bioware confirm that, it is entirely speculation on your part.

 

 

However, if your Companion was not present and didn't contribute towards downing the boss, and you're rolling for a Companion that your teammates know nothing about, then that's not fair to the others in your team (how are they to verify whether you aren't being honest, and you won't just sell the crap?), and it sort of nullifies any purpose to the 2-tiered Need/Greed idea, you might as well just have a straight random roll for everybody.

 

Here again is supposition, in that you *think* the other players have a right to examine me and deem whether I can or cannot roll 'Need'. The other group members do not have to verify anything, it is none of their business. The fact that I got the option to roll, means I am entitled to roll how I want. In fairness, it could be deemed selfish of you to even try to coerce my decision.

 

The point about your teammates being able to verify is extremely important. The ninja looter is someone who greedily takes as much loot as possible regardless of whether they need it or not. The value of the Need/Greed system is that your character (or in my point above, also your Companion) is visible to your teammates, so they can verify your honesty.

 

My honesty? Show me anywhere on the internet that shows that you have the right to verify that what I loot I need or can use, may use. The *fact* is you have no right. The only right you have is to choose how *you* roll.

 

 

 

(This is related to a well-known problem in the philosophy of ethics and politics, it's called the "free rider" problem. Any social system will have some people who break the social agreement and selfishly do what everyone could do (has the capability of doing), but refrains from doing, for the sake of a social order that benefits the whole more, in the long run. )

 

The 'whole more' in this case being you?

 

Need before greed is a fallacy. It always was, and always will be. It is nothing more than an agreement between like minded people. It was implemented as method of rolling dice to cater for the masses. It is not a rule, and never was a rule. For one very important reason. If I get to roll, it is my choice, not your, what choice I make. Anything else is a stripping by you, of my rights.

Edited January 17, 2012 by Setanian

[ferroz]

Your attempt at covering up that your nothing more than a ninja isn't working.

your attempt to cover up your own greed by trying to spin other people's behavior as ninjalooting is absurd. It's not ninjalooting unless the group decides to limit the rolls in some particular way and someone violates that. Edited January 17, 2012 by ferroz

[Tahana]

Keep telling yourself that all you want. I have played this game for 7 months. Yes, I was in beta. I have done tons of FP and group content. After Esseless or BT, you really don't see people "ninja looting".

 

99% of the players accept the norm of players need > companions. I have seen a few instances where someone accidentally needed or didn't understand. After the others in group got upset, they apologize and don't do it again.

 

I actually have yet to see anyone blatantly needing on companions without asking if real players need first. You are in a extreme minority and are an anomaly. If you don't care about it, that's your problem. Anyone arguing that companions need = players need would get the auto-boot from me.

 

Exactly.

[Eldren]

Keep telling yourself that all you want. I have played this game for 7 months. Yes, I was in beta. I have done tons of FP and group content. After Esseless or BT, you really don't see people "ninja looting".

 

99% of the players accept the norm of players need > companions. I have seen a few instances where someone accidentally needed or didn't understand. After the others in group got upset, they apologize and don't do it again.

 

I actually have yet to see anyone blatantly needing on companions without asking if real players need first. You are in a extreme minority and are an anomaly. If you don't care about it, that's your problem. Anyone arguing that companions need = players need would get the auto-boot from me.

 

Ahhh, here we go. We're getting into the "I've been here longer than you, sonny!" argument. Are you so certain I haven't been involved in beta just as long? Whether I have or haven't, it isn't germane to this discussion, as the game's iterated so much since even the last weekend test that I have to wonder why you've brought it up at all, save perhaps not having an actual rebuttal to my point.

 

Where do you get your percentage of how many players accept a given position? References, please. Otherwise, I'd recommend you cease performing a rectal extraction of statistics.

 

I'm in an extreme minority? You must have access to some pretty phenomenal and objective statistics! Nah, you're a player just like me. Your attempted ad populum argument smells like it came from a dirty place.

 

And you finally attempt to retreat to a moralist position, casting aspersions on the perspective of anyone who doesn't agree with you. Poor debate tactics, which sort of injures your ability to have your position seriously considered as a possible option for purposes of changing someone's mind. In short, you've got no support you didn't already have.

 

Care to try again?

[LogicalPremise]

We have to presume there is a reasoning behind BW's use of a Need/Greed/Pass system over a Roll/Pass system.

 

We have to presume (although I am working on this) that there is a level of measurable benefit derived from FP / OP gear vs. gear available on the GTN or Commendations.

 

There is no point arguing this topic on societal norms with those who reject such norms. Nor is it worth discussing the consequences. Those who disdain such things have demonstrated their personality far more effectively than any argument can. Whether or not you choose to group with such people is up to you.

 

The only points that can be discussed in a logical, rational manner (hopefully one removed from this bizarre concept that opinions on either side of the argument are facts) are

 

1) Is there measurable benefit from equipping a companion with Blue/Purple/Orange gear? Is this benefit high enough that it's "worth" the cost to players you have grouped with? While this can be derailed by people saying "I have the right to need on whatever I want", that isn't the point. A piece of gear that gives your companion a 1% increase and gives a PC tank a 10% is better given to the tank.

 

2) Given that some people apparently view their companion as a part of their character, what needs to be done to alleviate the issue? Stop FP/OP gear from being used on companions and instead give companions better gear in missions? Move directly to a roll/pass system , or a "each person gets a piece of loot" or "Eldren is given a Champ Bag every time Eldren's character stubs it's toe" or whatever works.

 

Bashing each other over the propriety of it is pointless. I will never accept it, and others will never cease defending it.