People who ninja for their companions

[Darkulous]

Rationalizing is the tool of the Ninja.

[Eldren]

Rationalizing is the tool of the Ninja.

 

While the input is certainly welcome, Darkulous, the reality remains: you're not really actually contributing at this point. We still have the variety of perspectives here that are all sourced ultimately in our desire to gain gear for ourselves. When you start moving up from that foundation, you come to the two primary camps: companions are valid primary upgrade paths, and companions are valid secondary upgrade paths. From there it spirals into ever-increasing numbers of personal justifications for either of those two camps. Think of it sort of like a reverse pyramid, or if you don't like the imagery of a pyramid standing on its point, think of it as a normal pyramid with the foundation being one big block, the second tier being two side-by-side blocks, and an increasing number of blocks filling areas til you reach the top, which is tons of pebbles that manage to form a point.

 

Either way, logic will be your friend here. To my perspective, most people arguing against companions receiving primary consideration for upgrades are ultimately arguing a moralist point, which I believe to be fundamentally sourced in emotion: "this is what I feel is right, and I'm so bothered by those who do differently that I have to construct a heavy-handed defense to shore up my case". This said, some of my opposition camp have presented logical and reasonably cogent defenses of their perspective. I don't personally feel they carry enough weight to change my perspective, but it doesn't invalidate theirs. It only serves to illustrate a potential point of contention should folks from their camp and folks from mine ever happen to be together in a group at some point.

 

Posts here seem to point out that it doesn't seem likely; most people haven't practically experienced this set of circumstances, or they're remaining quiet (or possibly just not posting on the forums) about it. A few experience it, we weigh in on it, and a huge 65+ page thread erupts as we all move into the discussion of a set of principles.

[Arctic_UK]

This happened to me and my Wife, (LV 40ish tank and healer) in a FP recently, a Sith DPS needed a BH item for his companion that my Wife's healer needed.

 

Our solution. We dont PUG any more and the random DPS end up not getting FP group's.

 

Good luck running heroics with your companions as the tank and healer.

[ThiborF]

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.

 

 

***

 

Was loot rules brought up before you engaged?

Did everyone agree?

 

If you answered "No" then you got what you deserved for assuming that everyone is going to play by the same loot rules you do.

 

You obviously have the capability of typing since you created a post here. I suggest you use it with the in-game chat window next time and eliminate the assumptions that can lead to your drama and bad feelings.

 

Communication is one of the first steps in playing well with others.

[ThiborF]

He had no business rolling on it. Don't group with the greed monger anymore. Problem solved.

 

No it's not problem solved.

The problem is birthed when people assume that everyone plays the same way they do.

And then the problem worsens when those same people lack the ability to use their chat window to ask a simple question before the group kills the first mob.

 

And of course there's always the inescapable after-birth that lands on these forums.

[Setanian]

What I do and what everyone I choose to play with does is the only time you NEED is if it's an upgrade for the current character you are playing. Otherwise everything else is GREED. So if it's not an upgrade for your current character, even if it's a class item, you GREED.

 

That's you and the people you play with. Not me. You have no right to labour me with your choices.

[Setanian]

You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

 

Rights are either something you have because of others' refraining behaviour (e.g. a general tacit agreement, or the taking on of a duty, to refrain from interfering with your actions in certain respects) or something that you have because of someone's fiat (say so - e.g. government grants you a privilege to behave in a certain way).

 

This is what the word traditionally means - roughly, a right is either a convention or a privilege.

 

You are using the word "right" in place of "power". Certainly, you have the power to do whatever you want in a computer game, within the lmits of what the devs make possible.

 

And you have the right, IN REAL LIFE, to play the game as you wish (people generally leave you to play computer games in whatever way you have the power to do so).

 

Neither of these , neither the society-given right nor the "god-given" power, can be affected by other peoples' actions (short of coming round to the house and putting a gun to your head, type of thing).

 

But neither of these is relevant to the discussion in hand. If you're feeling "stripped of your rights" by people merely disliking what you do, then you should just thumb your nose at them. Don't dress it up in rights talk, it just shows you don't know what you're talking about, and are trying to use words you don't understand to justify your behaviour. Don't try to justify it, just say "I don't care what others think, I'm just going to play the way I want".

 

All that's happening here is that people are trying to persuade you (or rather, an archetypal "ninja looter") to be reasonable, to be less self-centred, and to put yourself in others' shoes - specifically, those teammates whose toons objectively "need" (i.e whose stats would be better min-maxed by) an item more than your toon.

 

Again, think about it: why is the system in the game? It's not just some coder's random slip of the keyboard, is it? Obviously it is a rule - it's the Need/Greed rule. (A rule isn't something you can't avoid following - it precisely is something you can avoid following, although doing so may have consequences - such as, in this case, ostracism by the community.)

 

So why would BioWare put it in the game, and why are the words "Need" and "Greed" coded into the game in this way? (You do realise that precise text had to be input by someone at BioWare, right?)

 

OK, I have the 'power' to press the 'need' button any time I want. If I 'need' the item for me, for my companion, my friend, I need it. You do not have the 'power' to take that choice from me.

 

Why is the system in the game? Because someone put it there. To cater for times when people 'need' the item or do not.

 

The problem here is players want to take the choice away from others whether they 'need' the item or not.

 

It is not a rule.. It is a mechanic, to which no-one has to adhere to. If someone doesn't like that I chose to 'need' that is there problem. But I broke no rule. I decided to not be swayed by anyone and chose for myself.

[gurugeorge]

Why is the system in the game? Because someone put it there. To cater for times when people 'need' the item or do not.

 

And how are other players to know whether you are being honest when you hit the Need button? How are they to distinguish between you needing it, and you simply wanting it?

 

The mistake you are making is that you think "Need" pertains to you as a player. It does not, it pertains to you as a player in control of a particular avatar who just contributed to downing the boss.

 

How do I know this? It's not speculation, it's pure logic. If BioWare had intended it to be the player rolling for whatever they subjectively want, then there would be no Need/Greed system. It would be pointless.

 

Need/Greed pertain to your visible character, who just contributed to downing the boss. The other players can see your character, can see its class, therefore they can see, objectively, whether that character "needs" the item (i.e. whether its stats are relevant to min-maxing that character or class). It's a means to keep you as a player honest. If you roll Need for something your character doesn't objectively need, then other players know you are simply being greedy but not honest, and they know to avoid playing with you in future.

 

Obviously, if your character doesn't "need" the item, then you still have some chance of getting the item with a Greed roll, but less. If you win it, you're just particularly lucky on that occasion. There's a slight statistical weighting in the roll towards Need, that's all. (Do you seriously think that there's no difference between what happens "under the hood" if you press Need or Greed?)

 

Now, the debate stretches beyond your actual character (who contributed to downing the boss) to Companions - in a game in which Companions feature heavily, this is a legitimate topic of debate, and it's not absolutely clear cut what the answer should be.

 

I would say, if the Need roll is to pertain to Companions, it can only pertain to a Companion who was under your control when you downed the boss (e.g. a 3 man team with your Companion making up the 4th member).

 

Why? Because, again, if it's for another companion, for an alt, or for a friend, yes you may be being honest, but there's no way for the other players to verify that. You could merely be being greedy (e.g. you're just grabbing the loot and you'll sell it, whereas another player - a player who contributed towards downing the boss - his toon actually objectively "needs" the item). So then the point of the Need/Greed roll has gone out the window.

[Palathas]

That's you and the people you play with. Not me. You have no right to labour me with your choices.

 

I didn't "labour" you with my choices. If I had I would have said "Hey Setanian, this is what I do so you should do the same." I just gave a different perspective, I don't expect anyone else to follow it, it's just if you don't and we end up grouping I'll either dump out of the group or boot you.

 

Just as you have a choice how you use the loot distribution system, so do I.

 

EDIT:

 

I would say, if the Need roll is to pertain to Companions, it can only pertain to a Companion who was under your control when you downed the boss (e.g. a 3 man team with your Companion making up the 4th member).

I'd be totally with this also as the companion is part of the group.

 

This sort of discussion has been brought up over a few MMOs now, personally I'd prefer that it was coded so that you could only NEED on class items and default to GREED if it wasn't. That wouldn't completely work with companions though unless they were included in the logic. That's just an opinion though, I'm not the only person playing and I know others wouldn't like that.

Edited January 19, 2012 by Palathas

[SnoggyMack]

I didn't "labour" you with my choices. If I had I would have said "Hey Setanian, this is what I do so you should do the same." I just gave a different perspective, I don't expect anyone else to follow it, it's just if you don't and we end up grouping I'll either dump out of the group or boot you.

 

Just as you have a choice how you use the loot distribution system, so do I.

 

Why would you care if someone rolled for a companion after 1.1? You should all be high valor and geared out in PvP armor. There's no upgrades you need anymore. So let people gear their companions. You gear in Ilum.

Edited January 19, 2012 by SnoggyMack

[Palathas]

Why would you care if someone rolled for a companion after 1.1? You should all be high valor and geared out in PvP armor. There's no upgrades you need anymore. So let people gear their companions. You gear in Ilum.

 

What the heck? Why should I be in high valour gear? I don't even PvP. There's plenty of upgrades I still need as I have 7 characters all under 50, two of which are high 30's, and I still only NEED if it's for the character I'm playing at the time and not Alts. It's called consideration for other players that may be able to use it for their current character and not selfishly grabbing all items for alts or companions.

[coldmoonrisen]

I'm pretty sure I would quit any Op group that wasn't set to master loot. That just seems like a given.

[SnoggyMack]

What the heck? Why should I be in high valour gear?

 

Because of patch 1.1

 

You gear your toon in Ilum. You gear your companion in groups. It's just that easy.

[Pythoris]

So since everyone gets companions that use the various combinations of stats by your logic everyone should roll need on everything.

 

You, sir, are the reason why I don't PuG.

 

[GrimMage]

 

 

I could say the same thing about you.

[SnoggyMack]

Holy ...

 

STOP THE PRESSES!

 

I just found out in this thread: http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=197666

 

That there now drops:

 

Lightsabers with Aim on them.

 

Heavy Armor pieces for smugglers etc.

 

Sorry guys but this issue is now a dead horse. There's nothing you can say that will stop me from rolling need for an AIM-Saber. For my companion. For my collection. For my sheer and utter enjoyment. I NEED an Aim-Saber.

 

Game. Over.

[Catch_TwentyTwo]

I'm pretty sure I would quit any Op group that wasn't set to master loot. That just seems like a given.

 

[JediMasterShake]

I'm pretty sure we've determined that anyone who Needs for companions is new to MMOs, selfish, oblivious to the world around them, or simply bad at video games.

 

Plus, it's like the same 10 people that argue this point. I've never ever, ever seen anyone roll Need for their companion in game, since they know theyd get insta-booted.

 

Seriously, this has become the dumbest argument on the boards. There is only one correct answer.

[SnoggyMack]

Explain to me then, kind people,

 

WHAT CHARACTER NEEDS a Lightaber with +AIM on it?

 

Who rolls need for that?

 

If not me? For my companion?

[JediMasterShake]

Aim sabers are for lols. Everyone has equal right to lol items. They don't represent s gain in power to your character, since a Jedi with Aim would be gimping himself.

[SnoggyMack]

The gauntlet has been thrown down. I will roll need on aim-sabers. I am ... the aim-saber ninja! Blacklist me now!

 

[Eldren]

I'm pretty sure we've determined that anyone who Needs for companions is new to MMOs, selfish, oblivious to the world around them, or simply bad at video games.

 

Plus, it's like the same 10 people that argue this point. I've never ever, ever seen anyone roll Need for their companion in game, since they know theyd get insta-booted.

 

Seriously, this has become the dumbest argument on the boards. There is only one correct answer.

 

Nice way to set up a logical fallacy there. Ad populum arguments doesn't establish anything objectively, and saying there's "only one right answer" when it's patently obvious there's more than one right answer only makes you look worse.

[dipstik]

another one of these threads...

 

there needs to be a need-for-companion button... end of story

 

i have taken the time to ask people at the beginning of an fp if they are needing anything for their companion, and ppl still have trouble upholding agreements.

[RagnarokJC]

Nice way to set up a logical fallacy there. Ad populum arguments doesn't establish anything objectively, and saying there's "only one right answer" when it's patently obvious there's more than one right answer only makes you look worse.

While I agree that using the ad populum argument is fallacious, that's only the case when the point of the argument is rooted in whether it's true or not. This argument is purely based on *public opinion*, however, with the question being: Are you cool with people who roll Need on items for their companions even if another player in the group needs the item? As Jedi pointed out, the vast majority of players are NOT cool with it, hence why he and many others have never actually seen players do this. I myself have also never seen this in-game.

[Eldren]

While I agree that using the ad populum argument is fallacious, that's only the case when the point of the argument is rooted in whether it's true or not. This argument is purely based on *public opinion*, however, with the question being: Are you cool with people who roll Need on items for their companions even if another player in the group needs the item? As Jedi pointed out, the vast majority of players are NOT cool with it, hence why he and many others have never actually seen players do this. I myself have also never seen this in-game.

 

Your argument was sounding sensible until you pulled out the statement of "the vast majority of players", something neither you or I can reliably say. "Some players" or perhaps even the equally-nebulous "many players" is more accurate, insofar as it's able to be. This said, the counterpoint of "some players" or "many players" can likewise be applied to the opposing perspective.