People who ninja for their companions

[johnhughthom]

Yes you are. By calling it "good manners" and "courtesy" and labeling their loot priority as not fitting in those categories, you're insisting that their loot priorities are wrong.

 

Clearly my idea of one good turn deserves another being good manners is outdated. If someone does me a favour I would repay it if possible, my idea of sharing being good manners is clearly out of date too. Obviously good manners nowadays is accepting people doing what they want, accepting greed as a social norm and accepting that expectations of team work and community is out of date. As I'm totally out of touch with modern social niceties, I shall bow out of this debate and hope I don't come across you in a bar. Clearly if I were to buy a round of drinks ans hope that you did likewise I would have entitlement issues.

[ferroz]

Saying so, doesn't mean so.

If you blacklist someone, whether cross server or same server, you don't group with them again. Whether cross server, or same server, they continue to be able to group with other people.

 

 

 

Same server: My guild tag, my legacy tag and my name in general can be shouted/messaged/spread across places like the Fleet...creating a fairly bad reputation.

 

X-Server: None of that is applicable as I'm completely free to prey upon unsuspecting people with my as*hattery ninjaness without warning or consequence.

No, your guild tag, legacy tag and name can be shouted/messaged/spread across places like the Fleet etc, regardless of whether it's same server or cross server.

 

 

In both cases, most of the server will not pay any attention to the crazy person ranting about how X did him wrong in a group. The end result will be that the individual who rants about him and a few other people will actually bother putting him on ignore.

 

That's how you have people like the guy on my server in wow who masterloot ninja'd the ony mount and still was running pug raids every week.

 

Or the people on the PoMS (Piece of Monkey ****) list on my EQ server, who were still in the end game raiding guilds on the server, plus all of the other people who didn't make the list but trained/KS'd/etc, some of whom were in the top 3 guilds (the guys who were the cutting edge for the server).

 

I'm sure you get a warm fuzzy thinking about "yay, I blacklisted him and it matters" but you're really just fooling yourself.

Edited February 20, 2012 by Sireene
lang

[Galbatorrix]

Not really; it just shows that they've changed their stance on the issue based on player feedback.

 

Come on now. You've been just as much a part of this on going debate as I and you know as well as I do that the issue has been pretty split. Tons of advocates on both sides.

 

If they originally intended it to be the way you say, why are they siding with us on such a split argument? No, they are making the change so that the system is used the way they always intended it. I've said it before and I'll say it again. If they didn't design the "operative's jacket" for the operative, they wouldn't have named it "operative's jacket".

[IIII-IIII-IIII]

If you blacklist someone, whether cross server or same server, you don't group with them again. Whether cross server, or same server, they continue to be able to group with other people.

How? Is there some function that disables the ability to group with someone you no longer choose to or are you suggesting such ability?

 

No, your guild tag, legacy tag and name can be shouted/messaged/spread across places like the Fleet...creating a fairly bad reputation, regardless of whether it's same server or cross server.

Again, same server and cross server isn't the same effect.

 

In both cases, most of the server will not pay any attention to the crazy person ranting about how X did him wrong in a group. The end result will be that the individual who black lists him and a few other people will actually bother putting him on ignore.

That may be true but the effect percentage, I would imagine, drastically depletes even greater when it's not even related to your server.

 

That's how you have people like the guy on my server in wow who masterloot ninja'd the ony mount and still was running pug raids every week.

Raids are an entirely different topic, as that's more of an isolated community. I would agree there are preventive measures when a master loot feature is available but not when using Cross Server LFG.

[ferroz]

Come on now. You've been just as much a part of this on going debate as I and you know as well as I do that the issue has been pretty split. Tons of advocates on both sides.

So? One option minimizes the CSR tickets they have to deal with, so they're going with that. Seems pretty clear that they've changed their stance. Edited February 20, 2012 by ferroz

[Rabenschwinge]

I generally used to vote "need" for the companions I actually use as well. I particularly remember a set of blue heavy armor boots that I wanted to give to Qyzen, back when he was my only companion. With my amin that used to mean for Tharan - I used Nadia, too, every now and then, but since she's basically a shadow as well she simply used my own second set. With my main I am level 50, of course, and the loot from the operations is assigned to the individual players - which I am very happy about since that doesn't result in fighting.

 

On the other hand I'd never vote need for something that I don't need, even if it is usually for my class. Such as modable outfit that looks worse than the ones I got, even if the mods are better. Simply because the worth of a modable outfit is primarily defined by its looks and the mods, the item itself has no game stats. But mods are useful to everyone I don't need them more than anyone else.

 

Since I had a few fights about this I hardly vote "need" at all anymore. Some fictional shoe that makes you smarter if you put it on is never worth fighting over imho - it just frustrates me if I am called greedy, if it is the others who try to lecture me how they are entitled for said fictional entity, even if I did no less work for it and my chance to acquire it was not higher than anyone else's. Chance decides - and chance is fair. No one is entitled to acquire anything. I just wouldn't vote need on an item that I don't need, since it is pointless.

 

In fact the greed of the people who cannot accept that you can't always get what you want and that chance decides disgusts me.

Edited February 20, 2012 by Rabenschwinge

[ACLucius]

I played a game where certain dungeons were run to get materials for making weapons and armor. To make things a bit more fair, we had people who were designated "bankers" and would hold all of the mats until the end of the run, then split them up between the group based on a system. This was usually never gone over in every group, it was implied because it was part of the way things were done.

 

Occasionally, some people would be the banker because they had formed the group. Obviously, its a reasonable request, so everyone goes with it. Do the run, drop the mats for the banker. Then, the banker leaves, taking all of the loot.

 

According to the logic people here who are in favor of needing on anything you want, this person was well within his rights to do this because there were no loot rules stated, though they were obviously implied.

 

I also had runs on the same where while I was banker, a person would refuse to give up the mat that went to them, because they said they wanted it. According to these people, this person was right to do so.

 

It is for this reason that now I take up the art of ignore and tend to boot people who roll need on anything their character can't or shouldn't use, without asking everyone else if it is alright if they need for their companion. It is also the reason why I wait until last to select my option. If the person who can use it selects need and everyone else goes greed, I pass on it. If the person who needs it and then someone who cant selects need as well, I select need, take the item if I get it, boot the one who shouldn't have needed it, and then buy the person that did need it equal mods to what was in it if it is a BoP.

 

I have found so far that I haven't had any bad groups like this, though I have heard of them. But, at least I know what I will do when I finally run across these people.

[ferroz]

How? Is there some function that disables the ability to group with someone you no longer choose to or are you suggesting such ability?

Yes.

 

Since cross server in swtor doesn't exist, we have to look at games where that exists... and in those games, you can indeed disable the ability to group with someone you choose to no longer group with.

 

Again, same server and cross server isn't the same effect.

Yes it is. You no longer group with them; it's exactly the same in both cases.

 

Raids are an entirely different topic, as that's more of an isolated community. I would agree there are preventive measures when a master loot feature is available but not when using Cross Server LFG.

I'm not sure what your point is here. People can continue to get groups, continue to be in guilds and continue to participate in end game raid content, regardless of being blacklisted. Going on rant in general chat does not stop this, whether you're talking single server or cross server.

[IIII-IIII-IIII]

I'm not sure what your point is here. People can continue to get groups, continue to be in guilds and continue to participate in end game raid content, regardless of being blacklisted. Going on rant in general chat does not stop this, whether you're talking single server or cross server.

Ninjaing in a raid (cross server or otherwise) within a niche/smaller community that is raiders, has far more stretching consequences for such behavior.

 

Smaller pool of people, greater effect & overall consequence. The Raiding community and random people PuGing in the LFG system aren't remotely comparable.

[Revenaught]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If they didn't design the "operative's jacket" for the operative, they wouldn't have named it "operative's jacket".

 

If that were the case why do I have a companion that uses the exact same stats and armor level as the operative and why can I equip that operative's jacket thats BOP on my companion if that jacket was only designed for the operative?

[JumpDrive]

People get mad at me for "Needing" the IA/BH Head and Glove tokens. Too bad for you they're the only items with power/sure mods! Blame BW for poorly customizing item sets.

[Entropicus]

It's just a easy to create an alt I their server and call them out there as well, and there is a forum to use in addition.

 

The "my companion needs" mindset just gives you an excuse to roll on everything. The lack of loot courtesy leads to people rolling need just to pull the mods out. Because they or their comp "needs" it.

[IIII-IIII-IIII]

The "my companion needs" mindset just gives you an excuse to roll on everything. The lack of loot courtesy leads to people rolling need just to pull the mods out. Because they or their comp "needs" it.

Upon reading/realizing how dependent we were on companions in SWTOR pre-release, this was a concern I didn't see voiced often enough.

[Terko_Koslah]

Here's my suggestion.

 

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=315621

[IIII-IIII-IIII]

Here's my suggestion.

 

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=315621

Agreed.

[Galbatorrix]

If that were the case why do I have a companion that uses the exact same stats and armor level as the operative and why can I equip that operative's jacket thats BOP on my companion if that jacket was only designed for the operative?

 

 

 

Again, this was Bioware's way of "nudging" you in the right direction. Since some people, you included, apparently didn't get it and can't play nice with others, they're going to change the rules to where you can no longer need on an item like that. We had a good system in place, because being able to need for your companion when no one else in the group needed the item was great, but since people abused this system by needing for companions over the people actually helping in the group, Bioware is being forced to police us and make a change.

 

Sorry, but if I tanked an hour long FP and I'm lucky enough to have a nice tank piece drop from the last boss, I should get that piece of loot over your companion. Your companion didn't tank the boss, I did. Call that entitlement on my part all you want, but it's a real poor move to thank me for helping out in the group by pulling a move like that. And trust me when I say, it would be the last time I'd ever tank in a group that had you in it.

 

 

Companions don't make good replacements for players in groups at higher levels at all. With that being the case, why should they be wearing that shiny new boss drop after the FP while the player that you actually did need leaves empty handed?

[RudeDog]

Here's my suggestion.

 

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=315621

 

A decent suggestion, but a better one is to get rid of the stupid Need v. Greed system entirely along with BOP. Then have random drops and let the players decide if they want to trade, vendor, or use the loot.

[Mogsters]

Whats the point with companions after 50`? well besides craft.

[Holden_Dissent]

A decent suggestion, but a better one is to get rid of the stupid Need v. Greed system entirely along with BOP. Then have random drops and let the players decide if they want to trade, vendor, or use the loot.

 

Why not have it drop tokens that people all get a set number of. That way they can buy whatever gear they need whenever they need it

[ThiborF]

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.

 

And people that have voices to complain after something but, are apparently mute when it comes to the loot rules at the moment the group forms is the reason I avoid them.

 

If you can complain about it here using your fingers to type your message then you can use them in-game to ask a simple question when the group forms.

 

Assuming everyone is going to play by the same player-created, non-game-enforced rules is foolhardy and you get what you deserve when you opt for that path.

[TumblerSW]

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.

 

 

***

 

Working as intended. Picking greed over need I'd say is a gift. Everyone in the group has to work together to defeat these enemies so everyone has the option to roll for gear. If nothing else those items you can't use are worth credits. These items should not be bound on pickup, bind on equip would allow people to sell/trade things so if you want something you can offer the player credits. I can only guess that they don't do this because it makes it take less time to acquire gear in general so folks like you will go back and run that flashpoint 15 more times to get that same gear instead of you paying a premium in credits to get the item now.

 

I don't see the problem. If you want to play differently, aka implement your own "house" rules, that is on you. You go to the trouble to setup a group that will abide by those rules or just accept what you get. You chose a group where everyone can need. Next time discuss this with the group before you go play the mission.

 

And this ultimately may be impossible unless you play within a guild because something ultra rare comes up and everyone will want it regardless of any details, it's ultra rare, do you want it? (EASY ANSWER) YES.

 

It's a lightsaber...and you're an agent...and it requires a sith player. NEED!!!!! I want a rare lightsaber because. I want them to allow us to display weapons in a case or something on our ship. Yes I want that item and I don't care that you want it to. We both have equal chance to it.

 

I do with there was a strategy to using need vs greed. When I choose greed I think I should get a bonus to my next need button, like 10%. I can still lose that roll but over time I should be able to aquire enough bonus's that I have a high chance of grabbing something I want when it comes up. And let it stack, so if I greed 7 items in a row them my roll with have a 70% bonus when I choose need. If I hit need on everything I just have the base roll while others might have a 20% bonus or 50% bonus, maybe cap it at 70% or something.

 

This would be more inline with how the loot system works anyway. When you play with 3 other players the loot drops aren't often geared towards you so by creating this reward you give people something to gain by choosing gain on stuff that isn't for them. This would carry over to your flashpoints in the future as well so that if you run a flashpoint and all the gear that comes up is for other classes you can still cash out all the greeds on the next flashpoint when something you can use comes up.

[Vecke]

By this many pages, I think it's fairly obvious that the only current solution is to lay down the group rules at the beginning.

 

If you don't lay down those rules at the beginning, then any person that rolls for a companion did nothing wrong, because it's clear there isn't a universally accepted etiquette here.

 

If you're against it, make sure that's clarified in the group at the start. If you're for it, make sure it's clarified at the start.

 

After 79 pages, I've not seen one person change their opinion based on points made here. Clearly the only solution lies in establishing group rules at the beginning. If you don't do that, it's your own fault if people roll in ways you don't agree with.

[ferroz]

After 79 pages, I've not seen one person change their opinion based on points made here.

After at least half a dozen threads on this, I've seen a few people change opinions, if only slightly.

 

the hard-liners don't generally do so though.

 

 

Clearly the only solution lies in establishing group rules at the beginning. If you don't do that, it's your own fault if people roll in ways you don't agree with.

Just to be clear, I agree with this wholeheartedly.

[Vecke]

After at least half a dozen threads on this, I've seen a few people change opinions, if only slightly.

 

the hard-liners don't generally do so though.

 

 

Just to be clear, I agree with this wholeheartedly.

 

Fair enough. To be honest, I'm kind of torn on the issue myself, which very rarely happens to me in these kinds of debates. It's a new construct we're dealing with, so I see some decent points being made on both sides (and some absurd ones that make it more fun to read).

 

At the end of the day, though, I would probably end up with the stance that the best compromise is if a companion participates in the kill, you can roll need for that companion only. That is (IMO) the closest thing I've seen to resembling the standard loot rules in other MMOs. If you're in the group and participated in the battles, you get a roll. Just treat the companions the same way.

 

I'm sure that position will get shredded and in some cases with valid arguments against it. It's not the perfect etiquette, but I don't think there is one in this case. The only perfect etiquette is to establish loot rules at the group's formation.

[JeremyDale]

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.

 

 

***

 

Are you sure this really happened Xhaiguan?

 

Because we all know that someone's sever reputation keeps people in-line and prevents them from being jerks.

 

I'm not sure rather or not to believe this.