People who ninja for their companions

[EthanLight]

LoL, but it wasn't "My Opinion". What I described in my examples is the DEFINITION of "SELFISH".

 

All you've done is ignored the definition, and you think you're right.

 

Go ahead and try to change the definition of "Selfish". When you succeed in doing that, then I'll consider you right. Until then, your thoughts on the matter hold very little weight if you can't even understand the basic definition of Selfish.

 

I really don't think it can be said that anybody's needing on gear for the greater good, so this is kind of moot. If you really want to push this argument, you should probably be working from "inconsiderate".

[DukeOfNukes]

You talk about others being selfish, then you go on to talk about "my gear". I've been able to 2-man 4-man instances due to companions. So you know what, both my companion and other player's companions really are just as important to me as your "main".

 

I might also add that mmos by design are selfish games. Your whole point is to build up your own character. Trying to pull the selfish card in a game that is by its very nature selfish is ridiculous.

 

MMO is a selfish genre? What are you smoking? The game is designed to get a feeling of camaraderie with your fellows. It's Red vs Blue, us against you, Imps vs Republic. You get points for doing things as a team, you're forced to group up and make decisions together. I cant run a dungeon(flashpoint) by myself, let alone a raid(operation). It requires co-operation.

 

When you take loot away from others, particularly tanks and healers, you create less of a motivation for them to play the game...at least with you. What's especially funny about this is the severe lack of tanks and healers in the game...at least on my server. Rest assured...on my tank character, I've put ninja looters that need for companions against me on my ignore list. They WILL NOT have me tanking for them again.

 

It's selfish because you don't put the loot to anybody elses use but your own. If I have the best tanking gear, I can be a better tank and do higher heroics/operations. I can take more damage in PvP and help my team. If I make my companion a 1337 healer, then...I can solo 4 main heroic quests? Don't really see how you don't understand that as selfish.

Edited January 14, 2012 by DukeOfNukes

[Cuagai]

I roll need for my companion all the time. Better gears = better healing on me. That been saying... I do ask ahead if "anyone mind if I roll for companion" before I click need. If someone object, then I pass. Edited January 14, 2012 by Cuagai

[Setanian]

Companions are a necessary part of the game until you reach 50th, and they're necessary at that point when you aren't in a Flashpoint or Operation, and are out doing dailies. Companions require upgrades. Ergo, if someone sees an upgrade appropriate for a companion they're going to use, it's a valid "Need" roll.

 

 

 

The existence of companions as vital parts of this game largely invalidates the common sense approach behind the Need Before Greed system to begin with, since as you've not-so-eloquently pointed out, everyone can conceivably need something with "valid" reasoning solely because it would go to a companion with appropriate stat priorities. As a result, I feel this game would more properly benefit from a "Roll/Pass" system. If you want it, you roll for it, if you don't want it, you pass on it. If everyone's rolling, everyone has an equal shot at the drop. Nothing could be more fair. You don't get exclusivity on loot due to being a particular class, even if the drop was meant for that class. You're in a group, they all helped down the boss, they all have an equal right to stake a claim on gear the boss drops.

 

Put another way: unless the piece of gear in question has a class requirement built into it (and many do), it's not "intended" for a given class, even if its stat allocations lead it to one or two classes over a couple of others. Everyone helped down the boss, everyone has a fair shot at it.

 

 

 

In your eyes, maybe. Their necessity all throughout the leveling process would point to a different reality. Don't push your particular priorities on others. You don't get to determine how another player upgrades their character, of which their companions are a part.

 

 

This doesn't solve anything, as "Companion Need" simply becomes the new Greed. It also doesn't give you priority for what is an actual need. Whether some players agree with it or not, companion gear requires regular upgrading for the companion to continue functioning. I'm running around with Jaesa Willsaam right now, and if I don't keep her gear upgraded, then we don't have the combined damage output to kill mobs before they kill us (at least Silver mobs; most of the time I have to use my healer on Gold mobs, as the Marauder just doesn't have the right damage mitigation to survive otherwise). I keep her gear upgraded, and "nearly impossible" fights become "challenging but possible" fights.

 

 

A valid perspective, and here's the primary flaw I see with someone treating this game like WoW's loot: in WoW, you didn't immediately equip the gear. You waited til you could get back to a city so you could enchant it and gem it (and more recently, reforge it). In the last guild I was in before my current WoW guild, all of us in leadership set a requirement for someone rolling Need on a BOE item: equip it so it binds to you. We didn't force you to wear it in the instance, as it needed adjustments to be optimal, but we just wanted to make sure we could see it bound to you so the guild's efforts weren't just turning into meaningful pocket cash for one person. Guild members had no issues with this, as we all benefitted greatly from the guild policy of free consumables and enchants/gems to guild members. The rare PUG we pulled in occasionally griped, at which point they were usually ejected. Our guild run, our rules.

 

 

This is why a Roll/Pass system makes more sense in light of companions being very viable and realistic upgrade needs, alongside our characters. Sure, we aren't using the companions in that particular Flashpoint. Then again, once we're done in that Flashpoint, we aren't benefitting those people with our upgrade either. Roll/Pass removes the drama and reduces it to what it should have been all along: if you want it, roll for it. You don't need to explain the reason for your roll, and it's no one else's business what you're going to do with something you contributed to get, and won via an impartial distribution system.

 

 

 

It doesn't matter if the companion took part in the instance or not. You, the companion's player, did. You helped contribute to killing the boss, you staked an equal and valid claim to a boss' drop. If someone else in your group gets the item, you no longer benefit from said item once the group is done. They're out there using that upgrade for their own purposes and goals, just as you are when you put it on a companion. It's a valid upgrade if it's for your character, which includes your companions. There's no way around this. You're appealing to a social contract which not every player agrees to, and is ultimately unenforceable. I'm appealing to a reality which results in someone getting loot, which means someone else didn't. Usually, the one who didn't gets upset to a degree equal to how badly they wanted it, but that's not an issue. The issue is simple: someone won the item, and they're going to use it. That's all that matters. It doesn't matter if they're going to vendor it for a couple hundred credits, it doesn't matter if they're equipping it on themselves, it doesn't matter if they're equipping it on a companion, hell, it doesn't even matter if they're sending it to an alt or guild member. They're making use of it in keeping with their personal goals. No other player has a right to tell them what they can or can't do with the loot they won on a fair roll.

 

 

Gotta love it when people reduce themselves to name-calling because they can't argue a point. Player characters > companions according to whom? Can you show me something BioWare said that would back up that statement? They're the only authority in this game. Oh, you can't show me where they said something like that? It's because they never have. Gear goes to a player who plans on using it. It's none of your business where or how they plan on using it.

 

Probably one the best gaming posts I've ever read.

[Kaziklu]

I played a Scoundrel Bonesaw to 50, I was a full heal spec, in a boss encounter or in a multi elite or multi superior fight, my companion was the difference between me make it through or not, as they are the ones that held aggro, took most of the hits and over all did most of the work... The better his gear, the better his damage output, as well as less damage he took.

 

In the level 30-40 range, ya I hit need on something that my companion is lacking in.

 

My Companions armor was nearly as important as my own. If I ever saw Corso drop below 24% I went looking for new mods. or gear.

 

Now I would only need if I was planning on using the time for a while, it was a good upgrade, and I could plainly see others had also needed. It's not a Ninja.

 

As for people that want to call it selfish... well actually the need button is selfish... because it is saying the hey I think I'm more important so I'm needing over greeding.

 

And unselfish way would to announce "hey everyone I really think we should just randomly let someone have what ever the drop is", and invite them into the group have them sit on the side lines and then everyone pass on it and then the person on the sideline also passing, and everyone in the group letting it disappear never to be used because everyone is being unselfish.

[Marlaine]

Ok, show me screenshots proving that your companion can outperform a player in a flashpoint, operation, or other heroic quest. Some things to keep in mind:

 

- The quest/flashpoint/operation has to be at or near your level. Running Esseles with a level 30 character, for example, doesn't count.

 

- The screenshots have to clearly show the numbers your companion is posting.

 

- The other players in your group need to be at or near your level. Outperforming someone who is 5-10 levels below you hardly proves a thing.

 

Even better idea, how about you gear up your companion on an alt and try it yourself?

 

I am not going to take my time to do that stuff to convince closed-minded people on the internet. You can figure it out yourself.

[rzrknight]

Ignore , just ignore every player who does that , it is simple , i wish i could ignore all chars a player has at once ...

[RagnarokJC]

Even better idea, how about you gear up your companion on an alt and try it yourself?

 

I am not going to take my time to do that stuff to convince closed-minded people on the internet. You can figure it out yourself.

Great, so you're just another troll who won't put his money where his mouth is. Who'da thunk it?

 

I've already figured out that players > companions when running heroic content in this game. Apparently, you still need to learn this.

[Marlaine]

MMO is a selfish genre? What are you smoking? The game is designed to get a feeling of camaraderie with your fellows. It's Red vs Blue, us against you, Imps vs Republic. You get points for doing things as a team, you're forced to group up and make decisions together. I cant run a dungeon(flashpoint) by myself, let alone a raid(operation). It requires co-operation.

 

When you take loot away from others, particularly tanks and healers, you create less of a motivation for them to play the game...at least with you. What's especially funny about this is the severe lack of tanks and healers in the game...at least on my server. Rest assured...on my tank character, I've put ninja looters that need for companions against me on my ignore list. They WILL NOT have me tanking for them again.

 

It's selfish because you don't put the loot to anybody elses use but your own. If I have the best tanking gear, I can be a better tank and do higher heroics/operations. I can take more damage in PvP and help my team. If I make my companion a 1337 healer, then...I can solo 4 main heroic quests? Don't really see how you don't understand that as selfish.

 

And WHY do you do the group stuff? Because you want those points and the gear to make your character better. EVERYTHING in a mmo boils down to you, the individual player. Even if you were to be in a guild and make a point of gearing up specific mains that you know will be there for a while, there is still a selfish component to that as you know gearing them up will help you down bosses quicker and get you loot quicker.

 

As for comraderie, the best comraderie I ever had in a mmo was in SWG before the hologrind, and there were no raids in that game, seeing as raids are the primary reason people even form guilds nowadays. Having done wow raiding with good guilds doing heroic end-game content, I know for a fact there's nothing about comraderie with end-game instances and loots, at least for the vast majority of players out there. If people aren't putting out enough dps or are new to the guild and not learning an instance fast enough, they'll be booted without a second's though and labeled a baddie. When the loot drops people bicker over it. Where's the comraderie in that? There might be some exceptional situations where people have played together for years, and yeah there's comraderie there, but they are just as I said....exceptional situations, not the norm.

 

I think you need to look at mmos the way they are, and not the way you want them to be. MMOs are elitish, selfish, and cruel, and no amount of wishful thinking is going to change that.

Edited January 14, 2012 by Marlaine

[Setanian]

Since Companions are not used in Raids, they offer no benefit to the content/encounter. Therefore, giving it to your companion over a main does not benefit the group. When your interest is to only benefit yourself and not the group, that is being SELFISH.

 

Surely then your rules should be limited to raid gear and not pugs?

 

Also, what if I have no intention of raiding and prefer to be soloing and dailies etc. My Companion is every much a part of my character as anything else?

[Marlaine]

Great, so you're just another troll who won't put his money where his mouth is. Who'da thunk it?

 

I've already figured out that players > companions when running heroic content in this game. Apparently, you still need to learn this.

 

I do NOT need to waste my time trying to prove something to you that is utterly self-evident. If you don't want to learn it yourself, that's your problem.

[Blackavaar]

This is why I don't do World Bosses with PuGs. I'll wait until my guild is online, thanks. I don't roll Need for stuff for my companions. I roll Greed and count myself lucky when nobody Needs it and I happen to win the roll. Unfortunately most people have less consideration for other players than I do and unfortunately when you PuG you have to deal with them.

 

[Setanian]

The reality is this;

 

I've seen people rolling need for items on every MMO I've ever played and then seen that item go for sale in trade channel within minutes. Even on ToR.

 

When I join a PuG of any kind, I know this is likely to happen. I don't know any of the players from a hole in the wall. When they roll need, I have no idea if they actually need it or they roll need hoping to to win, to sell or to disenchant.

 

Additionally in ToR we have companions, in immediate use or not, they are part of our daily/nightly game play and we rely on them.

 

So rolling need to gear a companion has merits. I know people don't like that, but the reality is, it has merit. Like someone said above, maybe the MMO community on ToR just have to accept, that's the way ToR plays. It has a player mechanic that is not anywhere else, therefore, your standard accepted rules do not apply.

 

Lastly. If I help bring down a boss, I am just as entitled to roll need on anything that drops as anyone else is. If I win and you can use the item, you have the option of asking me to sell it to you. I helped, therefore I am entitled to, without me helping the PuG would have failed.

 

In saying all that, I'm what peeps nowadays call a care bear player. I have no need for raids or flashpoint or anything else. I play for my own amusement. I've done my raiding time, I want an easy life. Part of that for me is helping others. If someone needs help with a 2+ or 4+ I'm going to help them, and let them loot everything.

 

But if I'm in an open world PuG, you can bet on it, if we win, I'm rolling need regardless. I helped, I'm entitled to it.

Edited January 14, 2012 by Setanian

[LogicalPremise]

Silly argument is silly. Warning, HUGE wall of text.

 

Companions are a necessary part of the game until you reach 50th, and they're necessary at that point when you aren't in a Flashpoint or Operation, and are out doing dailies. Companions require upgrades. Ergo, if someone sees an upgrade appropriate for a companion they're going to use, it's a valid "Need" roll.

 

Irrelevant. A companion may be part of the solo experience, and may even be part of a particular flashpoint. But a companion does not require upgrades from any FP or Operation to be fully effective. MULTIPLE people have challenged anyone to point out an instance where content can't be completed by a companion in greens that are often offered as mission rewards, this point has been ignored because everyone knows no companion needs blues or purples.

 

This line of argument is invalid for a second reason -- everyone has multiple companions. Logically there is no reason why you can't imply needing on literally everything if a companion can use it, even through you only use one at a time. Given this, the entire need/greed system would be completely useless.

 

 

The existence of companions as vital parts of this game largely invalidates the common sense approach behind the Need Before Greed system to begin with, since as you've not-so-eloquently pointed out, everyone can conceivably need something with "valid" reasoning solely because it would go to a companion with appropriate stat priorities. As a result, I feel this game would more properly benefit from a "Roll/Pass" system. If you want it, you roll for it, if you don't want it, you pass on it. If everyone's rolling, everyone has an equal shot at the drop. Nothing could be more fair. You don't get exclusivity on loot due to being a particular class, even if the drop was meant for that class. You're in a group, they all helped down the boss, they all have an equal right to stake a claim on gear the boss drops.

 

Except that isn't the case.

 

Consider why they implemented need/greed in the first place. The implication is that, due to the way loot tables are constructed, there will be instances where a given piece of gear is more optimized towards one class than another. Example: an assault cannon drops. It has +aim and +endurance. It is clearly intended for a Trooper to use. No one else CAN use it. If there are no commandos in the group, then everyone rolls greed and everyone has a fair shot at it. If there are, however, then by giving everyone a "fair shot" , one person is losing out more comparatively than the others. If a Jedi loses the roll he is not diminished in any way, he can't use it anyway. If the Trooper loses it to another trooper, then the trade off is also even.

 

Taking this to companions, sadly, we are left with the ugly realization that a companion's performance is not heavily impacted by critical gear to the same level as that of a PC. Furthermore, the "equal chance" thing implies that all people can use gear equally, which is patently false. It's not "valid" to imply the retardation that would result from claiming all companions let you have a "need roll" somehow invalidate the basic point of the need/greed system, rather that clearly need cannot be implied to be a right of companions.

 

 

Put another way: unless the piece of gear in question has a class requirement built into it (and many do), it's not "intended" for a given class, even if its stat allocations lead it to one or two classes over a couple of others. Everyone helped down the boss, everyone has a fair shot at it.

 

Except you are basically cheating. If I don't subscribe to your rules, then I have the right to need for myself if I can use something. But your rules allow you to need if you can use, or if your companion can use it. It's like having two votes in an election.

 

Following your logic the whole 'roll/pass' system will simply devolve into a situation where no one wants to PUG at all, and where guilds operate master looter systems and apportion gear to those who can use it best, and people like you get locked out of the guilds because of this alternative view of reality. Saying that the stat allocations make it useful for a Sith Warrior but that your IA has a right to it simply because you feel you have a right to it is the very definition of selfishness -- want without consideration to the impact on others.

 

Don't push your particular priorities on others. You don't get to determine how another player upgrades their character, of which their companions are a part.

 

*arches eyebrow* If 3 people in a group disagree with your looting metric, and you do it anyway, you are determining how we upgrade our character. That's why people like you should form your own guilds and groups to avoid friction with the majority of players.

 

Whether some players agree with it or not, companion gear requires regular upgrading for the companion to continue functioning.

 

This has been completely disproven : there is no situation in game where a companion has to have blues, purples, or oranges to succeed. Period. The fact that you want to upgrade your companion as much as possible is fine -- but do it off the GTN.

 

The minute I am far less effective because you want to gear your companion up in a manner that will literally make me heal for 500 more but them heal for 20 more is the minute your contribution to any OP or FP is outweighed by your potential cost. I would much rather wait an extra five minutes for a healer with a loot strategy that is more along my lines than gimp myself for who knows how long because some ninja looter with a good command of argument and English has conned people into believing that an NPC is on the same need scale as another PC.

 

I'm running around with Jaesa Willsaam right now, and if I don't keep her gear upgraded, then we don't have the combined damage output to kill mobs before they kill us (at least Silver mobs; most of the time I have to use my healer on Gold mobs, as the Marauder just doesn't have the right damage mitigation to survive otherwise). I keep her gear upgraded, and "nearly impossible" fights become "challenging but possible" fights.

 

I don't mean to be demeaning...but I can solo gold mobs by myself without my companion , on my healer, my dps and my tank, at 15 , 30 and 45. Do you click? Is your character built well? Are you even geared correctly? While there are classes that need a companion more than others (Sorcs, Snipers their mirrors come to mind) , my sorc never bothered putting Khem Val in anything but greens except one blue I greeded on. And I never , ever struggled except when I pulled more than I could handle.

 

The argument is *invalid* , and if it is the linchpin of your logic it is very simply discouraging to think people are this ... bad. You don't need purples on your companion to make them effective. The fact that you think you do only confirms to me that , and I am not trying to be insulting, but, honestly, you can't even play that well.

 

Now, granted -- if this is what you are encountering, then it explains why you have a desire for this sort of loot model. If you are struggling with two silvers and only your companion keeps you alive, then yes, you probably feel they are vital. But that is not the absolute case.

 

You're appealing to a social contract which not every player agrees to, and is ultimately unenforceable. I'm appealing to a reality which results in someone getting loot, which means someone else didn't. Usually, the one who didn't gets upset to a degree equal to how badly they wanted it, but that's not an issue.

 

And you are rejecting a social contract that most people accept. In the real world I believe we call people who ignore long-standing and widely accepted social contracts sociopaths. The impulse behind rejecting social contracts is that some how they shouldn't be binding on you because you didn't chose to accept them. The problem is they benefit everyone, and most people rejecting them would get upset if they had the tables turned.

 

If you need on something for your companion, I will need on everything you roll on, I will see no problem killing your mobs to rack up my own "kill x enemies" quests, I will loot your bags while you fight the connected boss, and there's nothing you can say because the idea that these things are wrong are also social contracts. The idea that some how one can simply claim the rules don't apply is one of the most appalling and unnerving indicators of just how ... inward looking our society has become.

 

You're saying I can't stop you. I agree. But I won't say that you are right. Merely that I will disassociate myself with you.

 

The issue is simple: someone won the item, and they're going to use it. That's all that matters. It doesn't matter if they're going to vendor it for a couple hundred credits, it doesn't matter if they're equipping it on themselves, it doesn't matter if they're equipping it on a companion, hell, it doesn't even matter if they're sending it to an alt or guild member. They're making use of it in keeping with their personal goals. No other player has a right to tell them what they can or can't do with the loot they won on a fair

roll.

 

And that is the problem. This idea that it's okay to cause someone else to lose out because what you want is more important.

 

You clearly can't see it, and I feel very sorry for you as a result , because one doesn't develop a mindset like that in a game without it having manifested in real life.

 

Gotta love it when people reduce themselves to name-calling because they can't argue a point. Player characters > companions according to whom? Can you show me something BioWare said that would back up that statement? They're the only authority in this game. Oh, you can't show me where they said something like that? It's because they never have. Gear goes to a player who plans on using it. It's none of your business where or how they plan on using it.

 

I love it when people reduce themselves to relying on circular argument and reductions to the absurd to justify their points because they can't defend a point. Your argument come down to "It's MINE and you can't stop me from hitting need and it's none of your business lolz!" , which is the argument of a pedantic child. Thus, people espousing it get treated as such.

[Holron]

Stop posting about this stuff on the forums. You will hear from both sides. One will say "Whaaa my companions my soul mate ; ; he needs gear to!" The other side will say "If the companion wasnt there, he doesnt get jack!". Both sides are right, just dont expect to ever group wth me if you are from the first group. Or if you do, god I cant wait for your delicious tears when I win something for your main, then vendor it with Screens.

[Seksi]

Bioware made this game dependent on companions you have to gear up, blame them. I hate having to keep my ******e companion geared lol.

[Setanian]

Stop posting about this stuff on the forums. You will hear from both sides. One will say "Whaaa my companions my soul mate ; ; he needs gear to!" The other side will say "If the companion wasnt there, he doesnt get jack!". Both sides are right, just dont expect to ever group wth me if you are from the first group. Or if you do, god I cant wait for your delicious tears when I win something for your main, then vendor it with Screens.

 

If you helped win the encounter are you not entitled to win the loot too? What you do with screens or whatnot is irrelevant.

[LogicalPremise]

Bioware made this game dependent on companions you have to gear up, blame them. I hate having to keep my ******e companion geared lol.

 

You don't need to gear them up from FP and Ops. Period. End of story. Claiming you do identifies either a troll or a baddie.

[Moricthian]

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

 

This. People should not be allowed to role need for companions. Unfortunately the onus is on Bioware to stop this by either only allowing the class that the gear is intented for to role on it or include a companion roll option as well. Until BW does this, people will keep ninja looting.

[Setanian]

This. People should not be allowed to role need for companions. Unfortunately the onus is on Bioware to stop this by either only allowing the class that the gear is intented for to role on it or include a companion roll option as well. Until BW does this, people will keep ninja looting.

 

Another option is to remove the 'need' aspect entirely and have roll/pass ?

[Holron]

Why bother have a button. Most of you would prefer if loot was just auto distrubuted anyways, save you from clicking need.

[Vydor_HC]

Why bother have a button. Most of you would prefer if loot was just auto distrubuted anyways, save you from clicking need.

 

Yup, that's the best, or master looter.

[RagnarokJC]

I do NOT need to waste my time trying to prove something to you that is utterly self-evident. If you don't want to learn it yourself, that's your problem.

Translation: I won't put my money where my mouth is because I can't.

 

[Boxcar]

It's not a ninja if he can use it including the companion. Companions are part of the game so you might want to just get used to that fact. I know I won't hesitate even for a second to need on a item for my companions.

 

Hahahah, woooooow. At least you're open about it, I guess.

[ProspectorPete]

A good options would to have three buttons. You should be able to need on items for your class, greed and then a companion button. Need over rides companion over rides greed.