People who ninja for their companions

[SnoggyMack]

A good options would to have three buttons.

 

There currently are three buttons. Need. Greed. The X button to pass.

[Setanian]

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.

 

Just remove 'need' and then everyone is happy.

[ProspectorPete]

There currently are three buttons. Need. Greed. The X button to pass.

 

There is also a power buttont to turn off you computer.

[Shortwave]

There currently are three buttons. Need. Greed. The X button to pass.

 

 

He was referring to positive options, no?

[Nanomancer]

Im so glad i am in a guild that has a strict no loot for companions unless no one can use the item on there main. Edited January 14, 2012 by Nanomancer

[Gamon]

 

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

 

 

***

 

Ouch...

 

Notice to all mmo newbies: Rolling "need" on any gear for the purpose of upgrading a companion, without the express approval of the group, is a habit that will get you into some serious pain. Although there are exceptions, the vast majority of the player base will see you as a lousy ninja, and will never group with you again! Or worse, they will smear your name across the chat channels for the benefit of everyone else to see.

 

EVERYONE has a companion that could use that item, should everyone role need? If you say yes, then just wait until you spend countless hours farming a missing piece to your "o so epic armor," only to see another person "claim" that he wants it for a companion!!! Can you not see the danger here? The key word there is claim... how could he prove he's not just going to sell it for creds? A line must be drawn at a clearly discernible place. If not, it opens up a slippery slope that ends with chaos/confusion/anger, and everyone need rolling on everything. I believe that eventually this would kill PUGS, and subsequently, the overall community.

 

A mechanism for a "companion need" might work, though I am unsure how this should be implemented.

[SnoggyMack]

He was referring to positive options, no?

 

Passing to others I thought was a positive option?

[Shortwave]

Passing to others I thought was a positive option?

 

When you click the x on the loot window you are saying no I don't want this bound to me. the buttons he was referring to are from the yes I have some need for this to be bound category.

[SnoggyMack]

When you click the x on the loot window you are saying no I don't want this bound to me. the buttons he was referring to are from the yes I have some need for this to be bound category.

 

But this thread is all about doing the right thing to help everyone else gear up. So that negative is the positive that all these folks who are mangling the phrase"ninja looter" are really here to convince you all to do.

 

This thread is essentially transplanting the phrase "hunter loot" to "agent loot" if you read the OP.

Edited January 14, 2012 by SnoggyMack

[Lazorous]

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?

 

My scenario was based on Raiding. If you read how this conversation started, it was by Skaara who called people who rolled for their mains as "Selfish", and felt that him rolling for his companion in a Raid environment wasn't.

 

I had to define what "selfish" was to him since he apparently had no clue.

[Revenaught]

[/color]

Say you ninja's played WoW, did you guys NEED on things for your OFFSPEC?

 

This isn't WoW! It's loot ettiquete does not fit this game.

[Shortwave]

But this thread is all about doing the right thing to help everyone else gear up. So that negative is the positive that all these folks who are mangling the phrase"ninja looter" are really here to convince you all to do.

 

This thread is essentially transplanting the phrase "hunter loot" to "agent loot" if you read the OP.

 

Nice straw man.

[SnoggyMack]

Nice straw man.

 

Define ninja looter.

 

Here's a hint ... rolls can't be involved in the action.

[Akeche]

Anyone who needs on an item for their companion, without first making sure that no one who is a REAL PLAYER in the group can use it is nothing but a scumbag who deserves the shunning they'll eventually receive for such behavior.

 

I don't give a damn if you Need on something when it otherwise would get greeded on and vendored. But when it comes to your companions they are secondary to another member of your party.

[VeganHipster]

If they wanted companion-only equipment they would have included it.

 

Uhh, there are companion specific gear that are most of the time better than normal gear for your current level as it raises the stats your companions need or his main stats.

[Shortwave]

Define ninja looter.

 

Here's a hint ... rolls can't be involved in the action.

 

An unethical looter who cares nothing of gaming etiquette. Stealing a chest you were clearly fighting for could, by some definitions, be considered a ninja move. You spring in do your shady business and head off. But I am speaking of buttons on the box that pops up. You have two choices: the prospect of the item binding or not. Clicking x says no, clicking anything else says yes.

[Shortwave]

The not being tradeable thing infuriated me.

 

Fix that bioware, it can't be said again.

 

You want these legs? 50,000 credits please. We could use that, and I'd like the feature, but it has its downside.

[Acererak]

I hate to use this term but I think it applies. The appropriate phrase is; Don't hate the player, hate the game.

 

You need to broaden your vision. When a cruel master throws a single bone into at pit of staving dogs, the dogs will tear each other apart over it, seeing each other as enemies. If the dogs were smarter they would look up and realize that the fat SOB that is forcing them to fight for scraps is the real enemy.

 

When taking down something as big as a world boss, everyone who participated should get a full roll on the loot table to determine their own personal loot.

[JediMasterHope]

I have two questions. The first question is for those who believe rolling for your companions is wrong. The second question is for those who believe its ok.

 

If companions can be used in operations, would it be ok to roll need for your companions?

 

Should rolling need for your companion take priority over a real life player who needs the armor as well?

 

It basically boils down to this...

 

A discussion should always take place before an operation if you're pugging.

[SnoggyMack]

An unethical looter who cares nothing of gaming etiquette.

 

That's not a ninja looter. A ninja looter is someone who steals an item before it can be looted by someone else.

 

The classic example is someone ninja looting dragon loot in Everquest.

 

The thing is in this thread, the term is being expanded beyond the actual definition.

 

There's a roll involved. For everyone who rolls. Nothing was ninja looted. Because each person who rolled had a random chance at the item.

 

It's just sour grapes. But it's not ninja looting.

[Eldren]

Edited to correct mistakes in grammar and spelling

 

You want to play this game, LogicalPremise? Fine. I can play, and I can win, for one simple reason: I'm smarter, better-educated and more skilled in debate than you are. You're making it easy.

 

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.

Ad populum arguments don't hold water in and of themselves: they're a tool to shore up an existing point, presumably an objective one, which you don't have here. It's a non-issue whether companions objectively need blue or purple or even orange gear. The issue is much simpler, and easier to defend: a companion needs exactly what their player says they need. It goes no further. Your argument would indicate that your perspective on a companion's priority should outweigh mine solely because you believe a player character holds greater worth than a companion. If all you do is run Flashpoints and Operations, this might be a more defensible position. If you run any solo content at all, however, your position becomes significantly less tenable. At that point, the priority you personally ascribe to companions has nothing to do with the priority anyone else ascribes to companions. Loot is morality-neutral, by its nature it's amoral. Its distribution, likewise, remains amoral. If a group sets a unanimous (minus me, of course) determination at the beginning of the run that no Need rolls are allowed for companions, I have two options: either agree, or leave to find or form another group. I could be a dick and say one thing then do another, but that isn't my style.

 

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.

It's my contention that the very existence of companions in this game functionally renders Need Before Greed useless. Companions are another set of equipment slots requiring regular upgrading. It doesn't matter if you personally feel they only "require" a certain quality of gear to remain viable. The instant another player disagrees with you concerning their own companions, their perspective carries a weight equal to yours, because you don't have the ability or right to determine how they choose to equip all available slots, both theirs and their companions'. The trend I'm already seeing in your post here is an attempt to set up an objective case where you've nothing but a subjective foundation on which to build. That isn't promising for the integrity of your overall argument.

 

 

 

 

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.

If a piece of gear drops that says "Requires Trooper", then yes, it's intended for a Trooper, and it would be pointless for anyone to attempt a Need roll for the purposes of equipping a companion. If, however, it simply has stats with no class requirement, it's "intended" for whomever can use those stats, including companions.

 

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.

You're overcomplicating the concept of "equal chance", which is probably why your argument is so easily picked apart. "Equal chance" regarding loot is simply this: if four people (or 8, or 16, however you want to call it, though normal versions of Operations don't allow player input for loot distribution) down a boss, the loot that boss drops can conceivably go to all four people if they all choose the same loot option. If a couple people pass, it goes to the higher roll of the remaining two (we'll use Flashpoints as our foundation argument here, since loot in normal Operations is auto-distributed, and Hard and Nightmare Modes are a different level of game play altogether) if they both choose equally-weighted options in the current system. Obviously in that scenario if one chooses "Need" and the other "Greed", it's going to the higher-weighted option. But for our argument here, since people are complaining about folks rolling "Need" for their companions' benefit, we'll assume that both of the remaining people have chosen "Need" for their own purposes, whether to upgrade themselves, a companion, or even to vendor or put up on the GTN. At that point, the roll is determined in the most impartial, fair manner possible: RNG from an algorithm unaffectable by player involvement after loot priority is chosen. The instant players attempt to enforce a particular social contract on someone who doesn't agree, they're automatically attempting to sway things in favor of their personal perspective, in which case I'd recommend they hand-pick their groups and assemble them from like-minded people. When you're PUGing, no one gets to take a position of ascendancy over someone else. I know you'd like it to work that way, but it just doesn't.

 

 

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.

The right to roll "Need" if you can use something is the entire basis of Need Before Greed. The people choosing Need are ostensibly stating "I can use this, and it's an upgrade." It's no business of other players if their use includes their companions or not, and it's again irrelevant as a perspective to point out that companions don't "need" the quality of gear that drops in Flashpoints. If the player whose character has those companions associated with it decides the companions need Flashpoint-quality gear, the decision has been made, and is 100% valid. It isn't like having two votes, which is a faulty perspective to begin with. It's having one vote for a larger number of upgrade slots, since my perspective states my companions' upgrade needs are equal to my own. I don't typically use the companion who has the same stat weights as my own character, so there's no internal conflict on my end. If you don't consider your companions to be equally-needy upgrade options, I can understand why you hold your perspective, but that doesn't obligate me to hold the same perspective, or even to hold it for the same reasons. It's one reason, I suspect, that you and I won't convince each other of the validity of our individual positions: we aren't operating from the same foundational concepts.

 

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.

You're going to have to show me the objective data that supports your position here. Oh wait, you can't. Why, you may ask? Because that data doesn't exist. You think it will devolve the arrangement into a situation where no one wants to PUG (and most people who have come in from other MMOs largely don't to begin with, which is why they're so quick to either form or join a guild of like-minded people). If a guild wants to operate a master looter system on their runs, that's entirely their prerogative. No one forces someone to join a guild, and I question the wisdom of someone who joins a guild without determining guild policy on such important (in MMOs, anyway) things as loot distribution systems/rules.

 

If you believe that consideration of others is of paramount importance (and bravo to you if you're that noble), then the next time someone in a group rolls Need on an item that you were intending to roll Need on, you should graciously pass on the item to let them get it. If you roll Need against them, using your logic, you're placing your own wants above theirs, which is the textbook definition of "selfish". In fact, let's even go as far as reaching into Merriam-Webster for the dictionary definition of the word:

 

Definition of SELFISH

 

1

: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others

 

In short, the moment you put your own wants/needs above someone else's, you're being selfish. Using your logic, then, every player is being selfish when they choose Need knowing someone else has done the same, since they're placing their needs above others, without regard to those others.

 

If everyone is doing this, wouldn't that constitute a social contract to the contrary of your presumption of altruism? I don't think it does, but it's the logical conclusion of your perspective. In short, your attempt to ascribe a negative connotation to rolling Need against others falls apart. Again, your position is sourced in the consideration of companions as a secondary element subordinate to players' characters. I consider them an equal element complimentary to characters. Unless we can agree on foundational concepts like this, neither of us, as I noted above, will convince the other.

 

 

 

*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.

If 3 people in a group disagree with a looting metric, they're determining how the fourth upgrades their character. Either this is okay for everyone to do, or it's not okay for anyone to do. I vote the second. No one has the right to determine how someone else upgrades their character, which is why they suborn themselves to an impartial looting system when they group up. If they want a colluded arrangement before things start that's up to them. But the system is in place, flawed though it is with the introduction of companions to a character's overall development, to avoid attempts to keep someone else from getting loot by collusion against that person. It's there to represent an impartial, objective third-party method of loot distribution that can't be tied to one character. I don't know about you, but if I join a group that isn't from my guild and I see it on Master Looter, I leave that group. I don't let someone I don't know intentionally affect my chances of getting loot. In a PUG, if it isn't on NBG, I don't stay in the PUG. No one else has the right to determine whether I can get loot. If I helped down the boss, I have as much right as anyone else in the group to stake a claim to it, and my motivations are neither compelled to be revealed nor necessary to be known. If you roll "Need", you need it. That's all other players need to know.

 

 

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.

Show me where this has been both conclusively and objectively disproven. The only way to have something like this disproved is to have a statement from BioWare you can show me that supports this statement of yours, a statement I guarantee you won't find because it hasn't been made. All you can point to is other players' perspectives, and for every argument you can show me for why companions don't "need" Flashpoint-quality gear, I can show you an argument that says they do. My position is simpler: if I believe my companions require Flashpoint-quality upgrades, then they do. You can't appeal to an objective absolute that doesn't exist.

 

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.

At least we both agree I have a good command of argument and English. But you're sounding kind of frustrated here, and you're attempting to draw an objective fact out of a subjective point. You have no way of knowing that someone else has been "conned" into believing an NPC is on the same need scale as a player. All you can really see is that you're grouped with someone who doesn't ascribe the same priority to companions as you do. It's fine if you consider companions a secondary upgrade priority; that doesn't obligate me or anyone else to do the same.

 

 

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.

Ahhh, here we go. You're already setting up strawman arguments by attempting to deflect the issue to my personal playstyle, and attempting to cast subtle aspersions on the validity of my spec setup, input method, and gear. This sort of removes the ability for your position to be taken seriously at all, because you're no longer attacking the position you oppose. This said, yes, I'm geared properly, my talent allocation is just fine, and my input method, whether from using the mouse or using keybinds, is irrelevant, because no one has shown objective data to empirically support one input method over another. I can't discount your statement of being able to solo a gold without a companion out, because I have no way of seeing you play. As such, it's a non-issue that has no bearing on your argument. It's another piece of your attempted point that was painfully easy to pick apart, with a minimum of concerted effort.

 

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.

Another strawman. Your points had the illusion of logic at the start, but they're quickly falling apart now under the weight of their obvious inability to support themselves. How unfortunate for you. I again point out one simple reality: if I believe my companions require Flashpoint-quality upgrades, and you don't, my position holds primacy for my companions, and any interactions with loot distribution I undertake as a result. You don't get to determine the loot priorities of another player. I know from your "arguments" that you'd really like to be able to, but unfortunately, it just isn't within your ability. I'd encourage you to take your own advice from above: group up only with people who share your loot perspective. If you group up with others from a differing perspective, you've no one but yourself to blame for not ascertaining their loot priorities before you start. The only way you can control how others loot is if you put the group together and put it on Master Looter. More power to you if that's how you roll. Don't expect me to join your groups (which seems unlikely given the statistical likelihood of our playing not only on the same faction, but in the same level bracket and on the same server).

 

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.

Nor is your case absolute. Entirely subjective, as is mine. Which means we're both throwing ***** against the wall and seeing what sticks.

 

 

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.

You really shouldn't have brought actual psychology into this, as you just happened to enter into my area of not only undergraduate, but also graduate and doctoral study and expertise.

 

The current APA (that's American Psychiatric Association)'s term for sociopathy is actually Antisocial Personality Disorder, or ASPD. Per the Diagnostic & Statistical Manual, it's primarily characterized by "a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others", with subsequent diagnostic criteria for further clarification. In case you can't get your hands on a copy of D&SM, you can just look up ASPD on Wikipedia, as that particular site's description of the condition, while of course only scratching the surface of a very complex disorder, is reasonably accurate for the layman.

 

You can't point to the belief that a companion's upgrade needs are secondary as either long-standing or widely accepted. The near 50/50 split on the variety of threads on this forum alone would indicate that at least among forum-goers, the issue hasn't been conclusively decided yet, even if some proponents of both sides aren't too skilled at putting forth a convincing, logical argument to support or defend their perspective. Since no previous MMO has given us companions on the level that The Old Republic has, we can't even point to precedent from previous MMOs in an attempt to establish a long-held perspective. In short, as far as MMOs go, we're dealing with brand new territory here. Should all, or even most, subsequent MMOs feature companions in a vein similar to this game's, then perhaps in time we'll have a reliable set of data from which to draw a generalized conclusion on "acceptable" behavior. As it stands, we have a generally even split on the forums, and that's with the knowledge that regular forum-goers represent a statistical minority of the overall subscriber base, as evidenced by both BioWare claims and claims from other MMO design studios (which only have at best a broadly general bearing on arguments specifically relating to this game). In short, you don't even have a reliable set of data on which you could hope to ascribe a diagnosis of APD to someone else here, even if we completely ignored your apparent inability to fully understand the disorder (which, for the record, I'm not).

 

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.

Once again with the strawman... The farmers of the world must love you for all the hay you're buying from them for these constructs. If you want to kill my mobs to rack up your quest objectives, if you want to loot chests while I'm taking down the enemies guarding them, by all means, do so. You aren't breaking any rules. You're certainly being petty, as you've evidenced your motivation being solely because you disagree with something I've said, but if you're fine with that, I'm not going to stand in your way.

 

This isn't about how inward-looking our society has become. It isn't about the opposite, either. Many people are very different in an anonymous environment than they are in an accountable, identifiable environment. Arguments on whether this points to people acting according to their "true nature" in anonymous environments, or just acting antithetical to their true nature to "walk on the wild side" or simply blow off steam without meaningful consequence are ongoing. It's hard to know the true nature of man without pulling in unscientific factors such as spirituality, which at that point, lacking objective scientific criteria, by their nature become subjective. In short, your argument has once again fallen apart.

 

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.

By all means, please do so.

 

 

 

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.

It's no different than someone causing you to lose out because their roll was higher than yours. That's the paradigm we agree to with loot distribution not set on Master Looter. If we go into a NBG group, we're implicitly agreeing that if someone else beats us on a loot roll, it's fair. Some people attempt to stack the deck in their favor by simply rolling Need on everything. Others will only roll Need if it's for their PC. Still others will roll Need for their PC and any companions they use frequently enough to require upgrades. Any way you slice it, the system only holds up with universal acceptance that if someone rolls "Need" on an item, they, from their perspective, need it. Their motivations for that need aren't open to discussion, since there's no objective method of enforcing any dissenting votes short of removing the offender from a group. It won't stop their behavior, however.

 

Any time you roll on the same priority level as someone else, you're placing your wants above theirs. So you're either being hypocritical in decrying that behavior from others, or you really don't understand the argument to begin with.

 

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.

Really? Are you qualified, or even more generously, even remotely educated in a specific diagnostic discipline, to make such a statement and have it be objective? If you are, by all means, please let me know your credentials. If not, what you have here is an opinion. It is, however, one I can tell you is inaccurate, and I am qualified to make that diagnostic decision.

 

 

 

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.

 

My argument comes down to this: what drops from a boss 4 people helped defeat is up for equal claim from all 4 people. Motivations for staking that claim aren't up for discussion. If you roll "need", the others in your party are forced to accept that, as far as you're personally concerned, you need it.

 

Statistically speaking, most children aren't remotely pedantic, as they're often imaginative to a nearly exponentially larger degree than adults who haven't cultivated creativity as a primary pursuit. If you're going to attempt to use terminology, at least be accurate in its use.

Edited January 14, 2012 by Eldren

[JediMasterShake]

@eldren

 

lol. Seriously, lol. That is the longest, least productive post I have seen in my life, on any forum. Ever.

 

The bottom line is: people who roll need for companions are at least one of the following:

 

- new to MMOs

- extremely selfish

- the type of person that doesn't vote for an MVP in WZ: why do something nice for someone when there's nothing in it for me. Despicable.

 

If everyone rolled need on gear for their companion, everyone would have crappy gear...since 90% of it would be unused, sitting on paper dolls, running crew skill missions.

 

It reminds me of the story of people sitting around a pot of stew with 10 foot long spoons. They all died because no one could feed themselves since their spoons were too long. Then the next group of people happened upon it, and instead of trying to feed themselves,they fed each other. Pardon the truncated version of the story, typing on an iPad and I don't recall the exact telling. Not a religious person, but one who believes in kindness.

[Trishlicious]

New game, roll the way you want for items you want. Not eveyone might not understand each aspect to everything in the game just yet so lay off. Almost every post in these forums are complaints and its tiring to skim through the forms on my tablet at night, hardly any point trying to find helpful posts on the forums; its starting to spuust sound like a big spew of trash. Enough already.

 

 

Edit is impossible on this tablet.:-P

[JediMasterShake]

New game, roll the way you want for items you want. Not eveyone might not understand each aspect to everything in the game just yet so lay off. Almost every post in these forums are complaints and its tiring to skim through the forms on my tablet at night, hardly any point trying to find helpful posts on the forums; its starting to spuust sound like a big spew of trash. Enough already.

 

 

Edit is impossible on this tablet.:-P

 

It's about common decency, greed and selfishness. Not it being a new MMO.

[CrondorStone]

@eldren

 

lol. Seriously, lol. That is the longest, least productive post I have seen in my life, on any forum. Ever.

 

The bottom line is: people who roll need for companions are at least one of the following:

 

- new to MMOs

- extremely selfish

- the type of person that doesn't vote for an MVP in WZ: why do something nice for someone when there's nothing in it for me. Despicable.

 

If everyone rolled need on gear for their companion, everyone would have crappy gear...since 90% of it would be unused, sitting on paper dolls, running crew skill missions.

 

It reminds me of the story of people sitting around a pot of stew with 10 foot long spoons. They all died because no one could feed themselves since their spoons were too long. Then the next group of people happened upon it, and instead of trying to feed themselves,they fed each other. Pardon the truncated version of the story, typing on an iPad and I don't recall the exact telling. Not a religious person, but one who believes in kindness.

 

Eldren clearly felt threatened, but the post was excellent.