People who ninja for their companions

[SnoggyMack]

It's about common decency

 

How so?

[JediMasterShake]

Eldren clearly felt threatened, but the post was excellent.

 

Uhhh excellent for an English class, sure. But the content was deplorable.

 

The argument is: pixels in a game make people happy. Sme people want all of these for themselves. Some want only the pixels they need the most. This is the debate.

 

There is a selfish side, and a giving and fair side.

 

Which are you on?

[Haristo]

I always ticket the ***** out of these peoples. this is unacceptable.

[JediMasterShake]

How so?

 

Google "Pareto efficient"

 

Rolling need for companions is not Pareto efficient.

[SnoggyMack]

But those pixels have nothing to do with common decency. They never did.

[Eldren]

@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.

You're going to have to show me what objective criteria you're using to set up your diagnostic conclusions above. Without that criteria, what you have is opinion. It remains valid as an opinion, but don't expect others to ascribe to it the same weight as actual fact.

 

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.

You like making absolute statements that can't conceivably be backed up, don't you? I'm willing to concede that many players don't use every one of their companions. I, in fact only regularly use two of mine, and will only roll on upgrades for those two. But it's always amusing to watch someone attempt to pull out statistics as though they had access to data that we all know they actually don't.

 

Unless you're secretly someone from BioWare posting on a player account instead of their actual BioWare account? Always a possibility, but I'd venture a fairly safe guess that it isn't much of a probability.

 

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.

I not only believe in kindness, it's a core tenet of my personal spirituality. This said, far too many people attempt to use "kindness" as a bludgeon to convince others not to do something those others have concluded is in their best interest. You're, in effect, attempting to use others' morals against them as a weapon. If you'd like to read more about the logical (and easy to use) counters to such behavior, I'd happily point you to Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged". Long (1100 pages) book, and I don't agree with all the perspectives espoused within, but I'd say a solid 95% of it is spot-on from my perspective.

 

Eldren clearly felt threatened, but the post was excellent.

Nope, I didn't feel threatened in the least. I sometimes go into a bit of overdrive in making my point, and I'll be the first to say brevity's never been my strong suit. Trust me, my students tell it to me all the time in lectures. I'll see them getting glazed as I enter into hour two of the latest diagnostic findings, and then I'll say something horrendously inappropriate just to see who was paying attention.

 

Uhhh excellent for an English class, sure. But the content was deplorable.

 

The argument is: pixels in a game make people happy. Sme people want all of these for themselves. Some want only the pixels they need the most. This is the debate.

 

There is a selfish side, and a giving and fair side.

 

Which are you on?

Nice way to set up a false dichotomy there, bro. It's bad debate form, however. You can't, in an argument whose ultimate conclusions aren't yet objectively defined and agreed upon, set up one position as inherently good and the other as inherently bad. The whole purpose of the argument is to reach such conclusions.

 

Some people only want the pixels they need most? How does one player's "need most" become your "want all of these for themselves"? If that other player decides they need it, they roll need for it. You don't get to sit there as though you were an authority figure in the game and decide what is and isn't appropriate for them to roll on, much as it seems you'd like to.

[JediMasterShake]

But those pixels have nothing to do with common decency. They never did.

 

You missed the rest of what I said. Pixels=happiness.

 

You are taking happiness from someone, for your companion.

 

Seriously, google Pareto efficient. I dare you to read 30 sec of Wikipedia.

[MetroPolice]

Pah. My companion is rigged as it is. I won't give that pest anything. Their abilities are almost as good as mine and they do as much damage as i do with their out-dated items. Give them more power then that and soon they will be rolling need for themselves, by themselves. They will strip you and auction your items for other companions. Then they will start stealing cash from your credit card to buy spice for themselves an- okay. Nvm.

[Eldren]

You missed the rest of what I said. Pixels=happiness.

 

You are taking happiness from someone, for your companion.

 

Seriously, google Pareto efficient. I dare you to read 30 sec of Wikipedia.

 

Oh, I read all about it using your preferred source. I have to wonder if you read about it from actual economics texts, and not just Wikipedia?

 

The very nature of this game defies Pareto efficiency, because the instant someone gets a piece of gear that someone else wanted, that person who didn't receive the item is worse off, not having received the upgrade they could have potentially received, than if they'd received it. As a result, Pareto efficiency isn't achieved. In short, the NBG system isn't Pareto optimal to begin with.

 

Care to try again?

[JediMasterShake]

Eldren, it's clear you want to deal in facts and absolutes. Fair enough.

 

The most efficient distribution of gear in TOR would occur from people rolling on gear only for their personal character's use.

 

At the very, very, very least, you companion needers are making everyone, on the whole, less efficient in terms of effectiveness - healing, dps.

 

Google Pareto efficient. It's wha you're not.

 

(players gain more benefit from gear in terms of output than companions do, this is a fact)

[JediMasterShake]

It's an allocation of resources that best serves the group. Yes, the true pareto situation would be to give the gear to the person who would gain the most from it.... And in let's just say that's almost never your companion.

 

Think harder about the efficiency thing... Itll make sense.

[CygnusMX]

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.

 

 

***

 

Must've needed it for his companion.

[MetroPolice]

i don't know where you guys are but most people on my server are pretty fair. I only seen two people so far who needed for their companions from the hundreds.

[JediMasterShake]

Honestly, wasn't an Econ major - Pareto may not apply since resources cant be traded.

 

It's still a matter of efficiency.

 

If you counted up every single player's dps and healing under a need for companion system, and then the same for a need for only you system, the second would win every single time.

 

That's the efficiency point.

[Eldren]

Eldren, it's clear you want to deal in facts and absolutes. Fair enough.

 

The most efficient distribution of gear in TOR would occur from people rolling on gear only for their personal character's use.

 

At the very, very, very least, you companion needers are making everyone, on the whole, less efficient in terms of effectiveness - healing, dps.

 

Google Pareto efficient. It's wha you're not.

 

(players gain more benefit from gear in terms of output than companions do, this is a fact)

 

Let's deal with those facts and absolutes, since they're the only worthwhile things in an attempt to reach a consensus.

 

You state that the most efficient distribution of gear in TOR occurs from folks only rolling Need for only their personal character's use? What objective data are you referencing to offer this perspective as an objective fact and absolute? I can see an appeal to an opinion held by a certain amount of the populace (whose actual hard percentage likely isn't even known by BioWare, as I doubt it's information they're tracking), but I see no fact or absolute. You say it's one way, I say it's the other. But I can at least state that my position isn't absolute, but merely subjective.

 

An absolute on gear distribution could easily be obtained in this game by moving to a Roll/Pass system. This removes one source of this issue, which is the attempted parity of a loot system which is inherently tiered, and reduces us to actual parity: if you roll on it, you want it. If you don't roll on it, you don't want it.

 

Because we have a system that says "Roll Need if you really want it, roll Greed if you kinda want it or plan to sell it, Pass if you don't want it", we have an argument on our hands, because not everyone subscribes to the same definition of "Need" in this context. With no consensus on the foundational concept (a unified definition of "Need"), we have to flounder about and attempt to reach conclusions based on entirely subjective data, dealing with the frustration of many who want an objective conclusion, but a) have no ability to reach one and b) have no ability to enforce their own conclusion on those who disagree with them.

 

You're right, this system isn't Pareto efficient. It never will be. If you're looking at economics, we're already dealing with a situation that doesn't occur in the real world: infinite resources. Any given piece will with 100% probability drop again at some point, and as long as you keep going in a given piece of content until you acquire a desired piece, you have a 100% chance of eventually getting it.

 

You're already attempting to appeal to a loose economic concept that doesn't have a bearing here to begin with.

[SolGravion]

People like to argue this topic but at the end of the day if the companion did not clear the instance then they should not be eligible for loot.

[JediMasterShake]

Players do X dps/healing, while companions do Y dps/healing.

 

X > Y

 

(this is for 99.9% of players who are honestly playing the game, pressing buttons

, etc. Do you agree?)

 

Therefore, upgrading players first better serves the community. The community ity as a whole does more dps/healing.

 

This is the most basic way I can express it.

[Eldren]

Players do X dps/healing, while companions do Y dps/healing.

 

X > Y

 

(this is for 99.9% of players who are honestly playing the game, pressing buttons

, etc. Do you agree?)

 

Therefore, upgrading players first better serves the community. The community ity as a whole does more dps/healing.

 

This is the most basic way I can express it.

 

Without taking into account variables for individual player capability (some players are legitimately not very good at optimal use of their class' abilities), your argument potentially falls apart, as there may be instances in some cases where a companion's output exceeds a player's. I've frequently found this with starting characters, where someone would be busy on one mob while their companion takes out a couple of others, then come and helps out the player. It's what they're programmed by BioWare to do, but it points out a simple inefficiency: with variable output from the different classes and variable capability from different players, it's hard to set up a simple algebraic equation to shore up your point.

 

You can't appeal to a service to the community at large since most players aren't taking part in the full macrocosm of community on their server, much less the game as a whole. They're taking part in microcosms of it that are often quite split apart from one another. One night they'll run some Flashpoints with PUGs, the next night they'll do a guild run, the following night they're off doing solo questing, and might possibly group with up to 3 other players for a non-instanced Heroic zone. The only recurring group in this is their guild, where disagreements on loot distribution are much less likely to begin with, as they're unlikely to be part of a guild whose loot distribution method they personally disagree with.

 

We go into group content to assist each other in downing bosses, but we then roll on gear for ourselves. For some players that includes companions, for some it doesn't, but the very existence of an impartial loot system shores up the point I just made: we're each rolling to improve our own gear. We won't roll on something that doesn't provide some manner of appreciable improvement to our play experience, whether that's because our class can't use the item, it won't get us enough from a vendor or on the GTN, or just because we want to let someone else have it.

 

Cooperation for downing bosses.

Individual claims for gear from those bosses.

 

That's how it is.

[Kirjava]

Pretty amazed with the people who actually think it's ok to need on gear for your companion. Good job I'm in a guild, so don't have to pug.

[Zorvan]

I always ticket the ***** out of these peoples. this is unacceptable.

 

So you're the one clogging the ticket system with useless complaints.

[JediMasterShake]

Eldren, there is one single way I will concede that your point of view is not selfish and inefficient: if you say you can't personally out perform your companion.

 

Honestly, everyone can. Easily. Very easily. And if you can outperform your companion, by simple logical implication, you,as contributing to the community, are being inefficient.

 

So either you're bad or selfish and inefficient.

 

There is no third option.

[JediMasterShake]

But seriously, it's selfish. Think on it long and hard. Ayn rand would agree. Im done.

[Corh]

If your companion wasn't part of the group when the mob died, then that person is a ninja. Nice and simple. Otherwise everyone might as well roll need on everything.

 

I currently have 6 companions, most of which wear a different gear set. If I include companions in my need determination, I could roll need on everything that drops.

[Eldren]

Eldren, there is one single way I will concede that your point of view is not selfish and inefficient: if you say you can't personally out perform your companion.

 

Honestly, everyone can. Easily. Very easily. And if you can outperform your companion, by simple logical implication, you,as contributing to the community, are being inefficient.

 

So either you're bad or selfish and inefficient.

 

There is no third option.

 

Ahhh, and here we go with the false dichotomies again. I recommend, if you're still in some manner of ongoing education, not ever entering debate as a pursuit. I have a feeling you'd be torn apart and demoralized rather quickly.

 

You can't objectively point out my position as being either "selfish" or "inefficient". You can't appeal to the morality side of it ("selfish") because morality remains subjective, and also, on a more objective level, because the instant anyone rolls against another player on a piece of gear, they're placing their own needs above that player's, and are thus being, in a textbook literal definition, "selfish". If you've never done this, you can claim altruism and selflessness. But I have a feeling you have rolled against other players for gear, in which case you have then been selfish. It removes any ability you might have had to lambaste someone else for the same behavior. "Don't point out the speck in your neighbor's eye before you remove the plank from yours."

 

You also can't appeal to the objective notion of efficiency, because a) resources are infinite (removing any application of efficiency principles) and b) you have no objective data with which to back up a claim like that.

 

Second strike. Care to try for a third?

[Eldren]

But seriously, it's selfish. Think on it long and hard. Ayn rand would agree. Im done.

 

You think Ayn Rand would disagree with someone staking a legitimate claim to a resource at the expense of others getting that same resource? Such behavior was the very central foundation of her heroes in "Atlas Shrugged". Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggart fought like wildcats to retain their ability to seize resources and use them to better their own lives. They never acknowledged someone's "need" as a legitimate claim on the work of their own hands and minds. They never placed the group's needs ("society") above the individual's needs. They believed the worst evil that one could commit was to subscribe to the Socialist concept of "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."

 

Happy to debate literature with you, JMS, but make sure you're aware of the actual contents of a piece before you quote it.