People who ninja for their companions

[Kirjava]

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?

 

Here's a suggestion. If you need on gear that your avatar doesn't need, but is useful to your companion, there will be several repercussions.

 

1). You'll irritate your group

2). If you do it consistently in groups, you will become black listed on the server as a ninja looter by the server community (whether or not you agree with that definition).

 

The choice is yours, and you can be as bullheaded as you like about it, but you definitely won't make any friends, and will likely sacrifice your chances of playing the multi-player side of this MMO. Due the focus on server specific group play.

Edited January 14, 2012 by Kirjava

[JediMasterShake]

Honestly, I'd like to point out that you've approached this from your debate perspective, which is fine, you're obviously a....naturally verbose and argumentative person. But I've been trying to actually communicate to you the motive and reason why people feel this way, and why it truly serves the community better. Yes, it's a matter of opinion. You win. Icant objectively prove it. End of debate.

 

Now, think about it. The actual human element. The issue. Do you really not think it's greedy? Selfish? Self serving?

 

You are taking a small gain when someone else could have a large gain.

 

That is the point.

[Eldren]

Here's a suggestion. If you need on gear that your avatar doesn't need, but is useful to your companion, there will be several repercussions.

 

1). You'll irritate your group

2). If you do it consistently in groups, you will become black listed on the server as a ninja looter by the server community (whether or not you agree with that definition).

 

The choice is yours, and you can be as bullheaded as you like about it, but you definitely won't make any friends, and will likely sacrifice your chances of playing the multi-player side of this MMO. Due the focus on server specific group play.

You're going to have to show me how either are going to happen consistently enough to produce results meaningful and impactful enough to deter a given set of behavior. I mean, earlier in this thread we had someone noting they've been doing an experiment on their healer and rolling Need on everything in group content. They've yet to hear a single complaint, or to experience any meaningful effects of a purported blacklisting.

 

I'm not saying this is how it ought to be done. I'm pointing it out as a possible and meaningful counterpoint to your argument, however. I can say this: so far in my group content experience, I have rolled Need on items for my companions. Immediate recollections in my admittedly research paper-addled mind point towards this being in an approximately 50/50 split with the number of times I've rolled Need on items for my companions and asked first. The actual hard numbers aren't available to me, as I haven't been keeping hard statistical data on every Flashpoint I've run or instance where, while grouped with someone else, I chose a loot option for a green, blue, purple or orange drop. I've yet to experience any complaints personally, and have on several occasions experienced praise for my performance. Draw from this what you may. Perhaps your experiences in the game have simply been radically different from mine.

 

 

Honestly, I'd like to point out that you've approached this from your debate perspective, which is fine, you're obviously a....naturally verbose and argumentative person. But I've been trying to actually communicate to you the motive and reason why people feel this way, and why it truly serves the community better. Yes, it's a matter of opinion. You win. Icant objectively prove it. End of debate.

 

Now, think about it. The actual human element. The issue. Do you really not think it's greedy? Selfish? Self serving?

 

You are taking a small gain when someone else could have a large gain.

 

That is the point.

The human element is an element I consider valid when properly informed by logic and hard facts. Emotion is not a valid foundation from which to make a decision. Emotion informed by logic is a valid tool, but still not a valid foundation in and of itself. Logic informed by emotion becomes squishy (pardon the vulgarity) and less-reliable.

The degree of gain is inconsequential. A one-point upgrade to a single stat with no upgrades or downgrades to other stats for a piece in the same slot is still an upgrade. On that basis alone, it's viable to roll Need.

 

I again point out what I've said before: we cooperate with each other in PUGs in order to down bosses. Once the bosses are downed, we stake a claim on the drops from that boss for ourselves. We don't bypass an upgrade for ourselves so someone else can upgrade. Whoever receives the upgrade will benefit the group (if it's for them and not a companion) only so long as the party is together. Once they break up, the only one receiving the benefit is the player who got the item.

 

It's very different in guilds, yes. It's why guilds aren't an issue for this discussion.

[Bhemont]

So I guess the general consensus is, ROLL NEED ON EVERY SINGLE ITEM.

 

I'm a lot more informed about the community now, I'm going to do just that. ROFL

[Kirjava]

Eldren, I suggest you just keep trying it out. I tend to put people like you on /ignore and then warn guildies to put you on their list, if you repeatedly need in a group for items you don't need.

 

Your assuming confrontation is necessary to black list. A lot of us don't bother with confrontation, we just hit the ignore button.

[Goretzu]

To ninja is to take an item that you cannot use, did not legitimately earn, or take without allowing other players the chance to win said item. Since companions are part of your overall character, the person who won played his part in the instance, and you had the opportunity to win the item via roll, your situation is not a ninja situation.

 

O.o

 

 

 

By those "rules" there is never a reason for anyone to roll "greed".

 

Given that 1 current or future companion will "need" everything. O.o

[Eldren]

Eldren, I suggest you just keep trying it out. I tend to put people like you on /ignore and then warn guildies to put you on their list, if you repeatedly need in a group for items you don't need.

 

Your assuming confrontation is necessary to black list. A lot of us don't bother with confrontation, we just hit the ignore button.

 

It is, of course, your right to put people on ignore who act in a way you don't agree with, just as it's your right to encourage those whose social circles you're a part of to do the same. I would never attempt to take that right from you.

 

Your "worst-case scenario", however, has yet to materialize, and there's enough anecdotal evidence from other posts on the variety of threads on this topic to make me think there's a decent chance (though of course I don't have hard numbers, so I'm going entirely on personal suppositions here) that it's unlikely to materialize, no matter how much you beat the drum in an attempt to force others to abide by your own rules.

 

I think that's what it's really about for folks like you: you want to control what others do in the game so it aligns with your own goals and/or moral code. It's natural human instinct to attempt this, and the primary reason why wars have been fought: two entities disagreed, gathered allies, and decided to attempt to force each other to see as they do.

 

So please, by all means, if you can find my character on my realm and somehow link it back to this forum account, place me on ignore. Place all the people in my guild on ignore. Encourage your guildmates to do the same. If that's what's necessary for you to be happy in the game, who am I to stand in your way?

[Cancrizans]

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?

 

Morality is only subjective to weak people who can't get it through their skulls that we live in a world of interdependence and taking more than your share or not caring at all for your fellow beings is destructive to life as a whole.

 

And no individual has the right to make a decision of that magnitude.

[Eldren]

Morality is only subjective to weak people who can't get it through their skulls that we live in a world of interdependence and taking more than your share or not caring at all for your fellow beings is destructive to life as a whole.

 

And no individual has the right to make a decision of that magnitude.

 

The problems with your attempted argument here are twofold:

 

1) You don't define what "more than your share" is, and

2) You assume a lack of care for your fellow humans as the foundation of pursuing your own improvement.

 

Your "share" lies solely in this: that when a boss you helped down drops a piece of loot, you can roll on it, and choose the priority of roll that best meets your goals for the item. You may not win the roll, but you have no cause for complaint, as you exercised your actual share: the right to stake a claim to it. You might win the roll, in which your staked claim is actualized. At that point, the item is yours, a reward you received for your assistance in downing that boss. What you do with your property is your business.

 

At no point is loot "group loot". The group cooperates to down a boss, then the individuals comprising that group roll for any loot they want, but they're rolling to get it for themselves, for whatever they intend to use it for. They aren't rolling to give it to someone else (though perhaps they might be, if they enter into a PUG with another guild member or friend, so they can help stack the deck to get their friend a desired piece; I find this behavior questionable at best, but I'm not so naive as to think it doesn't happen), they're claiming it for themselves. Once they receive it, it's theirs.

 

Do you understand the concept of private ownership, and all the rights it entails?

[Dozed_monkey]

You're going to have to show me how either are going to happen consistently enough to produce results meaningful and impactful enough to deter a given set of behavior. I mean, earlier in this thread we had someone noting they've been doing an experiment on their healer and rolling Need on everything in group content. They've yet to hear a single complaint, or to experience any meaningful effects of a purported blacklisting.

 

I'm not saying this is how it ought to be done. I'm pointing it out as a possible and meaningful counterpoint to your argument, however. I can say this: so far in my group content experience, I have rolled Need on items for my companions. Immediate recollections in my admittedly research paper-addled mind point towards this being in an approximately 50/50 split with the number of times I've rolled Need on items for my companions and asked first. The actual hard numbers aren't available to me, as I haven't been keeping hard statistical data on every Flashpoint I've run or instance where, while grouped with someone else, I chose a loot option for a green, blue, purple or orange drop. I've yet to experience any complaints personally, and have on several occasions experienced praise for my performance. Draw from this what you may. Perhaps your experiences in the game have simply been radically different from mine.

 

 

 

The human element is an element I consider valid when properly informed by logic and hard facts. Emotion is not a valid foundation from which to make a decision. Emotion informed by logic is a valid tool, but still not a valid foundation in and of itself. Logic informed by emotion becomes squishy (pardon the vulgarity) and less-reliable.

The degree of gain is inconsequential. A one-point upgrade to a single stat with no upgrades or downgrades to other stats for a piece in the same slot is still an upgrade. On that basis alone, it's viable to roll Need.

 

I again point out what I've said before: we cooperate with each other in PUGs in order to down bosses. Once the bosses are downed, we stake a claim on the drops from that boss for ourselves. We don't bypass an upgrade for ourselves so someone else can upgrade. Whoever receives the upgrade will benefit the group (if it's for them and not a companion) only so long as the party is together. Once they break up, the only one receiving the benefit is the player who got the item.

 

It's very different in guilds, yes. It's why guilds aren't an issue for this discussion.

 

So by this 'it's +1 stat for my companion VS +20 stat for other dudes main character in PUG, therefore I shall roll' attitude, what's to say I don't start rolling need on every item for the +1k credits I will get for each piece of loot that drops? Hell if we're taking the 'f*** you, Ive got mine' sociopathic approach to the game, then where do we draw the line? And why stop in guilds? Because they will catch you doing it? Because random people are all liable to being f****d over rather than people you 'know'? I consistently make allowances for others to roll on something if they need it more than I do, because I hope that being an empathetic member of an online community, might, in it's turn, contribute towards a better, functioning community. You seem to think that you are an island when you behave in a pug, either than or you don't give a **** about people because you can't see their face. Just because others do it doesn't make it alright, unless you really don't care about the future of this game in which case everyone should make a serious effort to blacklist you.

Edited January 14, 2012 by Dozed_monkey

[Kirjava]

It is, of course, your right to put people on ignore who act in a way you don't agree with, just as it's your right to encourage those whose social circles you're a part of to do the same. I would never attempt to take that right from you.

 

Your "worst-case scenario", however, has yet to materialize, and there's enough anecdotal evidence from other posts on the variety of threads on this topic to make me think there's a decent chance (though of course I don't have hard numbers, so I'm going entirely on personal suppositions here) that it's unlikely to materialize, no matter how much you beat the drum in an attempt to force others to abide by your own rules.

 

I think that's what it's really about for folks like you: you want to control what others do in the game so it aligns with your own goals and/or moral code. It's natural human instinct to attempt this, and the primary reason why wars have been fought: two entities disagreed, gathered allies, and decided to attempt to force each other to see as they do.

 

So please, by all means, if you can find my character on my realm and somehow link it back to this forum account, place me on ignore. Place all the people in my guild on ignore. Encourage your guildmates to do the same. If that's what's necessary for you to be happy in the game, who am I to stand in your way?

 

Loving your psychoanalysis skills there. Your veiled insults while well written have fairly little substance. All I am alluding to is that the majority of people have a differing opinion to you on this issue.

In no way was I attempting to 'force' my perspective on you. I was merely pointing out my own observations of both posts in this thread, and reactions people have had in-game to the way need is handled.

Nothing wrong with me providing you with what my in-game reaction would be.

You seem to be getting a little overcome with anxiety over someone having a differing opinion to your own, which becomes more evident when you start alluding to your background education in previous posts. i.e. head full of 'research papers'.

 

You also seem to assume I wish to search you out so that I can add you to what you seem to view as a trophy wall of /ignores which is rather an amusing concept. As much as were having a discussion on a forum, I don't think you've managed to make such an impact on me, that I'd want to search you out. Evidently you've either read a little too deeply into my previous post, or more likely, intentionally read too deeply in a poor attempt at insult.

Edited January 14, 2012 by Kirjava

[Eldren]

So by this 'it's +1 stat for my companion VS +20 stat for other dudes main character in PUG, therefore I shall roll' attitude, what's to say I don't start rolling need on every item for the +1k credits I will get for each piece of loot that drops? Hell if we're taking the 'f*** you, Ive got mine' sociopathic approach to the game, then where do we draw the line? And why stop in guilds? Because they will catch you doing it? Because random people are all liable to f****d over rather than people you 'know'? I consistently make allowances for others to roll on something if they need it more than I do, because I hope that being an empathetic member of an online community, might, in it's turn, contribute towards a better, functioning community. You seem to think that you are an island when you behave in a pug, either than or you don't give a **** about people because you can't see their face. Just because others do it doesn't make it alright, unless you really don't care about the future of this game in which everyone should make a serious effort to blacklist you.

 

You're sounding a little ticked off there, Dozed_monkey. I'd suggest you might want to rein in the emotion if you want to make a legitimately logical argument. So far, I'm seeing emotionalisms, and not a lot of actual hard fact, from your post.

 

If you choose to let someone else have an item because it's a more significant upgrade for them than it would be for you, there's 100% nothing wrong with that. Why do you assume it's behavior others will, or even should, emulate? What is it that says you're on a higher moral plateau than others who choose differently? Objective citations, please, or else your perspective gets chalked up to "opinion", which doesn't carry the same weight as fact.

 

What part of "cooperate to down the boss, roll for yourself" do you not understand? It's how looting in an MMO, particularly in a PUG, works. It has nothing to do with server community, functioning or not. If people don't roll on gear that's an upgrade for their personal goals, they don't get upgrades, and as the populace slowly moves beyond release content, they find they're a) undergeared to go into new content and b) unable to find people to run older content with in an attempt to catch up.

 

This may be mitigable if BioWare starts up a badge system similar to WoW's for speeding up slower-progressed players, but it likely also would mandate a LFG tool to put groups together more efficiently, and I think that has a negative effect on individual server community.

 

You don't roll for loot for someone else, you roll for it for yourself. You aren't bettering your server community by receiving an upgrade at someone else's expense, and unless your Need roll wasn't contested by another Need roll at the time, you received that upgrade at someone else's expense. You're the only one who benefits from the upgrade. The amount of upgrade it is doesn't matter, it was used to illustrate a point.

 

I do my best in group content because I want to see it, improve my group play, and get upgrades. I'm not there to get others upgrades as a primary goal, though I'm happy if someone gets an upgrade from a boss I helped them kill. My primary goal is to get upgrades for myself.

 

You're being naive if you think that not only isn't others' goal, but yours as well.

[Moricthian]

@ Eldren

While quoting Ann Rand might be cute, her philosophy of objectivism is sorely lacking especially when dealing with true social interaction. The reason why she mainly chooses to push her line of thinking through literature is because she can carefully control the social interactions that make her philosophy viable. While she did publish some essays on objectivism, her ideals are most powerfully and effectively conveyed through her books. This is because she can literally pigeon-hole characters into certain archetypes that make her hyper individualism seem more viable.

 

Let’s take the Fountainhead for example. Every character portrayed in this novel has a one dimensional personality work in tandem to portray Howard Roark as the ideal human being. He is an architect who defies his contemporaries at every turn in order to create something that is a testament to his own creative ingenuity rather than blindly add another empty building to the popular trend. His character is directly opposed to characters such as Peter Keating, Ellsworth Toohey, and Cathrine Halsy. These characters embody the ideals of giving into the pressures of society and promoting collectivist welfare over the needs and expressions of the individual. Keating sacrifices his artistic integrity in exchange for wealth and social prosperity, Toohey discourages the free search of individual excellence as it threatens those who are incapable of reaching it and Cathrine gives herself so completely do altruism she loses all of sense self-identity and worth.

 

Rand argues that the great value a man can hold is his personal sense of happiness and well-being. It logically follows, then, to sacrifice personal happiness and well-being for another's is to trade man’s higher value for a lesser one. This leads to the overall suppression of man’s progress as his personal potential is sacrificed to enable the rest to reach nothing more than mediocrity.

 

So what is the problem with this thinking and what does it have to do with needing for companions? Eldren you have been right to criticize people’s arguments in this board as they have been employing false dichotomies to make their points. I would argue that Rand’s philosophy of objectivism is, if taken to its core, a false dichotomy. She is pendulum swinging. This reaction is understandable as he was raised in soviet Russia, whose societal structure embraced collectivism whole-heartily, at the expense of the individual.

 

This is important because it explains why her characters (especially Keating and Cathrine) are so one-dimensional. Let’s take Cathrine as an example. While Toohey represents the ideas of altruism, Cathrine fulfills the purpose of putting altruism into practice. She sacrifices her own well-being for the cause of others and the detrimental effects are clearly noticeable. She becomes a shell of a human being with no real ambition or individual identity. Rand’s underlying assumption is that altruistic behavior will lead to the destruction of the individual.

 

This assumption fails to account for the nuance and beauty of human relationships. In order for human relationships to be successful, some self-sacrifice is required. This is why marriages require compromise (a small practice of altruism) and your parents teach you to share at an early age. It requires give and take. Human relationships are beautiful because, by someone sacrificing their own needs in order to promote the needs of another, another sacrifices their own needs for them. Altruism feeds itself back to the original individual as the receive personal fulfillment and sacrifices from others. Cathrine’s character is ultimately one dimensional because Rand unrealistic portrays the effects of altruism on an individual’s character.

 

In the end Rand’s system allows an effective social Darwinism in which those with the means to achieve power are not only morally free to take it, but morally required even at the expense of those who do not possess those resources. In other words, the strong get stronger and the weak get weaker. Altruism, in her few, simply forces the strong to sacrifice their own resources and ability to make the weak, not strong but mediocre, which is a drain on society. This anything goes mentality is of course preferable for those in positions of strength, but for those existing in the dregs of society, it is almost a death sentence.

 

When the weak continue to be ignored, society stagnates because the collective energy and effort stagnates. This remains the case in a SWTOR community because whether or not you roll need or greed effects the community as a whole. By needing on an important piece of gear, you are ultimately gimping future raids and flashpoint runs. The weak in our little gaming society can be classified as players who are new to the game and don’t know the classes, players who might be under geared, or players who lack the skill to play at the level required to clear content. By rolling need for companions, you continue to keep these weak players weak as gear would make them strong (or at least mediocre). By not clicking need on a piece of gear that your companion could use (an act of altruism) you are strengthen the overall community’s ability to play the game even if it is at your (the individual) expense.

 

This is why needing on loot because of companions is wrong. Wrong might not be the best word to use…let’s go with impractical. By weakening the overall player base, you ultimately weaken yourself. This something that Rand misses. You don’t have to choose between the individual and the collective. This is a false dichotomy. They are intrinsically linked in such a way that to emphasize one over the other, would ultimately weaken both.

 

 

TLDR: I know this was long but I figured Eldren might read it.

Edited January 14, 2012 by Moricthian

[Zorvan]

Morality is only subjective to weak people who can't get it through their skulls that we live in a world of interdependence and taking more than your share or not caring at all for your fellow beings is destructive to life as a whole.

 

And no individual has the right to make a decision of that magnitude.

 

Welcome to the wonderful world of capitalism, where've you been all these years? A commune?

 

The ingame economy is capitalist in nature. The ingame gearing system is capitalist in nature. i have no clue as to what you ere expecting, but Utopia ain't gonna be found in the game any more than it is outside of it.

 

And I hate to break it to you, but we ALL have the right to make a decision of that magnitude.

Edited January 14, 2012 by Zorvan

[Eldren]

Loving your psychoanalysis skills there. Your veiled insults while well written have fairly little substance. All I am alluding to is that the majority of people have a differing opinion to you on this issue.

In no way was I attempting to 'force' my perspective on you. I was merely pointing out my own observations of both posts in this thread, and reactions people have had in-game to the way need is handled.

Nothing wrong with me providing you with what my in-game reaction would be.

You seem to be getting a little overcome with anxiety over someone having a differing opinion to your own, which becomes more evident when you start alluding to your background education in previous posts. i.e. head full of 'research papers'.

 

You also seem to assume I wish to search you out so that I can add you to what you seem to view as a trophy wall of /ignores which is rather an amusing concept. As much as were having a discussion on a forum, I don't think you've managed to make such an impact on me, that I'd want to search you out. Evidently you've either read a little too deeply into my previous post, or more likely, intentionally read too deeply in a poor attempt at insult.

 

Looks like backpeddling to me, but that's fine. You're more an authority on what you meant than I could be, as is the case with any of us. We are all our own highest authority on our intentions.

 

References to my own educational background were germane to a specific post from earlier. They're also references to the reality of what's happening as I take a bit of a brain break from what I'm actually doing right now, which is research for a paper. They aren't meant to brag. Likewise, however, bragging isn't bad when it's rooted in truth. Self deprecation only serves to ameliorate the perceptions of others, and far too often is used to mask a truth one is uncomfortable with accepting. I'm not that type.

 

If you don't want to search me out, by all means don't. If you do, do. It doesn't affect me either way, nor does my perspective affect you unless the statistically unlikely scenario of our both being on the same server, same faction and same level bracket comes about. Always a possibility, but not something I consider a very high probability.

 

Though I find it amusing that you believe a "majority" of people hold a view different from mine. Wouldn't this indicate you've somehow interviewed a statistically-meaningful number of subscribers to this game (unlikely, even moreso when you consider the regular forum-goers already represent, by BioWare's statement, a statistical minority of the total subscriber base) in order to arrive at an actual majority?

 

I would think it more likely that while you say "majority", what you mean is "There are many." Granted. "Many", however, is a nebulous and statistically useless term. I can say there are "many" who agree with my position (and there are), but it doesn't hold much water in shoring up a perspective, which can only be shored up by actual facts.

[Qoaa]

always roll for my companions

 

the popup asks need or greed.. if I need it which is all encompassing then I click need. There is no EULA or TOS popup when the loot window opens, there is no contract it simply wants to know do I need it? or do I want greed?

 

I think to myself ooo that's higher stats than my companion's gun that will help ME. Therefore yes I need it

 

people want to dictate how others play a coop rpg?

 

sheesh

[Eldren]

@ Eldren

 

So what is the problem with this thinking and what does it have to do with needing for companions? Eldren you have been right to criticize people’s arguments in this board as they have been employing false dichotomies to make their points. I would argue that Rand’s philosophy of objectivism is, if taken to its core, a false dichotomy. She is pendulum swinging. This reaction is understandable as he was raised in soviet Russia, whose societal structure embraced collectivism whole-heartily, at the expense of the individual.

 

 

When the weak continue to be ignored, society stagnates because the collective energy and effort stagnates. This remains the case in a SWTOR community because whether or not you roll need or greed effects the community as a whole. By needing on an important piece of gear, you are ultimately gimping future raids and flashpoint runs. The weak in our little gaming society can be classified as players who are new to the game and don’t know the classes, players who might be under geared, or players who lack the skill to play at the level required to clear content. By rolling need for companions, you continue to keep these weak players weak as gear would make them strong (or at least mediocre). By not clicking need on a piece of gear that your companion could use (an act of altruism) you are strengthen the overall community’s ability to play the game even if it is at your (the individual) expense.

 

This is why needing on loot because of companions is wrong. Wrong might not be the best word to use…let’s go with impractical. By weakening the overall player base, you ultimately weaken yourself. This something that Rand misses. You don’t have to choose between the individual and the collective. This is a false dichotomy. They are intrinsically linked in such a way that to emphasize one over the other, would ultimately weaken both.

 

 

TLDR: I know this was long but I figured Eldren might read it.

 

I did read what you wrote, Moricthian. I did some truncating here in an attempt to keep it on this particular topic; Rand's literary works tend to be polarizing, and a discussion of them solely isn't appropriate in this particular venue. If you want to have literary discourse solely on Rand's works, I'd love to do it, and invite you to send me a PM here.

 

I attempted to quote the most relevant issues relating to the game here. My primary contention with your point is that the "weak" (defined by you as newer players, undergeared players or less-skilled players, and I can work with those definitions within the context of this specific argument between you and I; I don't know if it applies in the larger argument) will not be held down by someone choosing Need for a companion upgrade, because the piece will drop again. Everyone in an MMO (including both of us) has to learn that if you're attempting to get certain pieces of gear, or attempting an upwardly-mobile general upgrade path, you're going to run group content more than once. Loot tables are finite, but loot availability is infinite, being finite only within the occurrence of one particular instance. The "weak" by our in-this-instant definition have the ability to acquire that gear still by running the instance again. If they're diligent, the law of averages alone gives them a 100% probability of getting the gear over time.

 

The choice of the individual over the collective only becomes necessary when the collective attempts to subjugate the individual. An individual remains an individual regardless of a collective's existence, but a collective can only exist by the willing participation of individuals. In this case, we have a certain subset of players attempting to subjugate those who would pursue all available upgrade paths for their companions, attempting to place loot from group-content off limits, regardless of the player's participation in that content. The only real argument they ever offer is "You're hurting the community [the group] by doing that!" In short, they are saying "You should contribute, but we will determine how the products of your contribution are disbursed." Or, as someone rather famous put it, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." It's a philosophy I find untenable in real life, though I may one day be subjected to it. I also find it untenable in an MMO, where I have a lot more control over its ability to affect me. I choose to exercise that control at my discretion. The community owes me nothing I haven't earned, but I don't owe it to the community to pass up a claim on something I earned just because they don't want me to have it.

 

Always more to say, but it's time for me to go to bed. If I think about it, I'll happily pick this back up after a good night's sleep, RL obligations pending of course.

[Dozed_monkey]

You're sounding a little ticked off there, Dozed_monkey. I'd suggest you might want to rein in the emotion if you want to make a legitimately logical argument. So far, I'm seeing emotionalisms, and not a lot of actual hard fact, from your post.

 

If you choose to let someone else have an item because it's a more significant upgrade for them than it would be for you, there's 100% nothing wrong with that. Why do you assume it's behavior others will, or even should, emulate? What is it that says you're on a higher moral plateau than others who choose differently? Objective citations, please, or else your perspective gets chalked up to "opinion", which doesn't carry the same weight as fact.

 

What part of "cooperate to down the boss, roll for yourself" do you not understand? It's how looting in an MMO, particularly in a PUG, works. It has nothing to do with server community, functioning or not. If people don't roll on gear that's an upgrade for their personal goals, they don't get upgrades, and as the populace slowly moves beyond release content, they find they're a) undergeared to go into new content and b) unable to find people to run older content with in an attempt to catch up.

 

This may be mitigable if BioWare starts up a badge system similar to WoW's for speeding up slower-progressed players, but it likely also would mandate a LFG tool to put groups together more efficiently, and I think that has a negative effect on individual server community.

 

You don't roll for loot for someone else, you roll for it for yourself. You aren't bettering your server community by receiving an upgrade at someone else's expense, and unless your Need roll wasn't contested by another Need roll at the time, you received that upgrade at someone else's expense. You're the only one who benefits from the upgrade. The amount of upgrade it is doesn't matter, it was used to illustrate a point.

 

I do my best in group content because I want to see it, improve my group play, and get upgrades. I'm not there to get others upgrades as a primary goal, though I'm happy if someone gets an upgrade from a boss I helped them kill. My primary goal is to get upgrades for myself.

 

You're being naive if you think that not only isn't others' goal, but yours as well.

 

Ok, for a start, attempting to humiliate your opponent is supplication rather than reinforcement, and you've approached every individuals argument here with such an attitude that's it's made you especially unpopular, as well as contradicts your constant plea for 'objective logic'.

 

A companion is hypothetically only, say, 30% at best, of your effectiveness. You can generally operate a hell of a lot better solo than your companion would. The number of abilities you have versus your companion are heavily in the favour of you. Many situations will require you to act without a companion, although some, such as PvP, offer rewards that are not rolled for, rather bought with commendations. However, with suggestions that world PvP may even dismiss companions upon combat, their use is getting even more secondary. So when you deny an individuals main character loot over your companion, you are robbing an arm to gain an extra finger.

 

There has been an agreed limit to the moral selfishness within the community that to roll for a companion requires asking first, unless everyone rolls greed. So choosing to cross this line on the grounds that all behaviour is selfish anyway is refusing to see the complex middleground. Generally, when politically concerned, all behaviour is selfish. However in order for society to function and for people like you to benefit, there have to be agreed boundaries. Of course, some people, like yourself, cross these boundaries without society immediately realizing, but it's another straw on the camels back, so to speak. Gradually these parasitic individuals begin to bring down the functioning performance of society by refusing to accept that they are a cog in a machine, and their actions contribute towards it's direction. Which is why I confronted you with the 'why shouldn't I roll need for the credits', which you rudely dismissed as emotional rather than thoughtful, when in fact would be an example of a more bleak MMO world. However, this argument seems slightly petty because it's just a computer game, but then who could really argue ones actions have no consequences, even when committed online?

[romandaemon]

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

How didnt he? How else am i supposed to gear up my companion....thats the point of having them....to make sure they are wearing good gear.....it can be equippped, it can be used..so i rol on it if its an upgrade

[romandaemon]

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.

 

Its a game...i want to pay not provide evidence for no reason. If gear for companions wasnt important they would nit be able to equip it. What if i got all the upgrades i need from a flashpoint and running it simplt with a purpose of getting upgrades for my companion....then what? I need to wait for no one else to need.seems pretty silly

[Kirjava]

 

I attempted to quote the most relevant issues relating to the game here. My primary contention with your point is that the "weak" (defined by you as newer players, undergeared players or less-skilled players, and I can work with those definitions within the context of this specific argument between you and I; I don't know if it applies in the larger argument) will not be held down by someone choosing Need for a companion upgrade, because the piece will drop again. Everyone in an MMO (including both of us) has to learn that if you're attempting to get certain pieces of gear, or attempting an upwardly-mobile general upgrade path, you're going to run group content more than once. Loot tables are finite, but loot availability is infinite, being finite only within the occurrence of one particular instance. The "weak" by our in-this-instant definition have the ability to acquire that gear still by running the instance again. If they're diligent, the law of averages alone gives them a 100% probability of getting the gear over time.

 

Yet your assuming people have infinite time to replay these areas to gain this gear. The need of a player who the gear directly effects, is certainly greater than the need of your companion. The player in question now has to replay that area again to gain approriate gear. In contrast, your companion, naturally gets gear anyway via quest rewards. Therefore your actually impinging on other peoples gameplay to a greater extent, than they are on you.

 

The community owes me nothing I haven't earned, but I don't owe it to the community to pass up a claim on something I earned just because they don't want me to have it.

Aren't you impressively individualistic and rebellious!

 

See above.

[romandaemon]

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)

 

How is it a fact? This game has no combat log nor does it have addons nor does it support parsing.....so your guess is as good as mine. Yiu would go by what it looks like, and looks can be decieving

[JediMasterShake]

Ok, for a start, attempting to humiliate your opponent is supplication rather than reinforcement, and you've approached every individuals argument here with such an attitude that's it's made you especially unpopular, as well as contradicts your constant plea for 'objective logic'.

 

A companion is hypothetically only, say, 30% at best, of your effectiveness. You can generally operate a hell of a lot better solo than your companion would. The number of abilities you have versus your companion are heavily in the favour of you. Many situations will require you to act without a companion, although some, such as PvP, offer rewards that are not rolled for, rather bought with commendations. However, with suggestions that world PvP may even dismiss companions upon combat, their use is getting even more secondary. So when you deny an individuals main character loot over your companion, you are robbing an arm to gain an extra finger.

 

There has been an agreed limit to the moral selfishness within the community that to roll for a companion requires asking first, unless everyone rolls greed. So choosing to cross this line on the grounds that all behaviour is selfish anyway is refusing to see the complex middleground. Generally, when politically concerned, all behaviour is selfish. However in order for society to function and for people like you to benefit, there have to be agreed boundaries. Of course, some people, like yourself, cross these boundaries without society immediately realizing, but it's another straw on the camels back, so to speak. Gradually these parasitic individuals begin to bring down the functioning performance of society by refusing to accept that they are a cog in a machine, and their actions contribute towards it's direction. Which is why I confronted you with the 'why shouldn't I roll need for the credits', which you rudely dismissed as emotional rather than thoughtful, when in fact would be an example of a more bleak MMO world. However, this argument seems slightly petty because it's just a computer game, but then who could really argue ones actions have no consequences, even when committed online?

 

This. I hope eldren considers the reality of a middle ground, and the society she would experience if people truly embraced her own ideals as strictly as she purports to.

[Kirjava]

How is it a fact? This game has no combat log nor does it have addons nor does it support parsing.....so your guess is as good as mine. Yiu would go by what it looks like, and looks can be decieving

 

It's called probability. If everyone took Eldren's line of thinking, it would essentially weaken group combat effectiveness, due to a loss overall of gear going to players, as they'd be going to companions.

[romandaemon]

It's called probability. If everyone took Eldren's

 

line of thinking, it would essentially weaken group combat effectiveness, due to a loss overall of gear going to players, as they'd be going to companions.

 

Isee the point..although as i dont do heroic or operations and nit planning on pretty much ever, my companions are as dear to me as any other player....