TrifKaylon Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 (edited) TLDR - We need a new "smart" rolling system to ensure that both player characters *and* companions get a fair shake and flashpoint upgrades. Read post for suggestion. Companion need is one of the most contentious topics on the forum, and it's gonna stay that way for the foreseeable future. It's evenly divided into two camps - one that thinks the player character is more important than companion characters, and one that thinks companion characters, as extensions of your player character, are equally important. The fact is, they are both right. Companion characters are an important aspect of your player character, and they should have preference on upgrades rather than be on equal terms with a "greed roll" (that's in a perfect world, of course). However, most of time in flashpoint and PVP content, they aren't available to use. Taking that into consideration, I would say that player characters certainly do take preference over companions. The problem is that with the current, barebones need before greed system, no one wins, and there is no legitimate, system supported avenue for people to roll on companion flashpoint upgrades versus actual player character upgrades. So we have stupid ninja threads littering the front page. How hard would it really be to implement a smart need/greed system with the following preference? 1. PC need (would be a "smart" system, and those who cannot benefit from a certain item would be barred from rolling - since the classes each have clearly defined primary stat and armor/weapon type, this shouldn't be difficult to add). Takes preference over companion need. 2. Companion need - exactly what it says. Anyone can roll for their companion. Defers to PC need, takes preference over greed. 3. Greed/Disassemble - No change, obviously. 4. Pass - again, no change. Pass. Derp. Anyone agree? Edited January 27, 2012 by TrifKaylon Unclear title Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GellonSW Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 People who roll need for their companions will continue to roll need for themselves just to give to their companions. The only way around this is make dropped gear restrictions to players only and leave companion gear as quest rewards or crafting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrifKaylon Posted January 27, 2012 Author Share Posted January 27, 2012 (edited) People who roll need for their companions will continue to roll need for themselves just to give to their companions. The only way around this is make dropped gear restrictions to players only and leave companion gear as quest rewards or crafting. That's covered under "smart need." It would ensure, for example, that an Agent would not be able to roll Player Character Need on a Sorcerer's gear (or anything at all apart from medium armor with cunning on it...or sniper rifles/blaster rifles, depending on AC). The only options available to them would be Companion Need and Greed/Disassemble/Pass. Obviously, if they have a companion that uses the same gear, with the same primary stat, then that's a loophole. I think it's a small enough loophole that the system would still work well, though. Edited January 27, 2012 by TrifKaylon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kashaan Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 (edited) Doesn't solve the problem for Orange equipment. Even if the mods don't match your character's stats, those can be taken out and replaced with ones that do. So if the armor is the type you wear and you like the look, nobody has any more "right" to it than you do. Now, personally I am all for the "golden rule" of looting... however, I can also see the other side of the fence. So I ask you: Everyone is participating in the fight. Theoretically everyone is doing their job. If an item drop is an upgrade for someone's Companion, what right do you have to "budge in line" and demand first dibs on the item? Again, personally I would like to not have competition on my items, so I defer if it's an upgrade for someone (though on really rare stuff, I make them prove it to me or check myself). But people have a point that if they or their companion can use something, they have a right to roll. The solution is not to make an arbitrary mechanic. The solution is to determine your loot rules independently within the group, since everyone has a different idea of what is "Fair" for looting. Edited January 27, 2012 by Kashaan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kashaan Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Oh yeah... so in short, I disagree with "government policing" of loot rules. If you want to have rules for loot, establish them when you make the group and kick those that don't follow the rules. Smear their names with your guild and friends too if it makes you feel better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrifKaylon Posted January 27, 2012 Author Share Posted January 27, 2012 Doesn't solve the problem for Orange equipment. Even if the mods don't match your character's stats, those can be taken out and replaced with ones that do. So if the armor is the type you wear and you like the look, nobody has any more "right" to it than you do. Now, personally I am all for the "golden rule" of looting... however, I can also see the other side of the fence. So I ask you: Everyone is participating in the fight. Theoretically everyone is doing their job. If an item drop is an upgrade for someone's Companion, what right do you have to "budge in line" and demand first dibs on the item? Again, personally I would like to not have competition on my items, so I defer if it's an upgrade for someone (though on really rare stuff, I make them prove it to me or check myself). But people have a point that if they or their companion can use something, they have a right to roll. That's an excellent point, and I'm astonished that it didn't occur to be, because derp. I suppose I would say that in this case, the system should consider the armor mods and all. If you want the piece for the look, you talk that out or come back with a group you trust. No system is going to be perfect. But the current system sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kashaan Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 That's an excellent point, and I'm astonished that it didn't occur to be, because derp. I suppose I would say that in this case, the system should consider the armor mods and all. If you want the piece for the look, you talk that out or come back with a group you trust. No system is going to be perfect. But the current system sucks. Unfortunately, the current system is both the most fair, and the least fair at the same time. The problem with creating hard system "governing" of looting is that not everyone can agree on what is acceptable. Not to mention there are a LOT of exceptions to consider. What you said about "talking it out" is exactly how it should be every group. The "fairest" way to decide how loot is to be dealt is to define your rules at the beginning of the group. Make sure the Leader always rolls last and kick anyone who breaks the rules. Sure, it can potentially take more work than just "pushing a button", but it's the fairest way to distribute loot. Not to mention that BW has already said that it's their intention to allow people to need on anything they want. Their stance is "if you participated, you are entitled to just as much chance as anyone". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanorDM Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 I think it's a small enough loophole that the system would still work well, though. For troopers 4 of 5 companions use heavy armor and have aim as their main stat. One is a droid, so you could maybe say 3 of 5. Bounty Hunters have 3 of 5 companions use use heavy armor and have aim as their main stat. So for two of the more popular classes, 3 of 5 companions share their gear type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nephlm Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 I made just his suggestion a couple of days ago, but it gathered no interest. I'm against the forced definition on need, but I really want a companion need button that falls between need and greed in precedence. I hate clicking greed for a substantial companion upgrade, I also don't feel comfortable clicking need for it. I think if another player needs it for themselves, that should take precedence, but companion upgrades should also take precedence over greed. Not sure what I feel about he orange pieces. I can certainly understanding needing some decent aesthetics, but I wouldn't feel comfortable clicking need without talking about it first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanorDM Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 I hate clicking greed for a substantial companion upgrade, I also don't feel comfortable clicking need for it. I sorta feel the same way, I'm not real likely to click need for companion gear. But I'm coming more and more around to the idea that is acceptable to need for companion gear, provided you actually use that companion. On my Defense spec Guardian, Kira does a fair amount of the DPS for me. A 10% boost in her DPS, is effectively the same thing as a 10% increase in DPS for me. Only easier to boost her DPS then mine, because I'm a tank and want different stats. Since this is clearly a upgrade for me, even if it's not equipped on my character, I'm really not seeing any difference between this and someone clicking need for something they will equip themselves. It's not like they don't have a equal chance of winning the item. It's also possible that the item will provide a bigger increase for me, then it would for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Creedon Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 This has been something that was talked about during beta... I didnt fully read the OPs post, but at quick glance it goes along the lines of what has been requested. A 'smarter' loot system needs to be implemented to allow primary stat holders to only NEED on equipment/weapons that are associated to them. A companion greed/need should be secondary if everyone passes for their character, then the option for Companion Greed is made available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cartumandua Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Oh yeah... so in short, I disagree with "government policing" of loot rules. If you want to have rules for loot, establish them when you make the group and kick those that don't follow the rules. Smear their names with your guild and friends too if it makes you feel better. I agree, but I think this is a good system to offer in addition to other systems. Pickup groups should discuss and agree to which system they will use on any particular run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanorDM Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 A 'smarter' loot system needs to be implemented to allow primary stat holders to only NEED on equipment/weapons that are associated to them. And when the troopers and bounty hunters roll need on +aim heavy armor for their companions, who use +aim heavy armor... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancaglon Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 A "smart need" system can easily see if the item level is at least the same as your currently equipped one before permitting it. While this can be gamed somewhat by taking something that would be an upgrade for you but then give it to a Companion, or by deliberately wearing poor gear just before the item is rolled for, it's still better than the current system. Upvoted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raximillian Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 (edited) And when the troopers and bounty hunters roll need on +aim heavy armor for their companions, who use +aim heavy armor... That's fine. It's impossible to have a perfect system. What the OP wants to avoid is that trooper rolling need on willpower/light, cunning/medium and anything in between as well. I agree with the OP. There is no way to stop ninjas, but I would like to see BW take some steps to reduce them a bit. Edited January 27, 2012 by Raximillian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts