People who ninja for their companions

[Setanian]

No, it's not NOT, not working as intended.

 

If that's the case, then we both agree, it must be working as intended.

 

Go on.. Work it out..

[Vydor_HC]

Keep the popcorn handy because I will bet good money that once the devs introduce dual-spec, you're going to see almost the same debate except that instead of it being rolling need or greed for companions/mods it's going to be rolling need or greed for main spec vs. off-spec.

 

Haven't even thought of that, I've never played a game with dual spec, so I imagine it could be the same.

[Setanian]

Murderers are criminals. They are all disturbed and evil. Want me to keep going or...

 

Actually i'd prefer you just stop, even leave if it suits you.

[Darne]

That goes back to what I said earlier. The problem is not the system, it's the players not communicating, which is what they should be doing. No changes to the game need to be made on this issue, players just need to talk about what they are going to do when something drops.

 

Communication with players is always a plus, I agree. But that would just lead to people being kicked out of groups for having different views. Would prevent one headache while creating a whole different one.

 

Another question for you. Who do you think has more fun with that shiny purple armor piece. A human player or your companion? Do you think Vette goes "WOOOO MAIN HAND BLASTER!" when you win the roll? Or "awww shucks" when you lose it? It's just common courtesy to other humans... you know? with emotions and such.

[Vydor_HC]

Communication with players is always a plus, I agree. But that would just lead to people being kicked out of groups for having different views. Would prevent one headache while creating a whole different one.

 

Another question for you. Who do you think has more fun with that shiny purple armor piece. A human player or your companion? Do you think Vette goes "WOOOO MAIN HAND BLASTER!" when you win the roll? Or "awww shucks" when you lose it? It's just common courtesy to other humans... you know? with emotions and such.

 

Well, since the item is used by my character when I use my companions, I'd say me. I draw no distinction between the two.

[Irusan]

Why do you always resort to ad-hominen attacks?

 

One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.

 

Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal "ad hominem" are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument.

[Rabenschwinge]

or tell people that they're being silly and they should stop getting bent out of shape about it; that's also an option.

 

While I would generally prefer to group with someone with you who has a relaxed attitude towards items and will not stall a flashpoint over a bloody vote or even start a fight because they didn't get an item they kind of felt entitled to, all this fighting frustrates me and I would prefer a clear ruling so that it ends. I think the fundamental difference between players is that some, like us, believe that chance is fair and accept it. Others want more control over who get what and will not accept chance.

Edited February 22, 2012 by Rabenschwinge

[Saurakk]

No, they've said "that's a jerk move" or that makes you an bhole, or that's a "dbag move" ... they just assert that this is true.

 

 

Some, yes...many others have explained clearly why they have the stance they have in a reasonable and non attacking way.

 

You clearly disagree and many times simply take the same approach, albeit more polite than some, with a simple "I disagree".

 

Does not mean the reasons were not provided other than "I say so." as you claim.

 

And yes, of course I won't because it would be just as much of a waste of time as the initial presentation to you.

[kilosoldier]

That goes back to what I said earlier. The problem is not the system, it's the players not communicating, which is what they should be doing. No changes to the game need to be made on this issue, players just need to talk about what they are going to do when something drops.

 

Changes are coming. A roll choice between need and greed for companion loot.

 

They have already mentioned it so it really will solve the problems but I somehow think we will see you arguing about how that system is unfair.

[Vydor_HC]

While I would generally prefer to group with someone with you who has a relaxed attitude towards items and will not stall a flashpoint over a bloody vote or even start a fight because they didn't get an item they kind of felt entitled to, all this fighting frustrates me and I would prefer a clear ruling so that it ends.

 

That's the approach I take, so when I start a pug, I just tell everyone to roll on what they want, if someone has a special item they want let us know before we get going. Makes life very simple.

[Kindara]

That goes back to what I said earlier. The problem is not the system, it's the players not communicating, which is what they should be doing. No changes to the game need to be made on this issue, players just need to talk about what they are going to do when something drops.

 

Actually the problem is with the system. We can communicate all we want but the ninjas will ninja because "they can" thats the whole reason loot systems were created. Because there will always be people who will do whatever they want regardless of any agreed on societial rules by players. As long as the system allows for people to do whatever they want, people do whatever they want. Many of us play by the rules of the community having seen and experienced how vile society can get without rules in a game, but there will always be people who don't care.

 

In the real world those types of people who do whatever they want no matter what end up in jail. In games people who exhibit this sort of behavior usually require the intervention of game developers to curb behavior that quite frankly chases off communities.

 

Taking gear for your companions when the rest of the group votes the idea down is obviously "not intended" by the developers or they wouldn't be heeding the call of the community including people from beta that said this would happen and finally building a system that tries to prevent it.

 

For now as a Tank with a Healer friend I'll continue to toss people out of groups that exhibit this type of behavior. Thats my personal preference I put the community over some NPC's that are of no value to you in groups or end game other than for crafting.

[ferroz]

So let get this right....

 

You need on items for your companions, so in turn you can go do your daily heroics, to get more commendations, to get more items for your companion?

I think it's called "character progression" ...

 

You realize that's exactly what other people are trying to do for their character?

Yes.

 

We might as well just watch our companions play then.

No, I like playing the game; why would I just watch my companion play?

 

Why bother having a character to begin with?

To play the game and progress with.

 

 

This is so over my head, I don't even understand where people thinking like that come from. Like I said, it's fine to want to solo, and while one thing might not preclude the other, it certainly slows it down a lot.

Not really.

 

the fact that I've been able to gear my companion well has gotten my guild healer at least 4 purples that I've been able to get as drops while soloing (belt + 2 armorings and a mod), which I've given her. And since I haven't taken anything she'd want (since she's a willpower healer and my companion healer is cunning) your claim couldn't be further from the truth.

 

incidentally, she's going to get another armoring and mod tonight after I solo the heroics. She might get an enhancement if I can be bothered to do the illum one, but I think our artificer can make the purple enhancement she wanted.

 

If your healer was losing every roll to people like you, it would take a lot longer for him to get his gear. Or your tank. Or you.

I'm the tank, so "your tank" doesn't really apply.

 

It's not like I significantly slow down someone loot gain by needing on an occasional piece for my companion. Not that "get loot as fast as possible" is the end all be all of mmorpg gaming.

[ThiborF]

So while you personally wouldn't do it, you don't really have a problem if someone else does.

 

Every single person that is defending the "need" roll said the exact same thing. They personally wouldn't do it, but they wouldn't flip out if someone else did.

 

Honestly, I think this debate is mostly about a philosophical stance that almost never happens in the actual game.

 

Notice I said that if the PuG I'm in says need for companions, I'm just as fine doing that as not. My point is, while my own personal view of what is or is not fair is certainly not irrelevant, I concede immediately that it is one view out of 4/16/16 and it's entirely possible that others don't think like I do and just as likely that my views are in the minority in that particular group as they could be in the majority.

 

And that's apparently the difference between those like me and those arguing that their side of the argument is the "right way." Those like me can be found on both sides of this debate BUT are willing to ask those around them to be sure everyone's in agreement. The rest are dead set on furthering their agenda that their side of the argument should be the default way everyone views it. Judging from this and every other thread about this, there isn't a consensus. So then my "default" becomes ask at the beginning.

[Darne]

Well, since the item is used by my character when I use my companions, I'd say me. I draw no distinction between the two.

 

I can see we're never going to agree on this. I don't consider my companion as part of me. I consider him/her a silly cop out in taking the time to develop real multiplayer mechanics that utilize a functioning LFG instead of general chat to accomplish goals with real players instead of some heal spam bot I can't joke around with on vent or have a good time with in real life during happy hour.

 

Some people take games more socially than you. Keep that in mind next time you roll need.

[Vydor_HC]

Changes are coming. A roll choice between need and greed for companion loot.

 

They have already mentioned it so it really will solve the problems but I somehow think we will see you arguing about how that system is unfair.

 

Yup, when the changes are implement then the debate will change. No idea what they are going to do, so it's really unfair of you to accuse me of anything before the details are known as you don't know me at all.

[Setanian]

Communication with players is always a plus, I agree. But that would just lead to people being kicked out of groups for having different views. Would prevent one headache while creating a whole different one.

 

Another question for you. Who do you think has more fun with that shiny purple armor piece. A human player or your companion? Do you think Vette goes "WOOOO MAIN HAND BLASTER!" when you win the roll? Or "awww shucks" when you lose it? It's just common courtesy to other humans... you know? with emotions and such.

 

I'm not stating your are right or wrong.. But bringing human emotions into this is going down a entirely different path..

 

I tell you at the start if the group, I've just had bad news and just want to get some gear for my companion so I can solo for some nights while my dog/cat/wife/brother/car is in hospital.

 

If we bring emotions into this, well then you should all just give me everything that drops. I mean, you would feel for my current predicament wouldn't you?

 

 

I know, an extreme example, but.. Emotions should be parked I think

[Galbatorrix]

Here's what it boils down to....

 

Player A thinks needing for companion over players is wrong.

 

Player B thinks needing for companions is ok.

 

 

During the run, player A passes on loot on the first three bosses because it has stats meant for player B's class. Player B needs and wins all three pieces. On the last boss, the loot dropped is used by player A's class, so he needs. Player B also needs said loot for their companion and wins it.

 

 

Sorry, 9 times out of 10, player A's going to be upset over this. Player A's actions will never upset player B. Why should player A be the one to speak up before the run? It's player B that runs the risk of making people upset, so should it not fall to them to say something before the run begins?

 

 

If you play with others in a way that you know may upset them, at least let them know ahead of time so they can opt out if they want.

 

 

 

It'd be like someone asking you to play football in the backyard and then tackling you to the ground on the first play. Most people play touch when playing without pads in the backyard.

 

If you want to play in away that's not the norm, speak up. Otherwise, you're bound to upset someone eventually and you really don't get to play the victim card when someone starts blasting you.

[Setanian]

Actually the problem is with the system. We can communicate all we want but the ninjas will ninja because "they can" thats the whole reason loot systems were created. Because there will always be people who will do whatever they want regardless of any agreed on societial rules by players. As long as the system allows for people to do whatever they want, people do whatever they want. Many of us play by the rules of the community having seen and experienced how vile society can get without rules in a game, but there will always be people who don't care.

 

In the real world those types of people who do whatever they want no matter what end up in jail. In games people who exhibit this sort of behavior usually require the intervention of game developers to curb behavior that quite frankly chases off communities.

 

Taking gear for your companions when the rest of the group votes the idea down is obviously "not intended" by the developers or they wouldn't be heeding the call of the community including people from beta that said this would happen and finally building a system that tries to prevent it.

 

For now as a Tank with a Healer friend I'll continue to toss people out of groups that exhibit this type of behavior. Thats my personal preference I put the community over some NPC's that are of no value to you in groups or end game other than for crafting.

 

stopped reading after improper use of ninja.

[Vydor_HC]

Actually the problem is with the system. We can communicate all we want but the ninjas will ninja because "they can" thats the whole reason loot systems were created. Because there will always be people who will do whatever they want regardless of any agreed on societial rules by players. As long as the system allows for people to do whatever they want, people do whatever they want. Many of us play by the rules of the community having seen and experienced how vile society can get without rules in a game, but there will always be people who don't care.

 

In the real world those types of people who do whatever they want no matter what end up in jail. In games people who exhibit this sort of behavior usually require the intervention of game developers to curb behavior that quite frankly chases off communities.

 

Taking gear for your companions when the rest of the group votes the idea down is obviously "not intended" by the developers or they wouldn't be heeding the call of the community including people from beta that said this would happen and finally building a system that tries to prevent it.

 

For now as a Tank with a Healer friend I'll continue to toss people out of groups that exhibit this type of behavior. Thats my personal preference I put the community over some NPC's that are of no value to you in groups or end game other than for crafting.

 

-nods-

 

Exactly right, and the players should be the ones to deal with it. Leave the looting system as open as it can be, give players more choice and let the community handle offenders as needed. I see that as the best approach.

[Saurakk]

Yup, when the changes are implement then the debate will change. No idea what they are going to do, so it's really unfair of you to accuse me of anything before the details are known as you don't know me at all.

 

This is the bottom line regardless of stance on the topic.

 

The only "bad guys" are the ones who agree to loot one way and then alter that to suit their needs when the situation presents itself.

[Vydor_HC]

I can see we're never going to agree on this. I don't consider my companion as part of me. I consider him/her a silly cop out in taking the time to develop real multiplayer mechanics that utilize a functioning LFG instead of general chat to accomplish goals with real players instead of some heal spam bot I can't joke around with on vent or have a good time with in real life during happy hour.

 

Some people take games more socially than you. Keep that in mind next time you roll need.

 

Heh, it's funny you characterize me without even knowing me or how I play. I do dailies solo, because it's faster and quicker. The vast majority of my time is spent exactly as you describe. I don't know where the LFG vs general chat thing came from though.

[Setanian]

Here's what it boils down to....

 

Player A thinks needing for companion over players is wrong.

 

Player B thinks needing for companions is ok.

 

 

During the run, player A passes on loot on the first three bosses because it has stats meant for player B's class. Player B needs and wins all three pieces. On the last boss, the loot dropped is used by player A's class, so he needs. Player B also needs said loot for their companion and wins it.

 

 

Sorry, 9 times out of 10, player A's going to be upset over this. Player A's actions will never upset player B. Why should player A be the one to speak up before the run? It's player B that runs the risk of making people upset, so should it not fall to them to say something before the run begins?

 

 

If you play with others in a way that you know may upset them, at least let them know ahead of time so they can opt out if they want.

 

 

 

It'd be like someone asking you to play football in the backyard and then tackling you to the ground on the first play. Most people play touch when playing without pads in the backyard.

 

If you want to play in away that's not the norm, speak up. Otherwise, you're bound to upset someone eventually and you really don't get to play the victim card when someone starts blasting you.

 

Had player A made their feelings known at the start, player B may not have rolled need on 4th item?

[ThiborF]

Actually the problem is with the system. We can communicate all we want but the ninjas will ninja because "they can" thats the whole reason loot systems were created. Because there will always be people who will do whatever they want regardless of any agreed on societial rules by players.

 

This is true. But, I'd wager there are far fewer "ninjas" out there than people who simply have a differing opinion on what's fair and that once rule is established at the beginning of the run, are content abiding by it for that run.

 

Think of a FP/OP run like a stretch of highway. If there is no posted speed limit, people are going to drive whatever speed they're comfortable with. If there is a sign saying "Speed Limit 65mph", the majority of people drive within the accepted tolerances of that limit. Of course, you're still going to get the idiot that chooses to do 85-100+ even with the sign posted but, they are far far fewer in number than if there was no limit posted at all.

[Vydor_HC]

This is the bottom line regardless of stance on the topic.

 

The only "bad guys" are the ones who agree to loot one way and then alter that to suit their needs when the situation presents itself.

 

-nods-

 

I totally agree with you on that. Those are the ones that ruin the game for others.

[Darne]

Here's what it boils down to....

 

Player A thinks needing for companion over players is wrong.

 

Player B thinks needing for companions is ok.

 

 

During the run, player A passes on loot on the first three bosses because it has stats meant for player B's class. Player B needs and wins all three pieces. On the last boss, the loot dropped is used by player A's class, so he needs. Player B also needs said loot for their companion and wins it.

 

This is a beautiful example that highlights EXACTLY what happens and why Player As get upset. It's having the courtesy not returned.