terminova Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 You sir are obviously not to quick on the uptake, it's called a joke. You need to work on your jokes, it wasn't funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terminova Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Terrible, terrible argument...just awful... He brought up an improbable situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarvus Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 To be fair, if the person asked the group first, and the group said yeah, I don't see how they did anything wrong. If in fact that was how it went down, sure. But I'm in the group too, and his desire to roll for a companion is a thing that would have made me decide perhaps I wanted to roll for mine too. I mean, it's like the way they do it that's wrong. They wait for the first person or two to simply pass, as one would expect. Then, they ask the remaining person, who of course doesn't care. It seems haphazard and not well thought out but it all basically screws the people who simply roll class as you typically should. It's bad form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferroz Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Maybe instead of turning your dick-switch on, you can just adjust to the fact that he's using "ninja" to mean something slightly different.something totally different, not slightly different. His post even admits that he knows the term is not being used correctly.That actually makes his error worse, not somehow excusable: that's using an emotionally charged word to cover up the lack of actual meaningful debate. "You're a murderer!" "What? I'm just eating a hamburger here lady." how is it better to assign loot randomly? It's not biased in favor of some people's loot priorities, so it's it's actually fairer, even though it's not what some people prefer. I mean, it's understandable if you'd prefer a system that's biased toward your loot priorities... but being biased in your favor is kind of the opposite of fair. The casual gamers, on the other hand, enjoy the story more, and are more likely to express themselves in their characters. These people (such as myself) feel like the player's character is unique and therefore more deserving of high quality loot than the companion which is the same for everyone. I think your breakdown of casual vs hardcore here is more than a little absurd. Enjoying the story mode does not mean that they only want to express themselves through a particular character, and it certainly does apply at all when you're talking about stats on the gear. I mean, if you were arguing in favor of looting for appearance, you might have a point... but the claim that "I like story so gear with good stats belongs on my character" makes no sense at all. There's a large subset of casual players that often wind up playing solo, and therefore look for things that make their solo experience better; companion gear does that. There's a not insignificant subset of casual players that think that the appearance of the gear is more important to them than the stats; these people may also care equally about the appearance of the gear that the companions are wearing. As a casual gamer, I fall into this category (for example: I'm not planning on wearing a better robe even if it drops, because I don't like the look of any of them. I'll take the significant stat hit and lack of set bonus in favor of appearance) Bottom line: there's no actual link between "casual" and "thinks companion need looting is bad" ... there are plenty of casual players who don't think they're entitled to gear and can deny other people the right to roll for it just because they want it. If everyone is rolling Need because they want to equip the item on their characters, that's fair because everyone has an equal stake in the roll. No, it's unfair because it's biased in favor of the people who think that companion loot isn't as import for progressing their character as non-companion loot. A situation that is biased in favor of some people over others is the opposite of fair. If one person Needs to give to a companion, it is unfair because that person has robbed the others of a chance to improve their unique ego-expression characters.No, the person has not robbed them of anything; they still have a chance to improve their unique ego-expression characters. There's nothing even remotely unfair about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferroz Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 You sir are obviously not to quick on the uptake, it's called a joke.You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. </spanish accent> I'm a fair, even generous roller. I frequently pass on items I could roll for that are class because I either have better or comparable. Likewise... that doesn't have anything to do with rolling need for loot that you want to equip to a companion though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saurakk Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Yeah, I don't think he actually read the stuff he was responding to me and accusing me of dissembling about. He didn't post again after I showed him where he said that... If you are referring to me, my response to you was about the topic of the thread...why it not considered appropriate to need for your companion. I was not reinforcing someone's additional name calling thrown in. I would think you would be able to discern between the two but my bad...I will be more specific in the future if I continue. I did not post again because I left work for the day and do not hang out on the forums when home with my family. I made it very clear and very easy to understand why it is considered bad form by most to roll on loot that someone will use every time they log in, while you will only use it situationally at best. (is situationally even a word?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferroz Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) If you are referring to me, my response to you was about the topic of the thread...why it not considered appropriate to need for your companion. I was not reinforcing someone's additional name calling thrown in. I would think you would be able to discern between the two but my bad...I will be more specific in the future if I continue. (short paraphrase sum up of the exchange) Him: That's a grade a dirtbag move Me: No it's not; why would you say that? Noone ever bothers to support that claim You: You're dissembling, lots of people have supported that. But I'm not going to bother to do so me: No, really they haven't. You: yes, they have. I'm still not going to bother to support it. me: No, they haven't; the reason you're not going to quote any of the support is that it doesn't exist. You: fine, <insert explanation that has nothing to do with why it's a grade A dirbag move me: ... that doesn't explain why it's a grade a dirbag move. you: where did I say that? me: <nested quote of the first 3 exchanges showing where you said that> That looks an awful lot like you're supporting someone's name calling to me, while adding your own (claiming I dissembling about it). And then an attempt to distance yourself from it when you actually paid attention to what I was disagreeing with... I made it very clear and very easy to understand why it is considered bad form by most to roll on loot that someone will use every time they log in, while you will only use it situationally at best.Actually, you didn't You establish that companions are situationally used. You then assert that rolling need for gear that you intend to use on companions is bad form, with no other support. So all you've got there is an assertion that it's bad, not actual reasons why it's bad form. I mean, you're basically saying that you personally prefer to put loot on your main character and not your companions, and that you differentiate between "your character" and "your companions" ... but nothing why disobeying your personal preference is bad form. That's like saying "no, you can only get the chocolate ice cream, because I like chocolate better than the other flavors; getting any other flavor is bad form" and really, now you're saying "bad form" .... that seems like a dodge to distance yourself from where you were supporting that guy's name calling by using a slightly different word while meaning the same thing.... (is situationally even a word?)Yes; it's an adverb form of situation. Edited February 23, 2012 by ferroz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atanasov Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Everyone has many companions that use bunches of different stuff, light, med, heavy . ranged , heal, tank, dps, usually all of them actually at one point. So If you needed for your companions on a regular basis you would find your self needing every single time, as chances are you have one or more companions that can use the equipment, this totally defeats the purpose of needing. lol. If you want to gear your comp get out and do it yourself. Player > Your computer controlled ****** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferroz Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Everyone has many companions that use bunches of different stuff, light, med, heavy . ranged , heal, tank, dps, usually all of them actually at one point. No, some people do. Only Jedi sentinels can use all amour types on the republic side; on the other end of the spectrum is the trooper, which only uses aim heavy armor. So If you needed for your companions on a regular basis you would find your self needing every single time, as chances are you have one or more companions that can use the equipment, No, that's not true. It's just a bad slippery slope fallacy. If people need for companions on a regular basis, they need for companions on a regular basis... regular basis != everything. this totally defeats the purpose of needing. It doesn't actually. The purpose of needing is to declare that you have a need for the item. That's remains present even in your false example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atanasov Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) No, some people do. Only Jedi sentinels can use all amour types on the republic side; on the other end of the spectrum is the trooper, which only uses aim heavy armor. No, that's not true. It's just a bad slippery slope fallacy. If people need for companions on a regular basis, they need for companions on a regular basis... regular basis != everything. It doesn't actually. The purpose of needing is to declare that you have a need for the item. That's remains present even in your false example. Im not talking about the player characters , your example for trooper and Jedi Sent, At lvl 50 on my Jedi Sent and My Sith Assassin, Im bound to have a companion that can use the drop from whatever world boss/creature etc with few exceptions. So again, If I decided that I wanted to need for something for my companion which didn't do **** during a raid group, yet I think its a good idea to need for it, because I want to "declare" that I have a need for the item rather than asking the other players if they need it for themselves and mind if I grab it, I would find myself needing for almost everything, again with few exceptions. As far as on a regular basis, this means in a regular manner. You are implying that there are no irregular instances. Doesn't not mean EVERYTIME/Everything. . :0 Edited February 23, 2012 by Atanasov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saurakk Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 (short paraphrase sum up of the exchange) Him: That's a grade a dirtbag move Me: No it's not; why would you say that? Noone ever bothers to support that claim You: You're dissembling, lots of people have supported that. But I'm not going to bother to do so me: No, really they haven't. You: yes, they have. I'm still not going to bother to support it. me: No, they haven't; the reason you're not going to quote any of the support is that it doesn't exist. You: fine, <insert explanation that has nothing to do with why it's a grade A dirbag move me: ... that doesn't explain why it's a grade a dirbag move. you: where did I say that? me: <nested quote of the first 3 exchanges showing where you said that> That looks an awful lot like you're supporting someone's name calling to me, while adding your own (claiming I dissembling about it). And then an attempt to distance yourself from it when you actually paid attention to what I was disagreeing with... I explained where I was coming from, and understand why you may have thought I was promoting and reinforcing his name calling, however that was not the case. My point was why some consider it bad form. I don't think I need to repeat that for a 3rd time. Actually, you didn't You establish that companions are situationally used. You then assert that rolling need for gear that you intend to use on companions is bad form, with no other support. So all you've got there is an assertion that it's bad, not actual reasons why it's bad form. Isn't this all about opinion anyway? You and others feel it is ok for your own reasons provided. I and some others feel it is not for the reason I posted. I can assert I do not have to hold the door open for women. You can assert I do. In the end it comes down to our own opinion of what is right or wrong, along with the people we interact with in that regard. If it is widely accepted that holding a door open is appropriate...I would be considered rude. Does not necessarily mean I am rude, it just explains why the perception may be there. and really, now you're saying "bad form" .... that seems like a dodge to distance yourself from where you were supporting that guy's name calling by using a slightly different word while meaning the same thing.... You can take the term bad form and lead it into any subjective name calling you feel is appropriate. I am not doing that. I feel rolling need for companions over mains is not appropriate. See my example above about door holding. Does not make either one of us better or worse than the other...we have differing opinions of how to handle that specific situation. I have made that stance perfectly clear on my posts and even defended Setanian when the name calling started. Yes; it's an adverb form of situation. And thanks for the confirmation. I asked because the spell checker kept telling me it was not a word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galbatorrix Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) It doesn't actually. The purpose of needing is to declare that you have a need for the item. That's remains present even in your false example. If your only prerequisite for pressing the button is "the person feels they have a need", then the other poster is right. There's absolutely no reason to have a NBG system. If there are no boundaries, people can need everything that drops. "Needing for credits! I'm saving up for a speeder and every credit counts!" Edited February 23, 2012 by Galbatorrix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atanasov Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 If you're only prerequisite for pressing the button is "the person feels they have a need", then the other poster is right. There's absolutely no reason to have a NBG system. If there are no boundaries, people can need everything that drops. "Needing for credits! I'm saving up for a speeder and every credit counts!" Exactly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferroz Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Im not talking about the player charactersCompanions are part of the player character. Neither am I. I'm talking about all of the companions for that character combined. All of the trooper's companions use aim and wear heavy armor (except for the 2 droids which also use aim and droid parts) At lvl 50 on my Jedi Sent this is the only advanced class republic side where this is true; it may be the only one in the game. so 1/8, maybe 1/16. and My Sith Assassin, No, you don't have any companions that use aim armor. You have one that uses aim droid parts, but that doesn't compete with anything other than other companions with few exceptions. so, you agree: "Everything isn't correct, it's just a bad slippery slope fallacy" I would find myself needing for almost everything, again with few exceptions. Whereas I'd only be needing on a rare occasion, just like I do now. If you'd need on almost everything, and I'd need very rarely... who's the greedy one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atanasov Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 You , Because I was speaking hypothetically, you actually need on stuff for your companions, I dont. I get that stuff on my own, or buy at GTM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terminova Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 If your only prerequisite for pressing the button is "the person feels they have a need", then the other poster is right. There's absolutely no reason to have a NBG system. If there are no boundaries, people can need everything that drops. "Needing for credits! I'm saving up for a speeder and every credit counts!" When you quote someone, you shouldn't cherry-pick part of the statement so you can give it an entirely different meaning. In this case, the sentence continued "need the item" which implies the person is needing the actual item for their character which makes your response invalid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erlite Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 This argument is simple. You DO NOT roll need on gear for companions without asking first. This game is primarily about players (the human players). Each flashpoint or operation has loot distributed among bosses in such a way that should provide each player who has contributed their time a chance to get an upgrade. When an item drops that let's say only an agent/smuggler can use and someone else rolls need on that item for their companion, that person may be taking the only item that will drop that entire run that would be an upgrade for the agent/smuggler. Having a set of companions with more diverse gear needs does NOT entitle a person to roll on more gear than anybody else. This argument has existed since wow when I'd watch paladins roll need on cloth healing gear over priests claiming "OH, it's an upgrade and I can equip/use it) only to have a plate healing piece for the same slot drop later that of course they'd need saying "oh, i'm the only person that can equip it." Being a plate wearing healer DID NOT entitle paladins to take shaman, druid, and priest gear over shaman, druids, and priests. Those players who did that were just selfish and inconsiderate. It is no difference in this game. And for those of you saying that upgrades for companions help you in world pvp or other pve situations: the stat bonus and benefits of a piece of loot on a companion vs on a player are not comparable. TL;DR Don't be a *****. You don't take away another human player's upgrade just because you want something for your companion after that player has put work into the flashpoint. There are ample items on the market, commendation vendors, and from drops for companions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
universeman Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 You do realize you can tell if the other three players are needing on everything well before hitting anything that drops anything really good, right? Not possible if the other players are holding out. People don't always click NEED on everything (in fact, they don't) until it really matters. Then it's too late. Or, did you not realize that? Oh wait, you just wanted to make some claim without any facts to back you up in order to win some argument on the Internet. You cannot ninja anything when using the NBG system. It's not possible. It's possible to do exactly what I just said...and thus, be labeled as a ninja. Sorry bro. Don't get defensive over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irusan Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 This argument is simple. You DO NOT roll need on gear for companions without asking first. This game is primarily about players (the human players). Each flashpoint or operation has loot distributed among bosses in such a way that should provide each player who has contributed their time a chance to get an upgrade. When an item drops that let's say only an agent/smuggler can use and someone else rolls need on that item for their companion, that person may be taking the only item that will drop that entire run that would be an upgrade for the agent/smuggler. Having a set of companions with more diverse gear needs does NOT entitle a person to roll on more gear than anybody else. This argument has existed since wow when I'd watch paladins roll need on cloth healing gear over priests claiming "OH, it's an upgrade and I can equip/use it) only to have a plate healing piece for the same slot drop later that of course they'd need saying "oh, i'm the only person that can equip it." Being a plate wearing healer DID NOT entitle paladins to take shaman, druid, and priest gear over shaman, druids, and priests. Those players who did that were just selfish and inconsiderate. It is no difference in this game. And for those of you saying that upgrades for companions help you in world pvp or other pve situations: the stat bonus and benefits of a piece of loot on a companion vs on a player are not comparable. TL;DR Don't be a *****. You don't take away another human player's upgrade just because you want something for your companion after that player has put work into the flashpoint. There are ample items on the market, commendation vendors, and from drops for companions. Very well put and I could not agree more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redcorn Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 No one I have grouped with has ever ninja'd loot for their companion. Many times a person has asked if it would be ok to need for their companion, and generally the group had no problem with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irusan Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 No one I have grouped with has ever ninja'd loot for their companion. Many times a person has asked if it would be ok to need for their companion, and generally the group had no problem with that. My experience is much the same as yours. Some folks here have said it happened that a person did need roll for a companion when a player character could have used the gear in question, but I think this is the exception, not the rule. It is, by and large, a thread to come and hone your arguing skills to a fine point by dissecting a post word by word and playing semantics games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terminova Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 This argument is simple. You DO NOT roll need on gear for companions without asking first. Until such a time a "Companion" button is implemented that takes precedence over Greed, then Need can be used for companions even if the person doesn't ask first. This game is primarily about players (the human players). Each flashpoint or operation has loot distributed among bosses in such a way that should provide each player who has contributed their time a chance to get an upgrade. When an item drops that let's say only an agent/smuggler can use and someone else rolls need on that item for their companion, that person may be taking the only item that will drop that entire run that would be an upgrade for the agent/smuggler. Flashpoints can be run multiple times.... This argument has existed since wow when I'd watch paladins roll need on cloth healing gear over priests claiming "OH, it's an upgrade and I can equip/use it) only to have a plate healing piece for the same slot drop later that of course they'd need saying "oh, i'm the only person that can equip it." Being a plate wearing healer DID NOT entitle paladins to take shaman, druid, and priest gear over shaman, druids, and priests. Those players who did that were just selfish and inconsiderate. It is no difference in this game. That has nothing to do with this, and gear itemization in WoW was really wonky for a while. It wasn't until Blizzard streamlined everything that Holy Paladin plate was itemized good. And for those of you saying that upgrades for companions help you in or other pve situations: the stat bonus and benefits of a piece of loot on a companion vs on a player are not comparable. Irrelevant. Gear upgrades for companions you use regularly help you in PvE. TL;DR Don't be a *****. You don't take away another human player's upgrade just because you want something for your companion after that player has put work into the flashpoint. There are ample items on the market, commendation vendors, and from drops for companions. Both players put the same amount of effort into the Flashpoint, so neither really deserves the upgrade more. Further, there is no button for the companion, so the only option is the Need button. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnhughthom Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) My experience is much the same as yours. Some folks here have said it happened that a person did need roll for a companion when a player character could have used the gear in question, but I think this is the exception, not the rule. It is, by and large, a thread to come and hone your arguing skills to a fine point by dissecting a post word by word and playing semantics games. I had one experience of a player rolling need for an item not of his class, I asked him why he'd needed (not out of anger, just curiosity) and he deflected the question. I just let it be and continued the quest. Every time I've come across someone asking if anyone minded if they needed for a companion, nobody has raised a complaint, even if it was an upgrade for their character. Edited February 23, 2012 by johnhughthom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lineschmidt Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Further, there is no button for the companion, so the only option is the Need button. I take it your greed button doesn't work? You should report that as a bug... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terminova Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Not possible if the other players are holding out. People don't always click NEED on everything (in fact, they don't) until it really matters. Then it's too late. Or, did you not realize that? You just said they were clicking Need on everything. Now they aren't. Which is it, they are clicking Need on everything, or only somethings? In other words, you are contradicting yourself... It's possible to do exactly what I just said...and thus, be labeled as a ninja. Sorry bro. Don't get defensive over it. That doesn't make someone a ninja.... Did someone do that to you, and make you upset? Over a bunch of 1's and 0's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts