Irusan Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 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. I did once group with this fellow on Voss before I hit 50. He rolled Need on EVERY green/blue/purple/orange that dropped. I don't know about you, but before I hit 50 I was so broke it wasn't funny from trying to level crew skills, not to mention how much training was, then trying to save for level 50 speeder training. The smart thing to do would have been for me just to start need rolling on everything too, I guess, but I feel strongly enough about what the Need button is for that I just dropped group and continued soloing. And I did NEED the credits, but who doesn't need credits at that level? That is just not what the Need button is for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
universeman Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Having a set of companions with more diverse gear needs does NOT entitle a person to roll on more gear than anybody else. This is at the heart of the issue. Each character has a different set of companions that may need a more/less diverse set of equipment. If we extend the NEED to our companions, then each player will be NEEDing in an unequal manner. The main reason I'm arguing against NEEDing for companions is because it breaks the balance of drop rate distribution. But, also because I do feel it benefits any given player more if they can use the eq specifically on their main character (not a companion). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
universeman Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 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... I don't think you followed my line of reasoning. Maybe I wasn't clear. In any case... It has happened in a group I was in. Nobody said a word about it. But, I felt bad for the person who actually could have used it (not counting companions)...hadn't won on any eq yet, unlike the rest of us...and this other guy clicked NEED after everyone else rolled (two of us actually passed for that guy, too). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
universeman Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Did someone do that to you, and make you upset? Over a bunch of 1's and 0's? No need to start getting feisty. If you have an argument, you can state it without throwing insults out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vecke Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) 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. I definitely understand your frustration there, but it really sounds to me like the only thing the person did was not ask fast enough. Honestly, whether you believe rolling need for companions is okay or you don't, if it's something your companion could use, you should roll greed on it. Simply passing doesn't really make sense if it's something you want. Passing isn't really being nice. Passing means you don't want that gear at all. In your situation, the proper and respectful roll would have been greed (again, based on the premise you don't agree with rolling need). If you'd rolled greed, it wouldn't have given you priority over anybody that needed it, and when the other player asked the group, you could have spoken up and everyone could roll greed and let the roll decide. I really don't see why you'd pass on something you want. I've always thought saying "pass" meant you literally did not want the item. If I'd been that other player and had seen you roll "pass", I would have honestly assumed you didn't want the gear in any way, shape, or form. I'm not picking on you here. This sounds like a genuine misunderstanding. I'm just being honest with my opinion, and it sound (to me,anyway) that the miscommunication was on your end when you rolled pass and still expected a chance to win the item. Edited February 23, 2012 by Vecke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terminova Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 This is at the heart of the issue. Each character has a different set of companions that may need a more/less diverse set of equipment. If we extend the NEED to our companions, then each player will be NEEDing in an unequal manner. The main reason I'm arguing against NEEDing for companions is because it breaks the balance of drop rate distribution. But, also because I do feel it benefits any given player more if they can use the item specifically on their main character (not a companion). People are already extending Need to include the companion whether you like it or not. Bioware is really the only entity that can determine what Need entails. Not you. Not me. Bioware. You might not like that people use Need for their companions, but if they want the gear for their companions and don't want to chance someone simply selling it as vendor trash, they have to roll Need. I honestly would rather someone use Need to snag a piece of gear for their companions than it simply get sold as vendor trash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calei Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) I love this thread. You know why? Because no one figured out why Bioware did this. At lvl 50, end game will be running 4 man flashpoints for most people. In a pick up group, assumung 4 characters with 5 companions; we're looking at 6 upgradable characters per person; which is 24 upgradable characters total. Each boss drops what 1 peice if any? At the end they drop 2 or 3 peices? Think of the grind for a moment. Think of how many times you'll have to run the instances over and over and over again to gear up all those characters. Even for guilds. Although guild groups will be far more organized and loot distribution rules outlined; this still leaves the grind to be very long. Its all about the grind folks. SWTOR endgame is a grind. Or farming. I actually like that one better. Farming. Yea, I farm in video games. I'm a video game farmer. Edited February 23, 2012 by Calei Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terminova Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 No need to start getting feisty. If you have an argument, you can state it without throwing insults out You aren't doing much beyond slights, insults and pointless spam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galbatorrix Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 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. Nope. If everyone gets their own need rules, needing for credits is just as valid as needing for a companion or appearance. If we can't draw a line, neither can you. With this being the case, the "need" button is useless. So, my point is completely valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terminova Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Nope. If everyone gets their own need rules, needing for credits is just as valid as needing for a companion or appearance. If we can't draw a line, neither can you. With this being the case, the "need" button is useless. So, my point is completely valid. Nope, you cherry-picked the quote out and misrepresented the entire post with it, therefore, your point isn't valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irusan Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 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... 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? You are staunchly defending the right to need for companions, yet you attempt to trivialize someone else's definition of need. In other words, you are contradicting yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florial Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) Most of the groups I've been in have been self regulating and these problems haven't popped up....YET. If there are any doubts, communication is key and a simple....can I roll for my companion could do the trick. If a blue/purple item drops for a tank in the group for example and they roll need, it is pretty apparant that they will be equipping it and using it for an upgrade. If another member in the group makes a need roll for their companion against another party member, I think that is pretty poor. Because we have so many companions, heck you could be rolling need for everything. Just ask and make it known up front. If we invite you to a group and you state that you will be needing everything, it will do us a favor to just not group up with you and save the agggravation. I'm curious how guilds feel about this. Say that you have a tank you are trying to gear up for harder content and someone's companion keeps getting the gear over the tank. "Hey Mr. Tank, Khem Val really needed those pants, better luck next time. We will eventually get ya geared up for HM flashpoints and operations." Or is the feeling that this is just a random group and your actions don't really matter since you probably won't group with them again. I shudder when cross server LFG tools are eventually introduced. I would hope that BW would have a better looting system in place by then. Edited February 23, 2012 by Florial Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galbatorrix Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Nope, you cherry-picked the quote out and misrepresented the entire post with it, therefore, your point isn't valid. "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." That's the quote. He's stating that there IS reason for a need button because people can click need when they feel that they have a "need" for an item. My point, for the third time, is that with that logic, EVERYONE CAN NEED EVERYTHING and it be just as legitimate as you needing for your companion. You can't stretch the consensus rule to fit your style of play and then say that people that need everything are "greedy", because to me, you're greedy because you need for companions over live people helping you out with the content. See how that works? Either you think it's perfectly fine for everyone to need everything (which again, eliminates having a NBG system) or your argument about people having the right to need anything that they perceive to be a need is completely flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vecke Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 IMHO, the solution on this entire thing would be - no matter what your personal opinion is - to follow two simple rules: 1. Make clear rules at the creation of the group. 2. If no rules are made at the creation of the group... and if - for some strange reason - you don't want to speak up about it yourself... assume the group will be rolling need on companions. This isn't a happy solution for people that disagree with rolling need for companions, but if everyone just followed those two rules, there is zero chance for miscommunications on how it should go, and with these two rules it's impossible for anyone to be "cheated" out of gear they thought they were going to get by rolling greed.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
universeman Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 People are already extending Need to include the companion whether you like it or not. Bioware is really the only entity that can determine what Need entails. Not you. Not me. Bioware. You might not like that people use Need for their companions, but if they want the gear for their companions and don't want to chance someone simply selling it as vendor trash, they have to roll Need. I honestly would rather someone use Need to snag a piece of gear for their companions than it simply get sold as vendor trash. Totally agreed. It's just the manner in which some people go about using that NEED button that causes problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
universeman Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 You aren't doing much beyond slights, insults and pointless spam. I haven't slighted nobody. It's amazing how you guys get so defensive over this discussion and now I'm throwing insults? Ya... Pointless spam is your opinion. If you don't care to try and understand my side of the situation, then that's your prerogative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irusan Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I haven't slighted nobody. It's amazing how you guys get so defensive over this discussion and now I'm throwing insults? Ya... Pointless spam is your opinion. If you don't care to try and understand my side of the situation, then that's your prerogative. Usually when backed into a corner on this thread the Gods of Ad Hominem are called upon quickly to smite us down. Hey! You just made a point that I have no argument for! I call Ad Hominen on you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Setanian Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Nope. If everyone gets their own need rules, needing for credits is just as valid as needing for a companion or appearance. If we can't draw a line, neither can you. With this being the case, the "need" button is useless. So, my point is completely valid. You can't draw a line. You don't get that ability. There is no feature list on the box containing a line that says you get to control other players. So, please, stop with the 'control' stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Setanian Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Most of the groups I've been in have been self regulating and these problems haven't popped up....YET. If there are any doubts, communication is key and a simple....can I roll for my companion could do the trick. If a blue/purple item drops for a tank in the group for example and they roll need, it is pretty apparant that they will be equipping it and using it for an upgrade. If another member in the group makes a need roll for their companion against another party member, I think that is pretty poor. Because we have so many companions, heck you could be rolling need for everything. Just ask and make it known up front. If we invite you to a group and you state that you will be needing everything, it will do us a favor to just not group up with you and save the agggravation. I'm curious how guilds feel about this. Say that you have a tank you are trying to gear up for harder content and someone's companion keeps getting the gear over the tank. "Hey Mr. Tank, Khem Val really needed those pants, better luck next time. We will eventually get ya geared up for HM flashpoints and operations." Or is the feeling that this is just a random group and your actions don't really matter since you probably won't group with them again. I shudder when cross server LFG tools are eventually introduced. I would hope that BW would have a better looting system in place by then. BW don't need a better looting system. What we need is for people to realize, loot is not their until they win it. How is it, we got by for years and years on Everquest, without ever having a button at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnhughthom Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) How is it, we got by for years and years on Everquest, without ever having a button at all? Surely that would mean you had no choice in the matter? This isn't Everquest, and it does have buttons, so Bioware must have intended them to be used in a certain way. Edited February 23, 2012 by johnhughthom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Setanian Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Surely that would mean you had no choice in the matter? This isn't Everquest, and it does have buttons, so Bioware must have intended them to be used in a certain way. We all rolled /random. Whomever got the highest, took the item. If the item was for a specific class, and that class was present, they made an offer to buy the item. Which more often than not was negotiated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Fritz- Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Usually when backed into a corner on this thread the Gods of Ad Hominem are called upon quickly to smite us down. Hey! You just made a point that I have no argument for! I call Ad Hominen on you! ad hominem actually has its place in logical discussion, but i believe you are only wanting to refer to one definition of ad hominem where a person discredits anothers arguements based on unrelated facts. the irony here is your post is little more than ad hominem in itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnhughthom Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 We all rolled /random. Whomever got the highest, took the item. If the item was for a specific class, and that class was present, they made an offer to buy the item. Which more often than not was negotiated. What exactly does that add to the point I made? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferroz Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) This argument is simple. You DO NOT roll need on gear for companions without asking first.Why? 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. THis is what the folks who are in ok with rolling for companions are saying. Allowing people to roll on whatever they decide that they need gives them a chance to get an upgrade. denying people the opportunity to roll on what they decide they need denies them 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. Or they may be taking one of 5 items that drop for an 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. Correct, but that's only because everyone is already entitled to roll on any item. 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.No, back then those pieces were often BiS for paladins; the plate pieces were generally pretty trashy. Same goes for shaman... quite a few of our better pieces were cloth, because the mail stuff was horribly itemized. Bracers, for example, were a great example: several tiers in a row the cloth bracers were significantly better than the mail ones... so much that it was worth wearing cloth bracers 2 tiers lower than the top tier mail ones. 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. So? it makes the difference between being able to do content and not; or between being able to enjoy doing it and the content being painful. This is the "that item is a bigger upgrade for me, so you shouldn't roll even though it's also an upgrade for you" argument 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. This statement makes 0 sense; an upgrade for a companion is a human player's upgrade. Seriously, make some sense... Edited February 23, 2012 by ferroz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irusan Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 ad hominem actually has its place in logical discussion, but i believe you are only wanting to refer to one definition of ad hominem where a person discredits anothers arguements based on unrelated facts. the irony here is your post is little more than ad hominem in itself. 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. Copied and pasted, but seems to go well here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts