People who ninja for their companions

[gentlepie]

Keep needing for your companion, it is perfectly fine.

 

If you tell your group ahead of time, that is. If you don't, you might ruffle a lot of feathers and get blacklisted by angry players. Play it safe and just communicate if you are needing for yourself AND companions.

[Grecanis]

Keep needing for your companion, it is perfectly fine.

 

That's actually up to you.

 

You can either be conciderate of the other three players in the group and wait to see if none of them need it on the character they are playing ..then ask ..or you can be inconciderate and just do it anyway.

[ExiledinElysium]

I'm sure it's a waste of time for me to even add a post to this massive thread, but I want to add my two creds.

 

I see a significant distinction between one's character and one's companion. Of course, that's just because I know I would be mad if someone clicked Need for their companion when I want the item for my character. I would support a loot option for companions, that ranks between greed and need. The only better solution would be to only allow a player to select Need for an item he can equip. The same limitation could be placed on the Companion option, were it to exist. Unfortunately, that solution would anger the people who disagree with the distinction between characters and companions.

 

I implore all people in this thread to realize that this isn't something you can fairly debate about. The two camps are going to butt heads simply because they disagree at the basest level. It saddens me that this topic has already gotten so much attention.

[ferroz]

That is not ad hominem at all unless you feel hurt by it

No, it was ad hominem; you were attacking the person.

 

either you deleted it or a mod came along and removed it.

 

You're selfish, deal with it

How am I selfish? I hit greed or pass on almost everything that drops. I roll need on the few items that I think I need.

 

Oh and i'm willing to bet something like this will happen. Better ninja all you can now

it's not possible to ninja in this game. Edited February 22, 2012 by ferroz

[Vecke]

Keep needing for your companion, it is perfectly fine.

 

Terrible advice to a new person, IMO. It's just asking them to step into potential drama that could easily be avoided.

 

Better advice is to always ask your group when you join. Then there is absolutely no confusion.

[ferroz]

I implore all people in this thread to realize that this isn't something you can fairly debate about.

Actually, there's some good debate here and there... you just have to get past the folks who think that assertions + insults = facts

[ExiledinElysium]

1) Would you support a restriction on "Need" whereby you can't click it unless you (or your companion, if you want) can equip the item?

 

2) Would you support an additional loot option specifically for companions, that ranks between Greed and Need?

 

3) Should I start a separate thread for this?

[Emeda]

If you tell your group ahead of time, that is. If you don't, you might ruffle a lot of feathers and get blacklisted by angry players. Play it safe and just communicate if you are needing for yourself AND companions.

 

They are fixing this by adding a LFG so a blacklist means nothing

[Vecke]

1) Would you support a restriction on "Need" whereby you can't click it unless you (or your companion, if you want) can equip the item?

 

2) Would you support an additional loot option specifically for companions, that ranks between Greed and Need?

 

3) Should I start a separate thread for this?

 

A dev posted with an inference (but not a guarantee) that they would work on something that made it so you can only roll need for your main character. He also suggested that a "companion" button might one day work its way into the game.

[ferroz]

1) Would you support a restriction on "Need" whereby you can't click it unless you (or your companion, if you want) can equip the item?

What about items that aren't equipable? Schematics, exotic crafting materials, mounts and pets, for example?

 

I don't think it's necessary, but I'm not particularly opposed to it.

 

2) Would you support an additional loot option specifically for companions, that ranks between Greed and Need?

I don't see why one person's wants are more important than someone else's, especially for gear that they are both going to use... so no.

 

3) Should I start a separate thread for this?

No, it's already part of both of the threads that are currently discussing it. It'd probably be closed in favor of one of the existing threads.

[ferroz]

Oh, I agree with you completely there. It's not justified to say it's a dirtbag thing to do. I thought you were asking why they think greed is the correct roll. The dirtbag attacking thing is just an over-reaction based on an assumption that one personal opinion is better than another personal opinion.

 

I'll fall back to the yoda defense on that one. There is no why.

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...

[universeman]

Guys...where does one draw the line with clicking the NEED button? If you believe clicking NEED for your companion is a reasonable thing to do, then you surely agree it is reasonable that everyone else does it. But, if that ideal became reality, the system would likely devolve into everyone clicking NEED on everything.

 

I don't know for sure, but I'd say there's a 100% chance it would lol

 

TOR is obviously different from previous games, in that companions are a part of who you are. But, that doesn't mean you should suddenly be rolling NEED on items just because a companion can wear them (if that were the case, see my comment above about devolution - is that a word? hah). BW has already made a statement that pretty much proves they didn't realize the impact their companion system would have on the way people utilize the NBG system.

 

Those who are NEEDing on whatever they want are (IMO) taking advantage of the oversight BW had in implementing the system as it is in other games that don't have companions.

 

I'm seeing that there really isn't an argument to be made. The system isn't working as intended and they plan to implement a change.

[Vecke]

Guys...where does one draw the line with clicking the NEED button? If you believe clicking NEED for your companion is a reasonable thing to do, then you surely agree it is reasonable that everyone else does it. But, if that ideal became reality, the system would likely devolve into everyone clicking NEED on everything.

 

I don't know for sure, but I'd say there's a 100% chance it would lol

 

TOR is obviously different from previous games, in that companions are a part of who you are. But, that doesn't mean you should suddenly be rolling NEED on items just because a companion can wear them (if that were the case, see my comment above about devolution - is that a word? hah). BW has already made a statement that pretty much proves they didn't realize the impact their companion system would have on the way people utilize the NBG system.

 

Those who are NEEDing on whatever they want are (IMO) taking advantage of the oversight BW had in implementing the system as it is in other games that don't have companions.

 

I'm seeing that there really isn't an argument to be made. The system isn't working as intended and they plan to implement a change.

 

Just my very humble opinion... loot was better before it started "evolving." I was fine with it in EQ. In EQ2, I liked it better before NBG was implemented.

 

I personally would prefer that nothing be bound and everything just be a random roll for the loot. If you won, you got it. No chance to ninja, if you won, it went to your inventory, fair and square. Then, if someone else in the group could use the item and you couldn't, they could just ask you for it (or offer to buy it).

 

I personally never had a problem with this and was rather disappointed when it changed. The NBG system just basically causes all kinds of strife, misunderstandings, occasional griefing, and lots of bickering about how it "should" be.

Edited February 22, 2012 by Vecke

[ferroz]

Guys...where does one draw the line with clicking the NEED button?

It dpeends on your personal definition of need.

 

If you believe clicking NEED for your companion is a reasonable thing to do, then you surely agree it is reasonable that everyone else does it.

Certainly

 

But, if that ideal became reality, the system would likely devolve into everyone clicking NEED on everything.

No, that's not true. I'd continue to only need on the things that I need on currently, so there's at least one person that wouldn't be clicking need on everything. I feel confident that several of the people in this thread would do the same.

 

If you would start clicking need on everything, then you really shouldn't be pointing fingers at people and calling them greedy...

[terminova]

My only counter argument here is that most people I've encountered don't need for companions. So, if there's is a consensus out there (with I'm sure could be debated endlessly as well) that says "only need for your PC", then needing for your companion without announcing your intent first kind of gives you an unfair advantage over people playing by the consensus. You'll end up needing for their class items while they're passing on yours out of courtesy.

 

I guess I have to repeat what I just said so you can actually understand.

 

 

I do not restrict what YOU are allowed to roll on. YOU are allowed to roll on anything YOU want in any group I am in. The only person restricting you is yourself.

 

 

I am not saying what I base my Need rolls on, I'm just saying I don't expect you to restrict your Need rolls to meet my expectations. What you do is fine as long as the dungeon is cleared.

 

 

Unless you have asked every single person you group with their opinion on the matter, and at least 50% of the players, there is no basis for claiming "a consensus exists". The forums account for such a low percentage of the playerbase they aren't even worth considering for a basis for a consensus.

Edited February 23, 2012 by terminova

[Vecke]

Guys...where does one draw the line with clicking the NEED button? If you believe clicking NEED for your companion is a reasonable thing to do, then you surely agree it is reasonable that everyone else does it. But, if that ideal became reality, the system would likely devolve into everyone clicking NEED on everything.

 

I don't know for sure, but I'd say there's a 100% chance it would lol

 

TOR is obviously different from previous games, in that companions are a part of who you are. But, that doesn't mean you should suddenly be rolling NEED on items just because a companion can wear them (if that were the case, see my comment above about devolution - is that a word? hah). BW has already made a statement that pretty much proves they didn't realize the impact their companion system would have on the way people utilize the NBG system.

 

Those who are NEEDing on whatever they want are (IMO) taking advantage of the oversight BW had in implementing the system as it is in other games that don't have companions.

 

I'm seeing that there really isn't an argument to be made. The system isn't working as intended and they plan to implement a change.

 

Also, with all due respect, there's really absolutely no reason to assume it would go to "need" for everything. It's pretty obvious it wouldn't. This type of argument is used constantly to stop progress out in the real world. Not saying that's what you're trying to do, just saying the assertion's really not accurate. I know it won't be true of me.

[Historybrat]

Guys...where does one draw the line with clicking the NEED button? If you believe clicking NEED for your companion is a reasonable thing to do, then you surely agree it is reasonable that everyone else does it. But, if that ideal became reality, the system would likely devolve into everyone clicking NEED on everything.

 

I don't know for sure, but I'd say there's a 100% chance it would lol

 

TOR is obviously different from previous games, in that companions are a part of who you are. But, that doesn't mean you should suddenly be rolling NEED on items just because a companion can wear them (if that were the case, see my comment above about devolution - is that a word? hah). BW has already made a statement that pretty much proves they didn't realize the impact their companion system would have on the way people utilize the NBG system.

 

Those who are NEEDing on whatever they want are (IMO) taking advantage of the oversight BW had in implementing the system as it is in other games that don't have companions.

 

I'm seeing that there really isn't an argument to be made. The system isn't working as intended and they plan to implement a change.

 

While I respect your opinion, I have to disagree. Personally I don't care if someone needs on an item for their companion. Unless there is a discussion about the loot rules before hand, why not? I've had people role need for their companion and win something that I could have used. Was I bummed? Sure but its a game and I got over it really quickly. for most people, myself included, companions are an integral part of the game. They are not a pet or vanity item and we need to keep them equipped. System is working completely as intended. Players are the issue here.

 

The only solutions I see for both sides of this debate are:

1. Discuss loot rules before you go killing things. I don't know what the policy of BW is, but most games will discipline those that go against the stated group rules as long as the rules are clear. Even if BW doesn't at least you would know what you are getting in for. If you don't like someone needing on an item for a companion you could quit group.

 

2. Get rid of the need v. greed all together and just have some type of random giveout of gear. Everyone has an equal chance of getting it regardless of what they can or cannot equip.

 

 

Really though, everyone should just discuss with their group the loot rules. It makes life easier and stops all of these silly accusations of ninjas. And yes I said silly, people are over using the word and using it in the wrong context.

[ferroz]

The NBG system just basically causes all kinds of strife, misunderstandings, occasional griefing, and lots of bickering about how it "should" be.

I agree.

 

Personally, I think that it works fairly well in a small closed system (guilds, close friends, that sort of thing) but outside of that, it causes problems.

[ExiledinElysium]

Just my very humble opinion... loot was better before it started "evolving." I was fine with it in EQ. In EQ2, I liked it better before NBG was implemented.

 

I personally would prefer that nothing be bound and everything just be a random roll for the loot. If you won, you got it. No chance to ninja, if you won, it went to your inventory, fair and square. Then, if someone else in the group could use the item and you couldn't, they could just ask you for it (or offer to buy it).

 

I personally never had a problem with this and was rather disappointed when it changed. The NBG system just basically causes all kinds of strife, misunderstandings, occasional griefing, and lots of bickering about how it "should" be.

 

It would be foolish of me to really argue about whether "bound" is a good mechanic--I think the reasons for it are obvious and irrefutable. Still, your ideal system paints a pretty picture, and we should go back and think about it for at least a second.

 

I recently had a problem in a flashpoint where someone rolled Need on an item only I could use, because they thought they could use it. Honest mistake. He even tried to give it to me afterward, but couldn't because it was bound. It gave me an idea.

 

What if loot in flashpoints were to only become bound when you leave the instance?

 

I'm pretty sure all the highly sought-after loot drops inside instances (please correct me if I'm wrong), so wouldn't that alleviate at least some of the problems?

[ferroz]

2. Get rid of the need v. greed all together and just have some type of random giveout of gear. Everyone has an equal chance of getting it regardless of what they can or cannot equip.

personally, I think this is the only real way to clear up loot drama...

 

but the idea of going in and winning loot is pretty ingrained in the mmo culture; it may be detrimental to the game to try and remove it.

[ferroz]

It would be foolish of me to really argue about whether "bound" is a good mechanic--I think the reasons for it are obvious and irrefutable. Still, your ideal system paints a pretty picture, and we should go back and think about it for at least a second.

fwiw, I agree that bound items are a terrible mechanic.

 

It's just a lazy way for the developers to get you on the hamster wheel.

 

Personally, I loved the idea in EQ that I could buy a gnome mask (one of the rarest items in the game, since it was from sleepers tomb and stopped dropping once the sleeper was awakened) if I could just find someone willing to sell it.

[Deathstrike]

This thread is yet another reason I prefer to solo. You simply cannot control other people, and it's just going to end badly if you try. No amount of whining will change that.

[Vecke]

It would be foolish of me to really argue about whether "bound" is a good mechanic--I think the reasons for it are obvious and irrefutable. Still, your ideal system paints a pretty picture, and we should go back and think about it for at least a second.

 

I recently had a problem in a flashpoint where someone rolled Need on an item only I could use, because they thought they could use it. Honest mistake. He even tried to give it to me afterward, but couldn't because it was bound. It gave me an idea.

 

What if loot in flashpoints were to only become bound when you leave the instance?

 

I'm pretty sure all the highly sought-after loot drops inside instances (please correct me if I'm wrong), so wouldn't that alleviate at least some of the problems?

 

Firstly, I agree the reasons for binding are obvious, but I think they're far from irrefutable. I can admit it helps in some pretty obvious ways, but overall, I think Binding has done more harm than good to MMOs. There are sacrifices people never think about in regards to these mechanics. I LOVED it before binding became the MMO norm.

 

But you're right, that's a different debate.

 

That said, In EQ2, when you win an item, you have a set amount of time to give it away before it's permanently bound to you. I think that's a decent compromise, although I preferred it when it didn't exist.

Edited February 23, 2012 by Vecke

[universeman]

I guess I have to repeat what I just said so you can actually understand.

 

I do not restrict what YOU are allowed to roll on. YOU are allowed to roll on anything YOU want in any group I am in. The only person restricting you is yourself

 

So, you'll be happy to group with 3 other players who roll NEED on every item that pops up? That's basically what you just said. Then why not just make it a NEED/PASS system

Edited February 23, 2012 by universeman

[terminova]

So, you'll be happy to group with 3 other players who roll NEED on every item that pops up? That's basically what you just said. Then why not just make it a NEED/PASS system

 

Then I adjust how I play to fit their expectations. I give them the freedom to roll on everything. If they decide to do so, then they are telling me that I have to do so as well if I want a shot at getting any loot.

 

The problem you think exists doesn't exist in the scenario you just described.