People who ninja for their companions

[Irusan]

I wish they would just rename the buttons to "want to use this in some way" and "want to sell this for profit". That would settle the debate

 

Well...what about the player insisting he is going to sell the item but use the creds for new enhancements, so he is indeed using the item in some way? How I wish there was an end to this debate in one logical solution. Where everything breaks down is the "Use in some way". Some ways are accepted, some are not.

[johnhughthom]

There is a problem with that chart in your sig

 

In the first step, you announce you refuse to discuss if the other person cannot envision changing their mind. But what about yours?

 

Lets assume that you are wrong, and the other person is right, and knows beyond all doubt that he is right. Following the flowchart, you will never give him a chance to change your mind, because you will refuse to even discuss the matter. That's a very dogmatic approach

 

Sorry for the offtopic, but couldn't resist

 

Plus the very fact that the entire flowchart has decided the rules of discussion without consulting the other party surely means it would fail it's own test.

[Vecke]

I can only go by my experience in the game so far, which is my first mmo. In pretty much every group I've been in people have only needed for items their class can use. I have only had somebody need for an item not suited to their class once, and even that was a one off in a group I did three or four quests with.

 

With that experience behind me, I naturally assumed that only needing for items your character can use is the norm, and I don't really see the need to specify rules before grouping, especially considering the point I made earlier.

 

You may be right. It may actually be a widely accepted norm in the in-game community. But we're all - every single one of us - basing these opinions on our own anecdotal experience. It's not unreasonable that someone who, say, has only grouped with a guild or group that allows rolling need for companions would have different anecdotal experience.

 

If that person rolls need based on their experiences, I don't think it's appropriate to get angry at that person for doing exactly what you did - made an assumption based on your experience. Just because your experience is larger in scope doesn't make the other player a bad person for assuming the same thing (rolling based on his experience).

 

Which leads me back to my assertion that if you don't - for whatever reason - speak up at the formation of the group, you should be prepared for people to roll in ways you don't agree with. This is true of you and the other player, by the way.

 

Just my opinion.

Edited February 23, 2012 by Vecke

[Sharee]

Actually, it's more like:

 

1) Gimme a chance

2) Let the other players decide if I have a chance

3) Don't want

 

Renaming the buttons to "will use" and "will sell" eliminates the ambiguous definition of "need" from the process. Need is subjective. Putting an item on the AH/GTN is not - either you do, or you don't.

 

It would eliminate the whole "You don't need it!" - "Yes i do!" - "No you don't, because XYZ" etc. debate.

[Meldwyn]

/thread merger!

 

Why hasn't this thread been shut down and merged with the other two or more on this same subject?

 

Happens all the time to subjects that deal with issues in the game!!!!!

Edited February 23, 2012 by Meldwyn

[ferroz]

So his sense of entitlement is valid and important. The other parties is not. Seems kinda contradictory to me.

He feels that everyone is entitled to roll on items and that noone is entitled to claim items without a roll.

 

Under that stance, it's not contradictory at all to tell someone "no, you don't have the right to claim items without a roll even if you think you're entitled to it.

 

The term your looking for is "disagree" He disagrees about what entitlement is valid. His statement contradicts the other statement... That's not the same thing as being a contradictory statement (which means a statement that contradicts itself)...

Edited February 23, 2012 by ferroz

[Magnijung]

I can only go by my experience in the game so far, which is my first mmo. In pretty much every group I've been in people have only needed for items their class can use. I have only had somebody need for an item not suited to their class once, and even that was a one off in a group I did three or four quests with.

 

With that experience behind me, I naturally assumed that only needing for items your character can use is the norm, and I don't really see the need to specify rules before grouping, especially considering the point I made earlier.

 

This.

 

Over the years this is the behavior that I have encountered in MMOs. Personally I have no reason to assume that anyone in the group is of mind set that it is okay to roll blindy on companion gear when someone needs to it for their class.

 

Off spec rolling in other games and rolling on gear for companions is more like an anomaly thus it is treated as one.

 

Let me put it in real world perspective. Holding doors. No where does it say that I have to hold a door for anyone. No where does it say that I cannot slam the door the shot when someone is approaching it. But at the end of the day, it is common courtesy to hold the door open and if you slam the door, you will be ostracized. This is so because majority of humans accept this.

 

Same goes for how loot is determined. Everyone who plays know that rolling Need means that you desire that piece of gear to use. Then there are restrictions implemented by the community since if they are not implemented, this system would break apart. Currently it is not as much of an issue when sometimes someone rolls on need on an off chance. Or when the Need roll happens players in the group do not care. But what if it has been social acceptable in MMOs to roll Need on every piece of gear? I know 1 thing, nothing good would come out of it.

[Malpracticex]

I agree, greedy people try to force other into rolling how they want so they can get more loot.

 

 

I thought you unsubscribed and threw the game in the garbage?

[Galbatorrix]

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.

 

 

 

That's the whole point. If we can't draw a line, neither can you. If there is no line, you have everyone needing for everything. Hence a NBG system basically becomes Roll.

[Vecke]

/thread merger!

 

Why hasn't this thread been shut down and merged with the other two or more on this same subject?

 

This is actually the same thread as one of the others. The mods had to create a new one when we hit the 100 page mark.

[ferroz]

Greedy people do greedy things.

Certainly; it's a tautological statement. But that doesn't really have anything to do with the topic at hand.

 

Remember: the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club.

[Saurakk]

/thread merger!

 

Why hasn't this thread been shut down and merged with the other two or more on this same subject?

 

Happens all the time to subjects that deal with issues in the game!!!!!

 

Go back and read page one.

[Irusan]

I thought you unsubscribed and threw the game in the garbage?

 

I also read that post, though good luck finding it now.

 

I think next time I pass some guys playing a game, I'll jump in and tell them they need to play by my rules even though I hate the game they are playing, and hate everyone involved in playing it.

[Setanian]

This.

 

Over the years this is the behavior that I have encountered in MMOs. Personally I have no reason to assume that anyone in the group is of mind set that it is okay to roll blindy on companion gear when someone needs to it for their class.

 

Off spec rolling in other games and rolling on gear for companions is more like an anomaly thus it is treated as one.

 

Let me put it in real world perspective. Holding doors. No where does it say that I have to hold a door for anyone. No where does it say that I cannot slam the door the shot when someone is approaching it. But at the end of the day, it is common courtesy to hold the door open and if you slam the door, you will be ostracized. This is so because majority of humans accept this.

 

Same goes for how loot is determined. Everyone who plays know that rolling Need means that you desire that piece of gear to use. Then there are restrictions implemented by the community since if they are not implemented, this system would break apart. Currently it is not as much of an issue when sometimes someone rolls on need on an off chance. Or when the Need roll happens players in the group do not care. But what if it has been social acceptable in MMOs to roll Need on every piece of gear? I know 1 thing, nothing good would come out of it.

 

That's a fair post, but you are forgetting that BW brought companions (which are an integral part to the player character) to the table. WHich, turns previously accepted norms on their head.

 

Really we have 2 choices to keep the norm online;

 

1. Need includes companions

2. Need does not include companions

 

Personally, I don't think 2 will win out, because there are just too many people who have taken the whole my companion is my companion to the degree in which it was envisaged.

 

If 1 was the accepted norm, and it is just as fair, there would be no debate. Except of course from those who do not attribute much to the companion is my companion thing.

[ferroz]

Renaming the buttons to "will use" and "will sell" eliminates the ambiguous definition of "need" from the process. Need is subjective. Putting an item on the AH/GTN is not - either you do, or you don't.

 

It would eliminate the whole "You don't need it!" - "Yes i do!" - "No you don't, because XYZ" etc. debate.

indeed... the word need causes all kinds of problems. you can even see it in the forums where someone posts "We need X" ... people will get so caught up in the term need that the rest of the discussion falls on deaf ears.

[universeman]

a) Is rolling need when you intend to put the item on a companion valid?

A: Yes it is. You have a valid need for that item, and you are entitled to roll how you wish.

 

b) Does the Healer have a right before rolling to the healer loot?

A: No they do not. They have no right to the gear until they win it.

 

c) If in b above, you 'need'ed for you companion, are you a ninja.

A: No you are not. You have a valid roll and a valid need.

 

d) Is waiting until the others have rolled, and then roll need to guarantee the item valid.

A: Valid yes, but morally wrong.

 

e) Is the person 'pass'ing on items fairer than the person rolling 'need'

A: No. Each have a fair choice, each makes it themselves.

 

f) Is NBG fairer than everyone 'need'ing.

A: Absolutely not. It just ensures that one class will get loot.

 

So, it really is just sounding like the system isn't doing anything for you. Removing it completely and making it 100% random would do the exact same thing you've described above (and eliminate the possibility of someone using it for immoral reasons).

 

That would be fine, but we are discussing the system as it is right now and what it's there for. And I don't believe it's there to be a fancied up randomizer.

 

I agree, greedy people try to force other into rolling how they want so they can get more loot.

 

The thing is, the only people who are not getting "more" loot are the ones who are using NEED with some consideration of others. This is the difference. And quite frankly, this is why I believe the system is there. Otherwise, we go to randomness, which fits your Q&A just perfectly.

[Sharee]

 

Over the years this is the behavior that I have encountered in MMOs. Personally I have no reason to assume that anyone in the group is of mind set that it is okay to roll blindy on companion gear when someone needs to it for their class.

 

The problem is that over the years, none of the games you played had something like companions.

 

You say "roll blindy on companion gear when someone needs to it for their class" as if those were two different things. They are not. The companion IS the class. Companion abilities are a subset of player abilities he can swap on the fly. The "companion" is just pretty graphics that go with those abilities.

Edited February 23, 2012 by Sharee

[Setanian]

That's the whole point. If we can't draw a line, neither can you. If there is no line, you have everyone needing for everything. Hence a NBG system basically becomes Roll.

 

Which works a whole lot better anyway.

[Laokoon]

There is a problem with that chart in your sig

 

In the first step, you announce you refuse to discuss if the other person cannot envision changing their mind. But what about yours?

 

Lets assume that you are wrong, and the other person is right, and knows beyond all doubt that he is right. Following the flowchart, you will never give him a chance to change your mind, because you will refuse to even discuss the matter. That's a very dogmatic approach to what should be a rational discussion

 

Sorry for the offtopic, but couldn't resist

 

That is a good point, however I would point out that (in my opinion) you are not having a discussion if your conversation involves one or more view points that are unchangeable. I would be fine calling it something else (an explanation?), but I would say that inherently in a discussion, there is a possibility of shifting the view point of your discussion partner.

 

To make this post somewhat on topic, here are my OPINIONS on the current system and what changes would help. Firstly, a quick fix, would be adding a "need for companion/alt" button between Need and Greed. Someone else made a comment that suggests devs are working on this. That small button would solve a lot of this issue. It would make it clear that if you need it, it is needing it for yourself. If you greed it, it is because you just want money from it. If you "need for companion/alt" then it is for a companion or an alt. In one move, this would make Bioware's motives clear (assuming this comports with Biowares vision) and would end the argument of when you're "supposed" to need an item. Then, the biggest issue would be when people need on items that they should have companion/alt needed or greeded. Those people would be best handled by the community by people learning how these players act and people who don't like it won't play with them again.

 

Note that Bioware does do some loot allocation, in normal mode Ops. This SUGGESTS that there are certain pieces that are SUPPOSED to go certain classes (not the companions). If the idea was to gear up your companions, you assigned loot should occasionally include loot you cannot use do to your armor/weapon restrictions, and this has never happened to me or anyone I have heard of.

 

I love the loot bags that Diablo 3 are supposedly doing. Honestly, I would prefer that (and the similar beta loot mode for TOR that was discussed and ditched) to the current system. Then just make the items not BOP, and give each person a personal loot bag, with the chance of your class items to drop having a higher chance than non-class items. Then nobody can "take your loot" since everyone gets their own personal chance at loot. That would be the end of ninja looting forever (in my opinion).

[ferroz]

This is actually the same thread as one of the others. The mods had to create a new one when we hit the 100 page mark.

it's also the same as "Don't roll "Need" for companions"

 

This one just has a more inflammatory title; the story in the OP is even taken from one of the other threads, but a different class was substituted (inquisitor instead of marauder).

[fainthftk]

I need what i need for me or my companions, at least the one im outfitting ATM.

 

Charname is Fainth if any of your guys want to put me on a ****list be welcome, saves me time to sort out the gearfreaks/loottalkers/discussionwhores.

 

If i do FPs for outfitting my toons(and the comps directly belonging to them) its my time wasted as anyone elses when i cant roll need on the stuff i am doing the run for in the first place.

[Galbatorrix]

That's a fair post, but you are forgetting that BW brought companions (which are an integral part to the player character) to the table. WHich, turns previously accepted norms on their head.

 

Really we have 2 choices to keep the norm online;

 

1. Need includes companions

2. Need does not include companions

 

Personally, I don't think 2 will win out, because there are just too many people who have taken the whole my companion is my companion to the degree in which it was envisaged.

 

If 1 was the accepted norm, and it is just as fair, there would be no debate. Except of course from those who do not attribute much to the companion is my companion thing.

 

 

A Companion is no different than needing for offspec in WOW. Most healers don't play as a heal spec while soloing. They dual spec into heals for dungeons and DPS for soloing. Companions are really no different. There's nothing new here. And needing for offspec in that game gets you booted from groups more often than not.

 

 

Also, when Bioware makes the changes that the lead designer proposed, # 1 won't even exist in the game.

Edited February 23, 2012 by Galbatorrix

[Setanian]

So, it really is just sounding like the system isn't doing anything for you. Removing it completely and making it 100% random would do the exact same thing you've described above (and eliminate the possibility of someone using it for immoral reasons).

 

That would be fine, but we are discussing the system as it is right now and what it's there for. And I don't believe it's there to be a fancied up randomizer.

 

 

 

The thing is, the only people who are not getting "more" loot are the ones who are using NEED with some consideration of others. This is the difference. And quite frankly, this is why I believe the system is there. Otherwise, we go to randomness, which fits your Q&A just perfectly.

 

If you were using the system with consideration of others, then you are forgoing your chance at the loot. You are also stating, I don't want this loot, someone with a better need than me can have it.

 

That's fine. But you cannot after doing that start to describe to players what your idea of 'better need than I" is and get all thick and start kicking them from the group.

 

If you want to play that way, tell them at the start. "If I don't need something and pass, you can roll need, if you pass this list of criteria. A... b... c... d... "

[EngineBLB]

Read the weekly Q&A updates from BW. last week they said that come 1.2 or 1.3 then you will only see the Need option if the gear matches your class, therefore you will not have the option to do grab it for your companion unless you require the same statistics.

[Laokoon]

b) Does the Healer have a right before rolling to the healer loot?

A: No they do not. They have no right to the gear until they win it.

 

c) If in b above, you 'need'ed for you companion, are you a ninja.

A: No you are not. You have a valid roll and a valid need.

 

As a healer, my response to this would be "okay, than I guess it should be fine for me to let you die in the battle, finish the boss with the rest of the group, and while you are rezzing, loot the boss so you don't get a chance at the loot." That seems just as "fair" to me as the tank needing on a piece of healer gear that upgrades me simply because it would help his companion. I was more instrumental to beating that boss than his companion that was not part of the fight, thus I "deserve" the item more than his companion "deserves" the item. Just as I deserve a piece of loot from a flashpoint more than any person who did not run that flashpoint with us.

 

All's fair in love and war? Seems to be your stance, I disagree.