DorkTrooper Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 First point Nothing in this game "belongs" to you Second point You do not make rules in this game for anyone but yourself got it yet??? There is no "ninja", why?? See point one Do not like the fact someone rolled need against you??? See point One, then see point two BW owns the game, and they say this: We will probably limit the 'need' button to only people who match the primary class the gear is meant for, and add a new button in between need and greed for players to choose if they intend the gear for these purposes - this will allow CC users to roll against each other without competing with the guy who wants to sell the gear for credits. Not in the next patch, but sometime thereafter. (from Dev's Blog) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jontyld Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 How is that argument (albeit grossly misrepresented) any different from those who believe that gear should not go to companions? Its the same stinkin' argument: I want the loot for X and I want the loot for Y. It wasn't an argument, it was just how I feel and act on the situation, because I don't care if people need for companions in their own groups. I don't think its inherently wrong, but I think its wrong to do it if your group disagrees. If I joined a group of 3 and they said they intended to need for companions, I'd either go with it, or I'd say no thanks. its not a right or wrong thing, its just a thing. How the people involved view it make it 'right' or 'wrong'. I don't like it, I think it makes groups where this occurs a poor use of my time compared to equally available groups where it doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vecke Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I do not understand this part. Why is it your goal to show validity? Shouldn't validity stand on the grounds of the poster's logic and argument? Okay. Apparently, I'm still doing a terrible job of explaining myself. People are posting: "Anyone who rolls need for a companion is a dbag, dirtbag, jerk of human that has no idea what common decency is, and if I could, I would punch them in the face." Those are the people I'm debating now. And my argument against them is, "Look, rolling need for a companion does not automatically mean someone is a bad person. They have plenty of valid reasons to believe what they believe. I'm not saying their reasons are any more right than yours, but they do have a legitimate perspective... certainly enough to invalidate your blanket statement that they're all greedy jerks that deserve a punch in the nose." I'm not arguing that they are right. I'm arguing against blanket statements about their character. They are giving actual reasons why they feel how they feel, and those reasons - whether I agree or not - have absolutely nothing to do with whether they are greedy, jerks, or deserve a punch in the nose. Some of them probably are jerks. Some of them clearly are not jerks. Just like the other side of the debate. But the act of rolling need does NOT evidence - in any way, shape, or form - the kind of person they are. It only evidences their opinion (whether right or wrong) on this one issue. Honestly, if that doesn't make my position clear, then I don't have a well enough grasp of my only language, because that's as clear as I can explain it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnijung Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Okay. Apparently, I'm still doing a terrible job of explaining myself. People are posting: "Anyone who rolls need for a companion is a dbag, dirtbag, jerk of human that has no idea what common decency is, and if I could, I would punch them in the face." Those are the people I'm debating now. And my argument against them is, "Look, rolling need for a companion does not automatically mean someone is a bad person. They have plenty of valid reasons to believe what they believe. I'm not saying their reasons are any more right than yours, but they do have a legitimate perspective... certainly enough to invalidate your blanket statement that they're all greedy jerks that deserve a punch in the nose." I'm not arguing that they are right. I'm arguing against blanket statements about their character. They are giving actual reasons why they feel how they feel, and those reasons - whether I agree or not - have absolutely nothing to do with whether they are greedy, jerks, or deserve a punch in the nose. Some of them probably are jerks. Some of them clearly are not jerks. Just like the other side of the debate. But the act of rolling need does NOT evidence - in any way, shape, or form - the kind of person they are. It only evidences their opinion (whether right or wrong) on this one issue. Honestly, if that doesn't make my position clear, then I don't have a well enough grasp of my only language, because that's as clear as I can explain it. So basically you are arguing with trolls who make inflammatory statements and do not provide logic nor valid arguments to support their claim. Are you even aware what the thread is about??? Yeah. Rolling needs on gear for NPC that is usable by main character in a group environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
souloferdrick Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 It wasn't an argument, it was just how I feel and act on the situation, because I don't care if people need for companions in their own groups. I don't think its inherently wrong, but I think its wrong to do it if your group disagrees. If I joined a group of 3 and they said they intended to need for companions, I'd either go with it, or I'd say no thanks. its not a right or wrong thing, its just a thing. How the people involved view it make it 'right' or 'wrong'. I don't like it, I think it makes groups where this occurs a poor use of my time compared to equally available groups where it doesn't. Fair enough, and I would agree, its not an either/or proposition. With regard to your issue though, thats why many people have advocated being clear and upfront about how loot is going to be distributed before a dive gets underway. That being said, you can dislike it, find it rude or what have you but there is really nothing separating you from everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
universeman Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Oh no, it's not an opinion that allowing people to roll for companions is more fair than preventing it... that's a fact. How is this fact? I thought the companion system brought about more unequality to the loot system in regards to who should be allowed to roll on what (assuming we're all rolling NEED for our companions). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jontyld Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Okay. Apparently, I'm still doing a terrible job of explaining myself. People are posting: "Anyone who rolls need for a companion is a dbag, dirtbag, jerk of human that has no idea what common decency is, and if I could, I would punch them in the face." Those are the people I'm debating now. And my argument against them is, "Look, rolling need for a companion does not automatically mean someone is a bad person. They have plenty of valid reasons to believe what they believe. I'm not saying their reasons are any more right than yours, but they do have a legitimate perspective... certainly enough to invalidate your blanket statement that they're all greedy jerks that deserve a punch in the nose." I'm not arguing that they are right. I'm arguing against blanket statements about their character. They are giving actual reasons why they feel how they feel, and those reasons - whether I agree or not - have absolutely nothing to do with whether they are greedy, jerks, or deserve a punch in the nose. Some of them probably are jerks. Some of them clearly are not jerks. Just like the other side of the debate. But the act of rolling need does NOT evidence - in any way, shape, or form - the kind of person they are. It only evidences their opinion (whether right or wrong) on this one issue. Honestly, if that doesn't make my position clear, then I don't have a well enough grasp of my only language, because that's as clear as I can explain it. I'd give up, you're trying to teach people on the internet to behave like they're not on the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jontyld Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Fair enough, and I would agree, its not an either/or proposition. With regard to your issue though, thats why many people have advocated being clear and upfront about how loot is going to be distributed before a dive gets underway. That being said, you can dislike it, find it rude or what have you but there is really nothing separating you from everyone else. I don't really get what you're saying. I don't understand how i was trying to separate from everyone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vecke Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 So basically you are arguing with trolls who make inflammatory statements and do not provide logic nor valid arguments to support their claim. . No. See, that's my point. They are not trolls. They really believe it. I see people in this thread that are normally completely respectful in other threads that are just spewing hate-fill insults and making blanket statements about the character of anybody that thinks rolling need for a companion is okay. I'm arguing that this simply isn't true. I see plenty of people with perfectly valid points as to why they think it's okay, and most of them - as a matter of fact -have stated they personally do not roll need in pugs, but they don't have a problem with folks that do. My entire point is that they are not trolls. It's that it seems to be okay - in this one issue - to act like someone with a different (but valid) perspective is just a terrible person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laokoon Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) your point is that you should be irrational even though the people who need on companions are being completely rational? They haven't called it irrational; can you go into any detail why you think that's so? Clearly it's not unfair; if they believe that they're just unclear on what the word "fair" means. No, just irrational. You're talking about intentionally griefing someone strictly because you don't like them by doing something that you acknolowedge is "rude and inconsiderate" That's pretty irrational. Oh no, it's not an opinion that allowing people to roll for companions is more fair than preventing it... that's a fact. We agree that your griefing example is rude and inconsiderate. We don't agree that rolling need for reasons that player X doesn't approve of is rude and inconsiderate. I'm glad we agree. How is the tank not being a team player? He's tanking the mobs, not hitting vanish and laughing as they slaughter the group, etc. The fact that he wants the same items as you doesn't make him "not a team player" No, that's a contradictory set of statements. If you use cunning, and my primary companion (who's my healer) also uses cunning, we both benefit from a certain piece. No, I think that whoever wins the item should get it. I may not even roll on it, depending on what it looks like. Subjective standards of fairness clearly aren't as fair as objective standards of fairness. That seems almost tautological I'm pretty sure that the everyone in that context = "all of the players who participated in the fight" ... that's the stance that he's taken the whole time. I was just paraphrasing, and figured that was well known at this point in the thread. Based on that, I'd say that your example (Mr sideline) doesn't meet his criteria of "everyone" but the guy who rolling need on gear for his companion does. Beyond that: I personally don't have any problem with mr sideline. I did content in EQ where someone was required to stand off to the side to not draw additional aggro (plane of sky I think, for the warrior epic); he had to stand on the sideline to not chain aggro more stuff. It was easier for us to down it and then let him loot the item he needed after we won. I'd say that either way, it's kind of a moot point, since you're unlikely to find people who will do 16 man raid content who don't load up extra loot rules and go over them in detail when the group starts. At this point I honestly can't tell it you are misreading my statements by accident (because to me it is clear from your response that what you think I mean is not what I actually mean) or if you are misreading my statements on purpose to continue having a discussion. My point is that the "fairness" and "rationality" of needing on something (however you fall on the issue) is totally subjective. I think I misspoke (mistyped?) slightly in my statement regarding objective fairness, because my statement doesn't take into account that the concept of "fairness" is a subjective concept. One person can say it is fair that they get a lot of money because they worked hard. Another person can say it is fair that they get a lot of money if they get it by random chance. They are using different definitions of fair, and it is very difficult to argue that they are wrong unless: 1) you can establish a standard for fairness or 2) their view of fairness is not consistent with their other beliefs. The above stuff is merely my attempt (and I must say, certainly not complete since it would otherwise be MUCH longer) to describe my understanding of the concept of "fairness". Fairness seems to be a matter of opinion based on world view, other beliefs, upbringing, experiences, ect. You think it is fair for Mr. Sideline to get loot without doing work, I think that only people doing work in a raid should get loot: we have different definitions of fair. The point of my example of the person with the viewpoint we both disagree with is that his opinion is just that: an opinion. Your opinion of it being okay for you to need on items for your companion is just that: an opinion. My opinion that it is not okay to need on items for a companion is just that: an opinion. My opinion is not more "right" than yours, yours is not more "right" than mine, neither of ours is more "right" than the hypothetical persons (despite our agreed distaste for their opinion). Opinions are only "right" when they are facts (I.E. - I am of the opinion that the sky appears blue to me). In this case, we are talking about opinions as to a matter of "fairness", and since fairness is subjective, we can't definitely say that one opinion is more right than another unless we have a unified agreement on the definition of fairness. I am not about to get into a discussion with you trying to determine the precise meaning of "fair" because that is something that has been debated by philosophers for centuries and there is no consensus. However, what we can take away from the realization that the stance on this issue is a subjective matter is that to make people happy (and avoid problems) we need to simply have a quick group consensus on loot rules before adventuring as a group. You may already agree with that, and I hope you do. If you do, then I think the only thing that we could go on to discuss (as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread) is what should the "default assumed" rule for looting be when grouping. Perhaps it is naive to have a "default assumed" rule, but it would make grouping go faster to not have to have a loot discussion before hand. If you would like to have that discussion, I would be happy to. We may not be able to get very far in it, based on differing opinions, but I think it could prove interesting. Edited February 23, 2012 by Laokoon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PostalTwinkie Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Wow, this thing is still going? I think it is safe to say that the group of people here aren't going to come to a solid agreement. So... Do what you feel you need to do! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferroz Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 How is this fact? I thought the companion system brought about more unequality to the loot system in regards to who should be allowed to roll on what (assuming we're all rolling NEED for our companions).it removes a bias from the system, which makes it objectively more fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferroz Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 After 350 plus pages now, BW has enough fodder here to understand that nothing should be done with the current implementation of the roll system.it's probably closer to 2000 pages, if you count the other threads that are basically the same topic ("Don't roll need for your companion" and "no you may not roll need to strip the mods out of my loot" ,etc). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferroz Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 No. See, that's my point. They are not trolls. They really believe it. I see people in this thread that are normally completely respectful in other threads that are just spewing hate-fill insults and making blanket statements about the character of anybody that thinks rolling need for a companion is okay. Some of them believe it... probably some of them are trolling though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vecke Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 At this point I honestly can't tell it you are misreading my statements by accident (because to me it is clear from your response that what you think I mean is not what I actually mean) or if you are misreading my statements on purpose to continue having a discussion. My point is that the "fairness" and "rationality" of needing on something (however you fall on the issue) is totally subjective. I think I misspoke (mistyped?) slightly in my statement regarding objective fairness, because my statement doesn't take into account that the concept of "fairness" is a subjective concept. One person can say it is fair that they get a lot of money because they worked hard. Another person can say it is fair that they get a lot of money if they get it by random chance. They are using different definitions of fair, and it is very difficult to argue that they are wrong unless: 1) you can establish a standard for fairness or 2) their view of fairness is not consistent with their other beliefs. The above stuff is merely my attempt (and I must say, certainly not complete since it would otherwise be MUCH longer) to describe my understanding of the concept of "fairness". Fairness seems to be a matter of opinion based on world view, other beliefs, upbringing, experiences, ect. You think it is fair for Mr. Sideline to get loot without doing work, I think that only people doing work in a raid should get loot: we have different definitions of fair. The point of my example of the person with the viewpoint we both disagree with is that his opinion is just that: an opinion. Your opinion of it being okay for you to need on items for your companion is just that: an opinion. My opinion that it is not okay to need on items for a companion is just that: an opinion. My opinion is not more "right" than yours, yours is not more "right" than mine, neither of ours is more "right" than the hypothetical persons (despite our agreed distaste for their opinion). Opinions are only "right" when they are facts (I.E. - I am of the opinion that the sky appears blue to me). In this case, we are talking about opinions as to a matter of "fairness", and since fairness is subjective, we can't definitely say that one opinion is more right than another unless we have a unified agreed upon definition of fairness. I am not about to get into a discussion with you trying to determine the precise meaning of "fair" because that is something that has been debated by philosophers for centuries and there is no consensus. However, what we can take away from the realization that the stance on this issue is a subjective matter is that to make people happy (and avoid problems) we need to simply have a quick group consensus on loot rules before adventuring as a group. You may already agree with that, and I hope you do. If you do, then I think the only thing that we could go on to discuss (as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread) is what should the "default assumed" rule for looting be when grouping. Perhaps it is naive to have a "default assumed" rule, but it would make grouping go faster to not have to have a loot discussion before hand. If you would like to have that discussion, I would be happy to. We may not be able to get very far in it, based on differing opinions, but I think it could prove interesting. Look. I'm going to be blunt here. It's well known that I'm the guy that makes incredibly long-winded posts that most people don't read. I appreciate that ferroz's replies are often so obtuse that it compels you to write a reply so long and detailed that there's absolutely no way it can be misinterpreted. And I appreciate that it's inexplicably made worse by the jawa avatar above his name. But the next time you feel the need to make a post like this, please consider my feelings. I have ONE talent in this world, and that talent is making posts that are so long most people don't read them. Don't take that away from me. (FYI, I'm kidding. ferroz, please don't challenge me to a duel; you know rodians can't accurately shoot more than 1.9 feet) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jontyld Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 it removes a bias from the system, which makes it objectively more fair. fairness is a subjective concept. What you consider "fair" using your own criteria (which seems to be the idea of equal chance), is not "fair" under others personal criteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vecke Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Some of them believe it... probably some of them are trolling though. Fair point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galbatorrix Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Amusing anecdote: Recently I actually encountered the first incident of such a companion ninja clown. We were three level appropriate Bounty Hunters and the jerk a 35 something Sorcerer in Athiss. First boss dropped orange Bounty Hunter legs and you would not believe it, without saying a word the scum just goes ahead selects need even after 2 of us already needed. I still have to laugh at the situation. 3 BHs, 1 Sorc, Sorc needs on BH gear. LOL! Me: "Why do you need on Aim gear?" Idiot: "I need it for Khem" *facepalm* After a little back and forth about basic loot etiquette, I had to ask him to leave as he did not agree. I could really not have it worded anymore non confrontational during the actual situation inside the flashpoint. On top of his other demonstrated social qualities he also turned out to be quite the pighead so I had to kick him. After that we cleared the flashpoint with a companion equipped in quest gear and left overs as 4th. Wow. First, Khem doesn't even use AIM and second, needing orange gear for him is pointless as it doesn't even show up on him. I'd have kicked him too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
universeman Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) it removes a bias from the system, which makes it objectively more fair. What bias? nvm, I know what you're getting at...yet I disagree. Allowing people to roll NEED for companions gives different classes more opportunity to use it as an excuse to roll NEED. Edited February 23, 2012 by universeman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laokoon Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Look. I'm going to be blunt here. It's well known that I'm the guy that makes incredibly long-winded posts that most people don't read. I appreciate that ferroz's replies are often so obtuse that it compels you to write a reply so long and detailed that there's absolutely no way it can be misinterpreted. And I appreciate that it's inexplicably made worse by the jawa avatar above his name. But the next time you feel the need to make a post like this, please consider my feelings. I have ONE talent in this world, and that talent is making posts that are so long most people don't read them. Don't take that away from me. (FYI, I'm kidding. ferroz, please don't challenge me to a duel; you know rodians can't accurately shoot more than 1.9 feet) Lol, I hate it when I misrepresent my beliefs (or when my beliefs are misunderstood) so I strive to make them as clear as possible. I think we suffer from the same condition: FullyFlushedOutArgumentitis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galbatorrix Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) it removes a bias from the system, which makes it objectively more fair. Again, it's only fair if it's the consensus. Which it's not currently. If everyone needs for companions, then that way is fair, I agree. But since so many people pass on that gear when people are present that need it for their PC, these people are at an unfair disadvantage when grouped with people like you that DO need for companions. So, no, it's really not fair for all as you suggest. Edited February 23, 2012 by Galbatorrix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vecke Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Lol, I hate it when I misrepresent my beliefs (or when my beliefs are misunderstood) so I strive to make them as clear as possible. I think we suffer from the same condition: FullyFlushedOutArgumentitis I think you might be right. And please don't take what I said to heart. It was my attempt at levity. You go right on giving detailed explanations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferroz Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) At this point I honestly can't tell it you are misreading my statements by accident (because to me it is clear from your response that what you think I mean is not what I actually mean) or if you are misreading my statements on purpose to continue having a discussion.I'm not sure what you think I've misread. My point is that the "fairness" and "rationality" of needing on something (however you fall on the issue) is totally subjective. I think I misspoke (mistyped?) slightly in my statement regarding objective fairness, because my statement doesn't take into account that the concept of "fairness" is a subjective concept.No, I'm going to have to say I disagree. These aren't purely subjective issues. Griefing someone isn't rational behvior; we both agree that your example was rude and insensitive behavior because that's not subjective judgement; that's just what the behavior you described is. What you were talking about doing in that example is objectively irrational behavior: you're talking about lashing out at someone for purely emotional and not intellectual reasons... Likewise, I'm talking objective fairness; I defined it quite a while back (probably at least a half dozen times in each of these threads): unbiased, impartial, unprejudiced. It's what the word means. If you want to add a bunch of subjective values on top of that, or wax philosophical about it, that's fine... but it's not reasonable to expect other people to agree with your usage of the term at that point. to make people happy (and avoid problems) we need to simply have a quick group consensus on loot rules before adventuring as a group. You may already agree with that, and I hope you do. I do. I was basically demonized in one of the other threads because I suggesting that people who have an opinion about what other people click on should talk about what they think is acceptable for people to click on (I think that was the one about rolling to strip mods out of something). That agrees with the dev suggestion, by the way. Edited February 23, 2012 by ferroz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkulous Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Are people still trying to rationalize their Ninjaism here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferroz Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) What bias? nvm, I know what you're getting at...yet I disagree. Allowing people to roll NEED for companions gives different classes more opportunity to use it as an excuse to roll NEED.The one we're primarily talking in this thread is the one in favor of people who think that the item belongs to class X based on some arbitrary set of conditions that aren't agreed on by everyone. the system you're in favor of is biased that way: it's biased against someone who places more value on gear for companions, or gear based on it's looks. Depending on your specific rules, it may favor people who'll user the mods in an item but not the item itself or vice versa. open rolls (not restricting them based on your arbitrary criteria) is not biased in favor of anyone. It doesn't give people who value companion loot over everything else priority over people who don't. It doesn't give people who value appearance priority over people who value stats. It's totally unbiased, impartial, and unprejudiced. Edited February 24, 2012 by ferroz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts