People who ninja for their companions

[Galbatorrix]

I could be wrong here, but it sounds to me that you just want to remove the element of chance from rolls. Would you prefer that every kill just dropped something for every person in the kill, so everybody wins every time?

 

I'm not judging if that's your position. It's fine if it is. I'm just asking for clarification. It's the idea of a roll that you're against?

 

 

No, there have been tons of times that I'm grouped with other players of the same class and we all roll need. I win some of those, I lose some too. It doesn't bother me either way because we're both trying to win stuff for out PCs. Heck, I've had groups tons of times with nothing but SIs. We all roll need on WP and RNG decides the rest.

 

I just don't like rolling against companions. I don't mind going through a whole dungeon and not having a single thing drop for my class. I don't feel like I wasted any time, I just feel unlucky. You could say I'm unlucky as well when a player rolls for their companion and wins my class loot, but I disagree. That's forced bad luck due to a greedy roller.

[DizzyStrife]

Sorry, this is incredibly wrong too. I have 30 years online, with 9 years end-game everquest raiding. I have never, ever seen a situation where 10 hps or 100 mana would have saved the day.

 

Sure, I've probably died many many times to the raid boss, because a heal was 2 seconds late etc etc, but really? If you're dying to a boss in non-raid content, where a 2 second delay means a death, you're out of your league.

 

I am sorry but it is not incredibly wrong. In my person opinion, which means nothing too anyone but me as has been proven many times, if that you are full of it. First of all, the 10 HPs and 100 mana were just numbers I pulled out of he air. Guess what, that heal may not have been 2 seconds behind if your healer had that piece of gear instead of a companion and they weren't just 100 mana short of casting that heal instead of standing there waiting on regen.

 

You really have no right too tell me I am out of my league just because there have been times in the past where a raid was saved or lost because of a few hps and manas here or there. It's called a close call and they happen all the time no matter how leet you may think you are.

[terminova]

Let's analyze, shall we?

 

"We will probably limit the 'need' button to only people who match the primary class the gear is meant for"

 

So, they made gear with a primary class in mind. Companions don't have primary classes. Interesting.

 

 

"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."

 

So, he's going to add a new button so people who want companion gear can't win it over PCs, but they will get a priority over greed.

 

So, the lead systems designer also thinks PC > Companions as well? Again, interesting.

 

 

It's weird. If they thought your companion was an extension of your character, why would the change prioritize need rolls so that you couldn't win companion loot over someone else's PC anymore? Yep... interesting.

 

Again, you don't seem to understand how the system currently is.

 

 

There are two buttons for actually rolling on loot, need and greed, not three. Anything the devs are working on has no bearing on the current discussion. When they finally implement something the discussion will change, until then anything the devs have said or are working on is irrelevant.

[souloferdrick]

I don't run random FP's to gear other people up.

[Setanian]

No, there have been tons of times that I'm grouped with other players of the same class and we all roll need. I win some of those, I lose some too. It doesn't bother me either way because we're both trying to win stuff for out PCs. Heck, I've had groups tons of times with nothing but SIs. We all roll need on WP and RNG decides the rest.

 

I just don't like rolling against companions. I don't mind going through a whole dungeon and not having a single thing drop for my class. I don't feel like I wasted any time, I just feel unlucky. You could say I'm unlucky as well when a player rolls for their companion and wins my class loot, but I disagree. That's forced bad luck due to a greedy roller.

 

You already admitted by failing to answer a simple question, that you would throw your toys out of the pram if you lost a need vs need roll.

[Galbatorrix]

I don't run random FP's to gear other people up.

 

Then why not run them by yourself?

[Vecke]

Let's analyze, shall we?

 

 

 

 

"We will probably limit the 'need' button to only people who match the primary class the gear is meant for"

 

So, they made gear with a primary class in mind. Companions don't have primary classes. Interesting.

 

 

"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."

 

So, he's going to add a new button so people who want companion gear can't win it over PCs, but they will get a priority over greed.

 

So, the lead systems designer also thinks PC > Companions as well? Again, interesting.

 

 

It's weird. If they thought your companion was an extension of your character, why would the change prioritize need rolls so that you couldn't win companion loot over someone else's PC anymore? Yep... interesting.

 

That post makes one - and only one - statement about their opinion on any aspect of this. Everything else is about what they'll probably do and it says nothing about why they'll do it. I think they're just trying to get a feel for the majority of the players and right now, yes, I suspect they think it's probably that more players want "greed" for companions. I'd say they're right on that.

 

But the only actual opinion they gave in that entire post was a sentence you left out. The first sentence. They said: "Need vs. greed isn't as simple in our game because of companions, as well as Orange Gear and mod extraction."

 

I ask you, what do you think they meant by that sentence?

[Galbatorrix]

You already admitted by failing to answer a simple question, that you would throw your toys out of the pram if you lost a need vs need roll.

 

 

No, if you need rolled on class loot, I wouldn't care, even if we were the same class and I lost. You rolling for your companion is no better than rolling for credits in my eyes.

[Setanian]

I am sorry but it is not incredibly wrong. In my person opinion, which means nothing too anyone but me as has been proven many times, if that you are full of it. First of all, the 10 HPs and 100 mana were just numbers I pulled out of he air. Guess what, that heal may not have been 2 seconds behind if your healer had that piece of gear instead of a companion and they weren't just 100 mana short of casting that heal instead of standing there waiting on regen.

 

You really have no right too tell me I am out of my league just because there have been times in the past where a raid was saved or lost because of a few hps and manas here or there. It's called a close call and they happen all the time no matter how leet you may think you are.

 

I wouldn't say 'leet'... That's a such a kiddy term to use.

 

I'd use a term oh say, hardcore.

[Setanian]

No, if you need rolled on class loot, I wouldn't care, even if we were the same class and I lost. You rolling for your companion is no better than rolling for credits in my eyes.

 

Answer the original question.

 

Is it too difficult for you?

[terminova]

I am sorry but it is not incredibly wrong. In my person opinion, which means nothing too anyone but me as has been proven many times, if that you are full of it. First of all, the 10 HPs and 100 mana were just numbers I pulled out of he air. Guess what, that heal may not have been 2 seconds behind if your healer had that piece of gear instead of a companion and they weren't just 100 mana short of casting that heal instead of standing there waiting on regen.

 

You really have no right too tell me I am out of my league just because there have been times in the past where a raid was saved or lost because of a few hps and manas here or there. It's called a close call and they happen all the time no matter how leet you may think you are.

 

And a minor gear upgrade would have had no effect. Run the same scenario multiple times with the same gear and you won't succeed every time. RNG is a big factor. I was running around with my Marauder and Vette, and against two same level elites it was hit and miss whether I survived, and had a lot to do with simple RNG mechanics. A minor gear upgrade wouldn't have made a difference at all.

[souloferdrick]

Then why not run them by yourself?

 

They're specifically designed so I can't, thats why.

[Vecke]

No, there have been tons of times that I'm grouped with other players of the same class and we all roll need. I win some of those, I lose some too. It doesn't bother me either way because we're both trying to win stuff for out PCs. Heck, I've had groups tons of times with nothing but SIs. We all roll need on WP and RNG decides the rest.

 

I just don't like rolling against companions. I don't mind going through a whole dungeon and not having a single thing drop for my class. I don't feel like I wasted any time, I just feel unlucky. You could say I'm unlucky as well when a player rolls for their companion and wins my class loot, but I disagree. That's forced bad luck due to a greedy roller.

 

So a PC is more important to you - as a player - than a companion. I can certainly respect that. It's a totally valid opinion.

 

But just because someone else sees the companions as just as important as the PC to them as a player... well, I don't think that automatically equates to them being greedy.

 

It's a different viewpoint, sure. But I don't see how one is more greedy than the other. One person sees them as relatively unimportant. Another person sees them as an integral part of their gaming experience. It's just two different perspectives on a new element to MMOs.

 

I just don't think it's fair to lay out a blanket statement that one group is more greedy than the other.

[Galbatorrix]

That post makes one - and only one - statement about their opinion on any aspect of this. Everything else is about what they'll probably do and it says nothing about why they'll do it. I think they're just trying to get a feel for the majority of the players and right now, yes, I suspect they think it's probably that more players want "greed" for companions. I'd say they're right on that.

 

But the only actual opinion they gave in that entire post was a sentence you left out. The first sentence. They said: "Need vs. greed isn't as simple in our game because of companions, as well as Orange Gear and mod extraction."

 

I ask you, what do you think they meant by that sentence?

 

 

 

Strawman argument (and this is for all that replied to this). They acknowledged a problem caused by companions/mods/appearance (which is all the last sentence you quoted is.. an acknowledgement of the problem) and then went on to state how they could fix it. Also acknowledged that such a fix would make it to were need rolls would prioritize PCs over companions. How is it so difficult for you guys to read what they wrote and get that they absolutely agree that PC's > Companions? No matter what the specifics of the new system are, the fact remains that Bioware stated it would incorporate PC > all else need rolls.

[Galbatorrix]

They're specifically designed so I can't, thats why.

 

Sure you can. If you don't want to play well with others, you can always solo quest until you out level the FP and then solo that too.

[terminova]

I ask you, what do you think they meant by that sentence?

 

It's because of this argument itself and the fact that people want the mods from the orange items, but not the item itself, and so on.

[Galbatorrix]

So a PC is more important to you - as a player - than a companion. I can certainly respect that. It's a totally valid opinion.

 

But just because someone else sees the companions as just as important as the PC to them as a player... well, I don't think that automatically equates to them being greedy.

 

It's a different viewpoint, sure. But I don't see how one is more greedy than the other. One person sees them as relatively unimportant. Another person sees them as an integral part of their gaming experience. It's just two different perspectives on a new element to MMOs.

 

I just don't think it's fair to lay out a blanket statement that one group is more greedy than the other.

 

 

Needing for companion over another player is you only thinking about yourself. People that only think about themselves tend to be considered greedy. So, I stand by my statement.

 

 

Heck, the one guy even said "I don't run FPs to gear others".... does that statement really sound like something a selfless person would say?

[terminova]

Sure you can. If you don't want to play well with others, you can always solo quest until you out level the FP and then solo that too.

 

Strawman argument.

[Setanian]

Strawman argument (and this is for all that replied to this). They acknowledged a problem caused by companions/mods/appearance (which is all the last sentence you quoted is.. an acknowledgement of the problem) and then went on to state how they could fix it. Also acknowledged that such a fix would make it to were need rolls would prioritize PCs over companions. How is it so difficult for you guys to read what they wrote and get that they absolutely agree that PC's > Companions? No matter what the specifics of the new system are, the fact remains that Bioware stated it would incorporate PC > all else need rolls.

 

It is not a strawman, please learn the definition.

 

It has been pointed out to you many times, the post by the dev while acknowledging a problem offered a possible solution. That solution has yet to be decided or indeed even raised at a meeting to decide it.

 

But then, you cannot even answer simple question when put to you, why do I expect you to understand anything else?

[Vecke]

Strawman argument (and this is for all that replied to this). They acknowledged a problem caused by companions/mods/appearance (which is all the last sentence you quoted is.. an acknowledgement of the problem) and then went on to state how they could fix it. Also acknowledged that such a fix would make it to were need rolls would prioritize PCs over companions. How is it so difficult for you guys to read what they wrote and get that they absolutely agree that PC's > Companions? No matter what the specifics of the new system are, the fact remains that Bioware stated it would incorporate PC > all else need rolls.

 

Please explain how that is a straw man. Please.

 

I actually acknowledged everything you just said.

 

But for the past 50 pages, I've been arguing that it's unfair for people to say that the "need for companions" folks are just greedy and flat out wrong. I've argued that - no matter how this ends up - it's wrong to just call them names and say they have no right to feel this way.

 

The devs came in and backed up my point with absolutely clarity. They agree with me that the other side does have a reason to feel how they feel, even if it's not how this thing is going to turn out.

 

My primary argument has been that - irrelevant to what eventually happens - companions have changed the paradigm enough to where we should stop ostracizing these people for their opinion on the matter, because they do have reasons.

 

The devs actually made a post that agrees with me, and when I pointed that out, you said it was a straw man? It was EXACTLY what I've been saying for at least 50 pages. How is that a straw man?

Edited February 24, 2012 by Vecke

[terminova]

Please explain how that is a straw man. Please.

 

I actually acknowledged everything you just said.

 

But for the past 20 pages, I've been arguing that it's unfair for people to say that the "need for companions" folks are just greedy and flat out wrong. I've argued that - no matter how this ends up - it's wrong to just call them names and say they have no right to feel this way.

 

The devs came in and backed up my point with absolutely clarity. They agree with me that the other side does have a reason to feel how they feel, even if it's not how this thing is going to turn out.

 

My primary argument has been that - irrelevant to what eventually happens - companions have changed the paradigm enough to where we should stop ostracizing these people for their opinion on the matter, because they do have reasons.

 

The devs actually made a post that agrees with me, and when I pointed that out, you said it was a straw man? It was EXACTLY what I've been saying for at least 50 pages. How is that a straw man?

 

It destroys his position, so it must be wrong.

[Setanian]

Needing for companion over another player is you only thinking about yourself. People that only think about themselves tend to be considered greedy. So, I stand by my statement.

 

And in your case you are claiming the loot before it is decided, so you are only thinking about yourself.

 

What was it you said about that? Oh yes, here it is;

 

People that only think about themselves tend to be considered greedy.

[DizzyStrife]

First and foremost did I not acknowlege in my post that I understood that you were just clarifing the premise? I was not attacking you just disagreeing with the premise.

 

Secondly I do disagree with your claim that this game is not primarily a solo game. I might agree if you said its endgame was not primarily solo but the game as a whole? I believe most players spend far more time solo than in actual group content before end game and possible even then.

 

Thirdly the premise that I can not roll for an item that drops because my intended use for it is primarily during my solo play is simply not valid if they are useing that same gear during their solo play as well. The fact that it is also in use on them in a full group is besides the point.

 

First, Yes you did acknowledge that, but you still argued it when no argument was needed. You really can't argue that premise because what i stated is exactly why people see it as greedy and selfish. I mean come on.

 

Secondly Massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) is a genre of role-playing video games in which a very large number of players interact with one another within a virtual game world. Quoted from Wikipedia.

 

A Single-player video game is a video game where input from only one player is expected throughout the course of the gaming session. "Single-player game" usually implies a game that can only be played by one person. Also qouted from Wikipedia.

 

Play Star Wars™: The Old Republic™ and be the

hero of your own Star Wars™ saga in a story-driven

massively-multiplayer online game from BioWare and LucasArts. Qouted from the SWTOR website.

 

You tell me which definition this game falls under.

 

Thirdly, the fact that they will use it too help other players, maybe even you, in future group situations, where as your companion won't, is not besides the point. Taking something that is ONLY for your solo play is seen as greedy and selfish by most people. Taking something that is used in that current as well as future FP's OP's or PvP by the player character which helps EVERYONE involved, is not.

 

AGAIN, I have never said I agree with this point of view. I am just trying to clarify the thinking of the people that say it is selfish or greedy. BUT it seems that everyone who qoutes my posts seems too think that I am defending this point of view when I am not.

[Setanian]

First, Yes you did acknowledge that, but you still argued it when no argument was needed. You really can't argue that premise because what i stated is exactly why people see it as greedy and selfish. I mean come on.

 

Secondly Massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) is a genre of role-playing video games in which a very large number of players interact with one another within a virtual game world. Quoted from Wikipedia.

 

A Single-player video game is a video game where input from only one player is expected throughout the course of the gaming session. "Single-player game" usually implies a game that can only be played by one person. Also qouted from Wikipedia.

 

Play Star Wars™: The Old Republic™ and be the

hero of your own Star Wars™ saga in a story-driven

massively-multiplayer online game from BioWare and LucasArts. Qouted from the SWTOR website.

 

You tell me which definition this game falls under.

 

Thirdly, the fact that they will use it too help other players, maybe even you, in future group situations, where as your companion won't, is not besides the point. Taking something that is ONLY for your solo play is seen as greedy and selfish by most people. Taking something that is used in that current as well as future FP's OP's or PvP by the player character which helps EVERYONE involved, is not.

 

AGAIN, I have never said I agree with this point of view. I am just trying to clarify the thinking of the people that say it is selfish or greedy. BUT it seems that everyone who qoutes my posts seems too think that I am defending this point of view when I am not.

 

But I need to gear my companion to get to the next level Fps/OPs/PvP. At which point I will be able to help you and others.

 

You dis-allowing me to gear my companion is not helping 'everyone' (note how I didn't need to shout) and is selfish.

 

tut tut..

 

You're argument is flawed to the extreme.

[Vecke]

Needing for companion over another player is you only thinking about yourself. People that only think about themselves tend to be considered greedy. So, I stand by my statement.

 

 

Heck, the one guy even said "I don't run FPs to gear others".... does that statement really sound like something a selfless person would say?

 

I primarily group with my wife and my best friend. Between the three of us, we usually duo or trio. We do FPs and Heroics. We play slowly and alt often.

 

Companions are absolutely vital to the survival of our group, so when we play together, we roll need on companions.

 

On the occasions that we pug, we roll greed on companions because we don't want drama and we respect that in-game, the majority doesn't necessarily agree with our view.

 

However, my personal opinion is that rolling Need on companions is the more fair way. Companions are a major part of my gameplay and my regular group depends on my companions gear greatly. If I don't have a geared companion, they suffer for it. I think (just my opinion) that my "need" for a dropped item is just as valid as your "need" for the dropped item.

 

However, if you and I were to pug together, I would only roll greed on that item. I basically give the item to your PC, even though we have a different opinion on it. I do that out of respect for the majority and out of respect for you. You, however, don't say, 'Hey, if you think that companion is really important, you should roll need too, and have a fair chance at it. We'll just let the roll decide."

 

I give it to you. That's what I do and how I play. I don't give you a chance to get it. I give it to you flat out.

 

You don't think I deserve to even have a chance for that gear, even though I participated in the kill.

 

Now, just because I happen to have a different opinion on the matter, you stand by your statement that I'm greedy?

 

I don't understand this. Genuinely, I don't understand.

Edited February 24, 2012 by Vecke