People who ninja for their companions

[DizzyStrife]

Since you need help....I mean, you did ask, after all.

 

LMAO! I'm glad some sense of humor can be brought into this conversation.

 

 

 

People used the same reasoning in WoW to try and keep others from rolling on gear for the other specs they used for years.

 

I personally don't think the dual spec debate from WoW has any place in this debate too be honest. In my opinion, it is two different subjects. I think off-spec is nothing like a companion. But I guess some people will grasp for anything they can.

 

 

 

If you don't agree with it, don't try to explain or clarify it. The people who espouse it are perfectly capable of doing so themselves.

 

Like I said before, they were not doing a good job of it at all. I did a good job of it, the problem is everyone decided to attack me like I was making the argument myself when I was just trying to clarify it. Sometimes arguments need an outside influence to clarify certain points for that both sides can understand. I was attempting to do that and instead, everyone attacked my post like it was my own personal beliefs that I was trying to impose on others. No offense, but it's a simple reading comprehension problem, or even jumping the gun as most responses too my post ONLY focused on the first paragraph and ignored the rest.

[Galbatorrix]

Why do they have to state their preferences? Not to say it's not polite to do so. But why only them? Why don't you state your preferences before the run starts and save yourself so much potential grief?

 

Because my preference doesn't cause loot drama, while needing for your companions does.

 

 

When you walk into a theater, do you notice the guy sitting quietly watching the movie? No, because that's what most people will expect you to do. What about the guy who talks the whole way through? Wouldn't you rather have had that guy say he was a talker up front so you could have left if that sort of thing bothers you?

Edited February 24, 2012 by Galbatorrix

[Nategray]

In every game there is flow of struggle for supremacy.

 

In this thread we have seen it on 2 sides;

 

The anti-companion campaigners and

the pro-companion campaigners.

 

The flow or struggle has been one of reaching a point where one side has made a clear distinction as to effect the outcome of the loot.

 

This struggle has been fought with good debate, questions and answers and indeed a fair share of pure troll posts.

 

2 things in the main have come tonight.

 

1. The NBG campaigners when faced with arguments of fact and fairness will post anything (usually with embedded insults) to attempt to negate the facts put before them.

 

2. The pro-campaigners, have stuck to facts and fairness. (Ok, I got an infraction for calling someone stupid) but hey.. (gimme some leeway here Mr. Mod)

 

All along the pro camp have faced the continued insult of the 'ninja'

 

Now, let's loot at that term.

 

A ninja is a person who takes some loot to which they were not entitled.

 

Loot entitlement comes at the point at which you have won a roll and can there-fore be called the winner of that loot.

 

Back to the debate;

 

The anti camp have claimed that they should have entitlement to loot (the type of loot is irrelevant as both camps have companions and need to gear them, both camps have player characters that they need to gear)

 

Now, claiming an entitlement to something that you have not yet won, and then claiming that the winner should have given the loot to you is, by definition, claiming an entitlement to loot you have not won.

 

So, Mr Devs, and indeed BW at a large, I ask you;

 

Before you go changing something that will fall over to the next MMOs, please look at this, and make your own determinations as who here are the actual ninja looters.

 

Remember what we said about 'entitlement'...

 

TL,DR

There are not two sides, two sides implies somewhat even numbers agree with both sides.

The need for companions people are a dozen or so people who post a lot and try to make it seem like there are a lot who agree with them.

There are not.

Don't believe me fine do a poll and I bet your numbers of need for my companion are a fraction of people who think that is not ok.

The devs have pretty much come out and said as much as well.

[Tiaa]

I personally leave groups instantly if someone rolls for their companion because it's rather simple: Do they want me to roll on gear they need for my companion?

 

If no, then well...not worth it.

[Nategray]

I personally leave groups instantly if someone rolls for their companion because it's rather simple: Do they want me to roll on gear they need for my companion?

 

If no, then well...not worth it.

 

 

Same need for your companion and my tank or healers leave.

I however do mention up front that I am against needing for companions and that if anyone wants to I will just look for another group.

[Vecke]

Sounds to me that you only need for companions when in a premade group with like minded people. So, I don't understand why you'd associate yourself with my statement anyway.

 

 

Look, my biggest issue here is that I really am trying to be fair and decent with the way I loot. I draw a line and it allows everyone to win the loot that is best used by their PCs. Which again, helps them in all aspects of the game, not just while soloing. In turn, I expect the same respect. Some people in this thread making statements like...

 

"I'll need on what ever I want and you can't question it! Also, I don't have to ask permission before the run either!"

 

... leaves people like me out to dry. I end up losing class loot and companion loot to people like this because I ALWAYS pass on other peoples class loot when they hit "need". Even if I need it for a companion, I still hit pass in an attempt to be decent. Obviously I'm hoping that that same person will be decent back and my in my experience in this game, they normally are. There are exceptions, but that's what /ignore is for.

 

 

If you want to roll need on companions, fine. State it before the run so everyone get's a "fair" roll instead of just the people that play by your philosophy.

 

I associate myself because my point in this debate for a very long time now is that I don't agree with the blanket statements about people being greedy just because they value their companion as much as their PC. companions are a new addition to this game and I think it's wrong to say that - just because someone values a companion as much as a PC - they're somehow a lower human being. I've seen them called everything from "Grade A ***holes" to "greedy little piggies."

 

My only point is that I happen to think rolling for companions is the more fair method. That's my opinion, and you might not agree, based on the fact that you don't value a companion as much as a PC. It has absolutely nothing to do with solo play, because I almost never play solo. I always group, but with groups that use companions.

 

Now, you can disagree with me here all day long and I won't tell you you're wrong for doing it. But I will say it's incorrect to say people that have my opinion on this are just greedy. I'm not greedy. I REALLY don't care that much about loot, and I'll give it to anybody that really wants it. If someone in a group were to say, "Man can I have that. It's not an upgrade, but I LOVE the way it looks," I'd say, "Sure. Take it."

 

If there's an opposite to greedy, it's me. And yet I think - in this game - companions are so integrated into the character that it's perfectly fair to roll on them. I don't do this in pugs, because I realize I'm probably in the minority here, but it's what I believe.

 

And I'll argue anybody that makes a blanket statement saying people that have this opinion being greedy. I know that this isn't true. There are plenty of people I know personally that 1. believe rolling for companions is perfectly fine, and 2. Are not greedy.

 

That's my primary point here, and if I defend rolling Need, it's because I"m trying to show it's not always about being greedy. Some people genuinely believe it's the fairest loot method in this game. It's about a different perspective. That's been my point for at least 50 pages now.

 

And when I quoted the devs, saying they backed up my exact point, you said it was a strawman (I think that was you).

[DizzyStrife]

But.. them claiming it is greedy is not equal to fact. They have been disproved many times.

 

By this point, I don't remember what post I was quoting there. I just know that whatever post it was, they were saying that i basically did not know the definition of selfish and greedy and so I posted the definitions to show that what I had said did fall into the definitions of selfish and greedy in the context I used as an example.

[Setanian]

TL,DR

There are not two sides, two sides implies somewhat even numbers agree with both sides.

 

Let me see; I see one side on the anti-companion side, and one on the pro-companion side. Now I did go to school, and in fairness it was a long long time ago. So I suppose it's quite possible that in the intervening years 1 + 1 has been changed to equal something else.

 

I guess you could say it's like back then I was told fairness was if you lost you lost and if you won you won, but these days it seems if you win you win, but the losers start crying.

[DizzyStrife]

You may claim that you have never said you agree with this point of view but you are arguing very strongly against those who don't automatically fall in line with it. I begin to wonder just how much you do agree with it.

 

You can wonder until you are blue in the face for all I care, you are dead wrong. I am not arguing for OR against anyone. I am just trying to get people to understand the intention of my original post which quite honestly should have been pretty clear from my original post, but I guess some people just don't comprehend and still aren't no matter how much I try to dumb it down. I am really thinking about breaking out the crayons and the hand puppets.

[Galbatorrix]

The two sides are this...

 

 

- The side that wants everyone to be able to gear their PCs first and foremost, because they realize that they help each player in all aspects of the game. Questing, flashpoints, raids, warzones.

 

 

- And the side that wants to need what they want without question. A want can include PC gear, companion gear, mods and even "cause I think that's purty".

 

 

 

Only one of these sides leads to everyone needing on everything, which as a result, makes gearing way more difficult and also makes running FPs pointless. I'll let you guess which side that is.

[Nategray]

Let me see; I see one side on the anti-companion side, and one on the pro-companion side. Now I did go to school, and in fairness it was a long long time ago. So I suppose it's quite possible that in the intervening years 1 + 1 has been changed to equal something else.

 

I guess you could say it's like back then I was told fairness was if you lost you lost and if you won you won, but these days it seems if you win you win, but the losers start crying.

 

 

Dance all you want, doesn't change what I posted one bit.

Do a poll.

I know you won't because you know the need for my companion people are a fraction of the people who play this game.

Feel free to setup the poll and prove me wrong.

[universeman]

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

 

How could someone only be thinking about themselves in this case? Did he say, the loot goes to me 100% of the time? He is simply stating we should all follow a simple set of rules when it comes to loot drops. If everyone follows these rules, nobody is thinking about themselves...they're all thinking about each other. If we allow ourselves to click NEED on whatever we want, then we will be thinking about ourselves and (here comes the problem) some people will use this to their advantage and *only* think about themselves and NEED recklessly. This is the part we are trying to eliminate.

 

The problem with allowing people to NEED whenever they decide they NEED is that we cannot police it. People will make up excuses for whatever they want. I'm not saying you do, or anyone in this thread does...but PEOPLE WILL.

 

You guys are wrongly accusing our way of using the system as though we are "claiming" items for ourselves. This is simply not true. We are only saying that if we abide by a set of rules, we can help eliminate the selfish nature of those who will act as such.

 

If any particular item goes "only" to that particular class, then nobody is being selfish or greedy or acting entitled to, etc. The system simply drops a random item and if that item is for your class, you win. How could that possibly be less fair then letting people decide for themselves what they want to NEED on? I know you know there are a LOT of immoral people out there who will abuse the system and refuse to abide by any rules.

 

And for the record, there are exceptions to every rule...if someone wants to step in and say hey, I could use this too...or, hey I haven't got a drop yet and my companion can use this, I'm going to NEED, then fine!

[DizzyStrife]

I've followed this for awhile, they've done a really good job explaining their position.

 

Maybe you need to re-read then because the other side is still not understanding what the other side is trying to say.

 

 

 

Well, you haven't really proven me wrong by not continuing to argue something that isn't your view.

 

 

I'm not arguing my view. All I am trying to get you, and other, too understand is the intention of my original post, which you still aren't. By the look of things, some of you never will. It's quite sad really.

[ArtMonster]

my companion can beat up your companion.

 

.

[Galbatorrix]

my companion can beat up your companion.

 

.

 

 

Well duh. He's wearing all my class lootz while my companion's wearing GTN greenz.

Edited February 24, 2012 by Galbatorrix

[Vecke]

The two sides are this...

 

 

- The side that wants everyone to be able to gear their PCs first and foremost, because they realize that they help each player in all aspects of the game. Questing, flashpoints, raids, warzones.

 

 

- And the side that wants to need what they want without question. A want can include PC gear, companion gear, mods and even "cause I think that's purty".

 

 

 

Only one of these sides leads to everyone needing on everything, which as a result, makes gearing way more difficult and also makes running FPs pointless. I'll let you guess which side that is.

 

 

I think that rolling for companions is more fair because a companion is vital to how I play the game and it's vital for the small groups I play with... not just me, but the other people I play with... and I think it's unfair that I don't even get a chance to roll for my companion, even though it is every bit as important to me (AND my groups) as your PC is to you (and your groups).

 

However, I do not roll need on companions when I'm in a pug, even though I disagree with it. I do this because I respect that my opinion is probably in the minority. Even though, my groups (not me, but the other players I group with) depend on my companions just like the people you group with for HM FPs depend on your PC.

 

But if you and I are in a pug together, I'll roll greed every time and give it to you. You, on the other hand, don't think I even deserve a chance to win that gear, even though we both feel like our characters genuinely need it.

 

Please explain how I'm the greedy one in this scenario, and please explain which of your defined groups I belong in.

[terminova]

Maybe you need to re-read then because the other side is still not understanding what the other side is trying to say.

 

mmmm, no, I don't.

 

 

I'm not arguing my view. All I am trying to get you, and other, too understand is the intention of my original post, which you still aren't. By the look of things, some of you never will. It's quite sad really.

 

I know, I didn't say you were (you're more akin to playing the DA) .... and I guess you never got my PM.

[DizzyStrife]

I did read it all, and with all due respect, my first reply wasn't to you at all. It was to the point you made. I said it was simply untrue. I didn't care if you believed it or not. I was just saying that the point was actually untrue. I wasn't debating you. I was debating the point.

 

Then you replied saying that YOU believed it was true.

 

 

 

Those were your opinions, or at least it sure looked like it to me. You didn't say, "Other people think that's not untrue." You said, "NO it is not untrue." When I gave a counter-opinion to that, you then said you don't even know why I'm debating this. I explained why I'm debating it (because I do pug occasionally).

 

I really don't see how I did anything wrong here by debating these points.

 

That said, if you're saying now that it's not your opinion, then we don't have to continue on it and can chuck it off to a miscommunication.

 

Well I apologize then. I thought you were trying to debate that it was my point of view when I had clearly stated in my original post that it was not. The reason I asked why you were even debating it is because the whole point of the first part of my original post was clarifying the definition of why people are calling others that roll need for companion over player characters greedy and selfish. A simple clarifying definition that people have blown way out of proportion because despite what I say, people continue to think that I am expressing my own belief.

[Galbatorrix]

I think that rolling for companions is more fair because a companion is vital to how I play the game and it's vital for the small groups I play with... not just me, but the other people I play with... and I think it's unfair that I don't even get a chance to roll for my companion, even though it is every bit as important to me (AND my groups) as your PC is to you (and your groups).

 

However, I do not roll need on companions when I'm in a pug, even though I disagree with it. I do this because I respect that my opinion is probably in the minority. Even though, my groups (not me, but the other players I group with) depend on my companions just like the people you group with for HM FPs depend on your PC.

 

But if you and I are in a pug together, I'll roll greed every time and give it to you. You, on the other hand, don't think I even deserve a chance to win that gear, even though we both feel like our characters genuinely need it.

 

Please explain how I'm the greedy one in this scenario, and please explain which of your defined groups I belong in.

 

 

 

Again, your scenario puts you in group one, regardless of your opinion on looting, you still loot in pugs like I do. If I'm in a premade, like you run mostly where everyone needs for companions, I'm going to do it as well and have no problem with it. My whole argument is in regards to random pugs. And you just said you don't need roll for companions while playing in pugs. So, that puts you in group 1 whether you want to be or not.

 

 

Also, you would just "give me" my class loot? Well, I'm the same. I'll just "give you" yours as well. So, no more of this "you, on the other hand" business, because we're both winning in that situation. You'll win your class loot and I'll win mine. The only RNG we're fighting is the one that decides which piece is dropped. If it's for your class, I'll pass and "Grats man!!". The other way, we'd fight that RNG plus RNG on 3 other players in the group. Again, if everyone's doing it, it may be "fair", but good luck gearing. Also, note that I said "if everyone's doing it". As is, most people don't, so people needing for companions is anything buy fair. In fact, in most groups, it gives them an unfair advantage over the other players in the group.

Edited February 24, 2012 by Galbatorrix

[Revenaught]

I see your point and yes, I know the feeling. But no, Ninja is taking something you are not entitled to take.

 

An open world chest is 'open' and therefore open to anyone. I know how ya feel, had it done to me many times, but that's a side issue.

 

Fair enough. I thought that was the original reason the term came into use.

 

But regardless of that you are right the chest is open and I do not have a right to it's contents just because I attacked a mob before it.

[Vecke]

Well I apologize then. I thought you were trying to debate that it was my point of view when I had clearly stated in my original post that it was not. The reason I asked why you were even debating it is because the whole point of the first part of my original post was clarifying the definition of why people are calling others that roll need for companion over player characters greedy and selfish. A simple clarifying definition that people have blown way out of proportion because despite what I say, people continue to think that I am expressing my own belief.

 

No sweat. I'm sure I came at you a little more aggressively than I should have, considering you did clarify in your post that it wasn't your opinion. I'm sure our bickering started from that, so I'll own it.

[Grecanis]

But.. them claiming it is greedy is not equal to fact. They have been disproved many times.

 

It's only been disproved in yours and a few others eyes ..anythin else is a blanket statement

 

@Galbatorrix

 

I don't know why you bother arguing with these folks. It's painfully obvious via thier stated positions that they have not a shred of concideration for the others they group with. Probably never will.

 

I honestly don't understand what is so difficult about allowing the players in the run first crack at something for thier class. I mean really ...there are so many ways to gear up your companions it should never be necessary to need on anything for them.

 

Instant gratification anyone?

[Revenaught]

Because my preference doesn't cause loot drama, while needing for your companions does.

 

 

When you walk into a theater, do you notice the guy sitting quietly watching the movie? No, because that's what most people will expect you to do. What about the guy who talks the whole way through? Wouldn't you rather have had that guy say he was a talker up front so you could have left if that sort of thing bothers you?

 

No your preference when it doesn't match others in the group and you haven't taken the time to inform them causes the loot drama. Mine can as well if everyone in the group doesn't already agree with it just like yours does. So since both preference styles can lead to loot drama if not discussed before hand why does everyone but you have to be obligated to announce it before hand?

[souloferdrick]

At some point the majority of players will gear beyond the point of having to run FP's for gear and might run them for the purpose of gearing up companions. Post implementation of the new roll system, there is nothing stopping an over geared player from need rolling what is essentially a greed piece (nice message to send there and undermine the marketed notion that companions are our dear buddies we will love to the point of not parting with hahaha) since it jives with his class.

 

We've already seen this in that other game.

 

Anyhoo, unless this new and improved system can turn people into rational adults there really is no point to wasting the time and money on it.

Edited February 24, 2012 by souloferdrick

[Galbatorrix]

It's only been disproved in yours and a few others eyes ..anythin else is a blanket statement

 

@Galbatorrix

 

I don't know why you bother arguing with these folks. It's painfully obvious via thier stated positions that they have not a shred of concideration for the others they group with. Probably never will.

 

I honestly don't understand what is so difficult about allowing the players in the run first crack at something for thier class. I mean really ...there are so many ways to gear up your companions it should never be necessary to need on anything for them.

 

Instant gratification anyone?

 

 

I know, right? I've probably logged like 500+ posts on this subject and have basically said the same thing through out. I don't think anyone's opinion has really changed on either side. I just chalk it up to being board at work.