People who ninja for their companions

[Revenaught]

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.

 

I would be willing to bet in most cases they would not have any problem with you doing so as it obviously is acceptable to them already. Anyone who did have a problem would be a hypocrit who is indeed not worth it.

[Vecke]

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!!".

 

 

Let me ask you a question. If you and I were to group up, just the two of us, and at the beginning, I said, "I personally would like to roll on companions in this group. If you don't want to do that, fine, but I'd like to."

 

What would your response most likely be?

 

Would you debate it? Would you just say, "I don't normally, but sure, np."?

[DizzyStrife]

mmmm, no, I don't.

 

 

 

 

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

 

Yeah I got it and replied.

[SpikeRosered]

How can people claim that companions are part of their character when in almost every situation that "matters," aka

 

PvP

Flashpoints

Operations

 

You cannot use your companion. They're something you use mostly when soloing, so you should never put the burden of making them good on other people.

[Revenaught]

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.

 

Look. You made a nice long post about a position in a debate that a lot of people don't agree with. I made it clear in my initial reply that I was taking issue with the postion you were clarifying. You have jumped down the throat of myself and everyone else who spoke up about that postion trying to claim we were against you personally which I and others weren't until you attacked us for daring to disagree.

 

Now you can get all insulting and accuse others of being obtuse and childish but to be honest you only seem to be describing yourself from what I see.

 

I understood the original intention of your original post. I just refuse to accept the position you were trying to clarify no matter how prettily you state it.

[Zhit]

As a healer--it is nice to be able to roll need on anything I want for my companions. But I will replace a DPS in an instant if he does the same.

[Vecke]

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?

 

See, I disagree with this 100%. I am not looking for instant gratification. Rolling need for companions would make it take LONGER to gear yourself up. How is that instant gratification?

 

And I'm all for the player getting a fair crack at the loot. I'm a player and you're a player. Your PC is not you any more or less than my companion is me.

 

Every group I pug with, I roll greed for companions. Every single one. If you and I group, I'll roll greed for my companion, even though I personally believe that my companion is just as important to me and the people I group with as your PC is to you and the people you group with. And yet, I do it your way. Every time.

 

Now, even though you know that I personally think that rolling need for a companion is as important to me as rolling need for a PC is to you, you expect me to do it your way.

 

And I do it your way. Every time.

 

Please explain how I want instant gratification for preferring a system that makes it take longer to gear up, and please explain how I'm the inconsiderate one when I always do it your way, even though I disagree.

 

I'm very curious how you've come to that conclusion.

Edited February 24, 2012 by Vecke

[Galbatorrix]

Let me ask you a question. If you and I were to group up, just the two of us, and at the beginning, I said, "I personally would like to roll on companions in this group. If you don't want to do that, fine, but I'd like to."

 

What would your response most likely be?

 

Would you debate it? Would you just say, "I don't normally, but sure, np."?

 

 

Honestly, I'd probably tell you "No problem.". If I happened to be looking for a certain drop in this scenario, I'd probably add "But if the orange chest piece drops, do you care if I get that one? It's the main reason why I'm here."

[Setanian]

I know, right? I've probably logged like 500+ posts on this subject and have basically said the same thing through out.

 

And you're still wrong.

 

Don't forget you agreed you'd throw your toys out of the pram if you lost a fair need vs need roll...

 

 

I just chalk it up to being board at work.

 

Well you'll find that we've been through the education system. We know the difference between 'board' and 'bored' for example, and now we get to earn fat salaries while we delegate

[terminova]

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 their 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?

 

My stance isn't so I can roll on whatever I want, it's because I don't want to restrict how others roll on loot. If they want to roll for their companions, I don't have an issue with that, if they don't want to I don't have an issue with that. If they want to give someone grief for rolling for their companions, now I have a problem with that because it suddenly becomes not about loot, but someone feeling they are more entitled to something than someone else even though both people put as much effort into clearing the content.

[DizzyStrife]

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.

 

It's all good. No harm, no foul. Misunderstandings happen way too easily over the internet because you can't see the person you are talking too and read their body language and tone of voice.

[Vecke]

Honestly, I'd probably tell you "No problem.". If I happened to be looking for a certain drop in this scenario, I'd probably add "But if the orange chest piece drops, do you care if I get that one? It's the main reason why I'm here."

 

Yeah, then I probably shouldn't have been coming at you so hard.

 

We disagree with companions' importance, but I think we both have the same basic view on respect. We just get carried away by the debate sometimes.

[souloferdrick]

How can people claim that companions are part of their character when in almost every situation that "matters,"

 

http://www.swtor.com/media/trailers/companion-characters

 

"key part of the experience"

Edited February 24, 2012 by souloferdrick

[Revenaught]

How can people claim that companions are part of their character when in almost every situation that "matters," aka

 

PvP

Flashpoints

Operations

 

You cannot use your companion. They're something you use mostly when soloing, so you should never put the burden of making them good on other people.

 

Because your definition of what matters only encompasses part of the game in it's entirety. Obviously other people think the rest of the game matters as well.

 

And while I don't know about Operations I do know that a well geared companion can indeed be useful in Flashpoints and world PvP.

[Galbatorrix]

And you're still wrong.

 

Don't forget you agreed you'd throw your toys out of the pram if you lost a fair need vs need roll...

 

 

 

 

Well you'll find that we've been through the education system. We know the difference between 'board' and 'bored' for example, and now we get to earn fat salaries while we delegate

 

 

Haha, now you've moves to portraying opinions as fact and picking on grammatical mistakes. At least I'm not the only one that knows your argument is dead.

[Grecanis]

See, I disagree with this 100%. I am not looking for instant gratification. Rolling need for companions would make it take LONGER to gear yourself up. How is that instant gratification?

 

And I'm all for the player getting a fair crack at the loot. I'm a player and you're a player. Your PC is not you any more or less than my companion is me.

 

Every group I pug with, I roll greed for companions. Every single one. If you and I group, I'll roll greed for my companion, even though I personally believe that my companion is just as important to me and the people I group with as your PC is to you and the people you group with. And yet, I do it your way. Every time.

 

Now, even though you know that I personally think that rolling need for a companion is as important to me as rolling need for a PC is to you, you expect me to do it your way.

 

And I do it your way. Every time.

 

Please explain how I want instant gratification for preferring a system that makes it take longer to gear up, and please explain how I'm the inconsiderate one when I always do it your way, even though I disagree.

 

I'm very curious how you've come to that conclusion.

 

Then I have no quarrel with you or others like you.

 

My position is that the companion is not in the group and should not rise above those who are in the group. If you want something for your companion and ask if you can roll need I'd probably say yes. If you're just going to do it anyway without making your wants known, then we would have a disagreement.

[Setanian]

Haha, now you've moves to portraying opinions as fact and picking on grammatical mistakes. At least I'm not the only one that knows your argument is dead.

 

You can't even answer a simple question...

 

Anyways, I have to go, Tera beta Starting

[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?

 

Your preference can cause just as much loot drama as mine if everyone in group doesn't agree to it. So I ask again why should only others speak up about it first? Are you not obligated as much as anyone else to iron the details out before hand to prevent the drama?

[Galbatorrix]

Yeah, then I probably shouldn't have been coming at you so hard.

 

We disagree with companions' importance, but I think we both have the same basic view on respect. We just get carried away by the debate sometimes.

 

 

Honestly, I'm normally up for whatever the group wants. I'm not some sort of loot nazi. I just hate when people need roll for companions without asking first. If we set the rules at the beginning so that everyone can do the same, fine, but if most people are only rolling for PCs, as I've found to be the case in game, the person needing for companions has an unfair advantage over the rest of us.

[Galbatorrix]

You can't even answer a simple question...

 

Anyways, I have to go, Tera beta Starting

 

Here's a question, why are you still arguing for a game that you unsubbed and threw in the trash?

[universeman]

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?

 

In all cases, the person doing the dirty deed is the one NEEDing for reasons others might not consider right (is there any question that it's acceptable to click NEED for your own PC? I would hope not. Is there any question that it's acceptable to click NEED for your companions? There is question). So, maybe those who are clicking NEED for anything other than their own PC would want to clarify that out of respect for those who might get surprised by the unexpected NEED...?

[Vecke]

Looking at these replies, I still think a good 90% of this debate is about scenarios that almost never happen anyway and are about people that rarely crop up in groups. We're all just arguing the extremes.

 

Philosophically, I disagree that the PC is more important than the companions. I just do. I'm in the group of players that rarely play without a companion, and it's a vital part of our playing. We play the game as if we have multiple PCs and consider them all part of the same team. Sure we get to customize one of them, but they're all part of the team, and we like to roll for our teams. If that makes it take a little longer to gear up all of them, we're cool with that.

 

However, if I'm in a group and they roll greed for companions, I'm going to roll greed for companions. Of course.

 

And I strongly suspect that is the same of the folks in the greed camp. If you join a group and they say, "We're rolling need for companions in this group. FYI," I'm sure you'd be fine with that.

 

Just so everyone knows, if you say something about NBG or companion rolls that I disagree with, I'll debate it hotly. But the examples above are how I see the vast majority of you by default. In-game, you go with the flow of the group. And I'm the first to admit that right now, the flow of most groups seem to lean toward "Greed for companions."

[Revenaught]

In all cases, the person doing the dirty deed is the one NEEDing for reasons others might not consider right (is there any question that it's acceptable to click NEED for your own PC? I would hope not. Is there any question that it's acceptable to click NEED for your companions? There is question). So, maybe those who are clicking NEED for anything other than their own PC would want to clarify that out of respect for those who might get surprised by the unexpected NEED...?

 

And since it is equally obvious that there are people in game who don't consider clicking need for a part of their PC (ie their companion) shouldn't those who get upset by it be just as responsible to initiate a discussion about it prior to starting the fighting?

[universeman]

Looking at these replies, I still think a good 90% of this debate is about scenarios that almost never happen anyway and are about people that rarely crop up in groups. We're all just arguing the extremes.

 

I agree. We're nitpicking the details. But, it does happen. And even if every player in the game has only seen it happen only 1 or 2 times, it's happened more than I care to think. So, the point of this discussion is to protect those it will happen to next.

[DizzyStrife]

Look. You made a nice long post about a position in a debate that a lot of people don't agree with. I made it clear in my initial reply that I was taking issue with the postion you were clarifying. You have jumped down the throat of myself and everyone else who spoke up about that postion trying to claim we were against you personally which I and others weren't until you attacked us for daring to disagree.

 

Now you can get all insulting and accuse others of being obtuse and childish but to be honest you only seem to be describing yourself from what I see.

 

I understood the original intention of your original post. I just refuse to accept the position you were trying to clarify no matter how prettily you state it.

 

Dude, seriously, you still don't get it. Come on already. I have done nothing but try too get people to understand that I wasn't debating anything. That I wasn't for OR against either side. I didn't post what I posted for it too be debated. I was simply trying to clarify the definition of what the other people were trying too say. The ONLY response that was needed towards my original, if any, was thanks for trying to help smooth out the conversation. I apologize for being frustrated by the fact that the majority of people that have responded too me have missed the point of my original post and some even continue too miss it no matter how clearly I state my intentions of it. Go back and re-read all the original responses to my post. Everyone of them sure as hell sounded like they were against me personally like they have just completely skipped over the part in that post where I said it wasn't my point of view and that I was only trying to define what the others way saying in a clearer way. In fact, not one single person quoted that part of my original post, not once.

 

If getting frustrated when explaining myself over and over is childish and obtuse, then so be it. But honestly when I continually say over and over and over again that It was not my belief and that I was just trying to give a clearer definition of what people were trying too say and maybe help smooth the flow of conversation and everyone pretty much saying nuh uh, this and that, that is what is childish and obtuse. I'm sorry, but I am not going too sit back and take it when people try too assume what my intentions were or were not, especially when I clearly stated what my intentions were. I'm not a dead fish, and I clearly know what goes through my own head better than anyone else here.