People who ninja for their companions

[Revenaught]

In fact, not one single person quoted that part of my original post, not once.

 

 

Excuse me? Perhaps you need to go back and reread my original response to your original post. You will see that I quoted your entire post and even mentioned in my post that I understood you were just clarifing a postion. Maybe I'm not the one really not understanding someone else.

[universeman]

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?

 

While it is fair to say the person who is being offended should protect themselves by asking, I believe the person who is committing the offense is the one who should bring it up first. That's the respectful thing to do.

[Vecke]

For almost every player I've seen on this debate, the end result on loot would be the same.

 

In my anecdotal experience in MMOs before NBG was implemented, looting had much less drama and the person that needed the gear almost always ended up with the gear.

 

The difference is, then it was because people had the choice on whether or not to be generous. Most players (I think) like being generous. They like helping other players. They just don't like the sense of entitlement that comes with a NBG mechanic. The sense that "This belongs to me" even before there's a roll for it.

 

I am quite certain that - back when you just won the loot and got to decide whether or not you gave it up - that Setanian and Ferroz and most of the others arguing against the NBG mechanic were incredibly generous players. I am also quite certain that they still are. I would be willing to bet that they are more generous than some of the people in this thread that are calling them greedy.

 

For example, I'm confident that if NBG didn't exist and everything was just a straight FFA roll without bound equipment.. if Setanian won a roll for gear that any person on this thread needed (even the ones arguing against him)... and if that person sent him a tell saying, "I could really use that. Since you don't need it, would you be willing to part with it? I'll pay." I'm pretty sure that Setanian would either sell it to them very cheaply or he would give it to them outright.

 

So I suggest we let go of the "you're greedy" arguments. From what I've seen on this thread, that's not the case. The people doing it just because they're greedy are the people that will always find ways and excuses for getting the loot.

 

That's not most of the people I see debating here.

 

This debate really is about two things. First, it's about the value of the companion and if that companion is as important as a PC. And that sort of branched into a second debate that's about whether or not NBG is better for the game in general.

 

And from what I'm seeing, points on both sides are coming from a place of what they think is fair and just. Neither side is talking about being greedy. Like I said, the people pushing for "need on companions" are pushing for a system that would make it take LONGER for them to gear up fully. That's hardly a greedy stance.

[DizzyStrife]

Excuse me? Perhaps you need to go back and reread my original response to your original post. You will see that I quoted your entire post and even mentioned in my post that I understood you were just clarifing a postion. Maybe I'm not the one really not understanding someone else.

 

Ok you are right. You did quote the whole post. I apologize to you about that. There have been a lot of posts and I forgot about your first one. The main reason I have been so frustrated about the whole thing is because of the simple fact that all I was trying to do was clarify a point to help smooth out the conversation. I've gotten to the point where I don't even really know what too say anymore. I do know it's the last time I try to help.

[Revenaught]

While it is fair to say the person who is being offended should protect themselves by asking, I believe the person who is committing the offense is the one who should bring it up first. That's the respectful thing to do.

 

Well they are offending me by trying to determin when and how and why I can roll on loot I helped earn why don't they have to be as respectful to me as I am being asked to be?

[Vecke]

I'd also like to say that this "need for companions" thread is much better than the other "need for companions" thread. Those guys over there are total ameteurs when it comes to creating a good "need for companions" thread. I poked my head in and just thought, "Aw, that's cute. They think that point is new."

 

We so pwn them.

[Revenaught]

Ok you are right. You did quote the whole post. I apologize to you about that. There have been a lot of posts and I forgot about your first one. The main reason I have been so frustrated about the whole thing is because of the simple fact that all I was trying to do was clarify a point to help smooth out the conversation. I've gotten to the point where I don't even really know what too say anymore. I do know it's the last time I try to help.

 

Thank You. As to the rest of it. It might be that you only tried to clarify half of the debate. When you only try to clarify one side of a debate it can make it look to others on the opposing side that you are defending it. Not saying you were, just that it can appear that way.

 

Also no matter how clear you make the one side there will always be those who oppose it because we disagree with it not because we don't understand it.

 

I appreciate you just trying to help the discussion but when all you are clarifying is the side I oppose it's not much help to me since I already get where they are coming from.

 

Anyway no hard feelings.

[Vecke]

Personally, I wish Bioware would add a quick pop-up box at the character select screen that says: "Quick poll: Do you think it's appropriate to roll need for companions?" then post the results here.

 

I'd personally like to see how overwhelming the "overwhelming majority" is. Just out of curiosity.

[DizzyStrife]

Thank You. As to the rest of it. It might be that you only tried to clarify half of the debate. When you only try to clarify one side of a debate it can make it look to others on the opposing side that you are defending it. Not saying you were, just that it can appear that way.

 

Also no matter how clear you make the one side there will always be those who oppose it because we disagree with it not because we don't understand it.

 

I appreciate you just trying to help the discussion but when all you are clarifying is the side I oppose it's not much help to me since I already get where they are coming from.

 

Anyway no hard feelings.

 

Well, I only clarified the one side because I personally felt the other side was quite clear on their own. I tried too clarify that side because too me, it seemed like the majority didn't understand that side. Nope. no hard feelings. With the crap I have been through in my life, I doubt there is anything anyone could say on a forum post that would really get too me that much. I may get frustrated, but that isn't the same thing.

[universeman]

And from what I'm seeing, points on both sides are coming from a place of what they think is fair and just. Neither side is talking about being greedy. Like I said, the people pushing for "need on companions" are pushing for a system that would make it take LONGER for them to gear up fully. That's hardly a greedy stance.

 

I cut your post short, but agree with all that I cut out. The thing is, there "are" greedy people out there. It's inevitable that people will take advantage of the system. We all know this. I'm just looking to put a simple set of rules on the buttons (which is what most people I've grouped with seem to use already) that help us identify those who would abuse the system. If we let people NEED too often, they will NEED on whatever they want (even if occasionally) and nobody will be able to call them on it. If we let that happen, situations may boil down to "better NEED if I'm going to get anything"...and I don't think that's cool for teammates to have to deal with.

 

I also don't like the fact that some classes have a smaller set of eq requirements when considering companions. When companions are not considered, everyone has exactly 1 type of eq they are looking for. The random drop was perfectly random/fair. Adding personal interest in an item (or adding an unequally diverse set of companions to the mix) changes that fairness IMO, which is why we should speak up if we are NEEDing on something that isn't designed for our PC.

 

And what if it's orange? Or what if every BH already got a piece of +aim and the Sniper hasn't got anything yet? Well, that may fall under one of those exceptions to the rule. I don't think anyone is putting a hard/fast set of rules down here...they are simply guidelines to adhere to under most circumstances.

[Dystopic]

If you didn't agree to loot rules before hand than it wasn't a ninja. If you did than it was and you server blacklist them.

 

Problem solved.

[universeman]

Well they are offending me by trying to determin when and how and why I can roll on loot I helped earn why don't they have to be as respectful to me as I am being asked to be?

 

To clarify the situation we're discussing here: You are clicking NEED for your companion when the rest of the group is not. If such is the situation, this is my response:

 

Nobody has offended you if nobody has said anything. However, you may have offended them even if you didn't say anything.

[universeman]

Well, I only clarified the one side because I personally felt the other side was quite clear on their own.

 

No offense intended to the "NEED for companions" side, but I feel they have a very simple argument. I do not mean it's less legitimate, for sure. I just feel there position is very simple on the matter, while the "GREED for companions" group is putting a lot more rules/restrictions on things (that I feel are necessary to prevent the system from being abused...and to allow players to police each other).

[Revenaught]

To clarify the situation we're discussing here: You are clicking NEED for your companion when the rest of the group is not. If such is the situation, this is my response:

 

Nobody has offended you if nobody has said anything. However, you may have offended them even if you didn't say anything.

 

If they didn't say anything about what they did or didn't expect before hand they can get offended all they want it's not on me. If they wish the whole situation to not arise they are just as responsible as I am for preventing it.

 

If I want to prevent it I speak up instead of going about my business when others might feel differently about what is acceptable.

 

If they want to prevent it they speak up instead of going about their business when they know others might play differently.

 

Simply put it falls on them just as much as anyone else. All other discourse about who offended who first and why is moot.

[universeman]

If they didn't say anything about what they did or didn't expect before hand they can get offended all they want it's not on me.

 

See, that's where I will disagree with you. I do care if I'm offending others. It ruins the game for others and I would like to avoid that whenever possible.

[Revenaught]

See, that's where I will disagree with you. I do care if I'm offending others. It ruins the game for others and I would like to avoid that whenever possible.

 

But you refuse to speak up and insist that it's all on the others side to do so. I still haven't heard what I consider a valid reason why only one side of the problem should be the only one responsible for speaking up.

Edited February 25, 2012 by Revenaught

[Vecke]

I cut your post short, but agree with all that I cut out. The thing is, there "are" greedy people out there. It's inevitable that people will take advantage of the system. We all know this. I'm just looking to put a simple set of rules on the buttons (which is what most people I've grouped with seem to use already) that help us identify those who would abuse the system. If we let people NEED too often, they will NEED on whatever they want (even if occasionally) and nobody will be able to call them on it. If we let that happen, situations may boil down to "better NEED if I'm going to get anything"...and I don't think that's cool for teammates to have to deal with.

 

I also don't like the fact that some classes have a smaller set of eq requirements when considering companions. When companions are not considered, everyone has exactly 1 type of eq they are looking for. The random drop was perfectly random/fair. Adding personal interest in an item (or adding an unequally diverse set of companions to the mix) changes that fairness IMO, which is why we should speak up if we are NEEDing on something that isn't designed for our PC.

 

And what if it's orange? Or what if every BH already got a piece of +aim and the Sniper hasn't got anything yet? Well, that may fall under one of those exceptions to the rule. I don't think anyone is putting a hard/fast set of rules down here...they are simply guidelines to adhere to under most circumstances.

 

All reasonable points, but it's predicated on the basis that using those standards makes NBG better and simpler. I don't think it does. I think it muddies it up and creates huge opportunities for drama. The only thing I'll concede is that it makes it faster to gear up your PC. But the converse is it makes it slower to gear up your companion, which is equally important to many players - for various reasons with various degrees of validity. I see no other advantage to anybody, but I see a ton of disadvantages.

 

Imagine you're that new player, you get your first companion (Corso Riggs), and you group up with someone. A piece of gear drops. This gear is an upgrade for Corso, and a big one.

 

You see three choices. You see a pass button. Well, of course you don't want to pass. Corso can use it. You see a Greed button that actually has a credits sign beside it. Well, you don't want to sell it for credits, so you don't want to press that button. Then you see a Need button. You look at Corso's armor again and think, "well, he does need it."

 

Now, in that moment, the only reasonable choice on those buttons is "Need." It doesn't even occur to you to ask about it, because it's the only choice that fits. So you roll need.

 

And find out that this is completely wrong. You should roll "Greed" if your companion needs it. And many players think you should roll "pass" if you only want it for money, because "greed" is used for things that go to companions. (yes, that was a complaint in this very thread).

 

I honestly think it would be better for the community and the game if we treated NBG literally. If it's for money and nothing else, then you roll Greed. If you can use it - in any way - you roll need.

 

It would eliminate any anger toward people for not knowing unwritten rules that contradict the buttons themselves. Also, it would give you more reason to continue playing and gearing your characters because it would take longer to gear them up.

 

The "instant gratification" argument, in my opinion, is definitely on the "Greed for companions" side.

 

I know you disagree with this, and I'm sure people will accuse me of being greedy for it, but I think TOR (not other MMOs, but TOR) would have a much better game if people just took NBG literally. If it's credits, greed. If you can use it for any other reason, need. If you don't want it at all, pass.

 

Nobody's entitled to it, everyone will group more because it's harder to get loot, and nobody has to worry about breaking any unwritten rules.

 

Again, that's just my opinion and I by no means claim it's right. It's just what I think, based on my experiences in MMOs from back before NBG was implemented.

[Kourage]

They're changing it so you can't roll need on it unless it fits your advanced class.

[terminova]

They're changing it so you can't roll need on it unless it fits your advanced class.

 

Irrelevant.

[Vecke]

They're changing it so you can't roll need on it unless it fits your advanced class.

 

When that happens, cool. I'm good with that. And I'm good with having standards in your group that prefer the PC.

 

I'm just saying, the default assumption should be what the game itself indicates. Not what it allows (you can roll greed on everything, technically). I'm saying just let the default be what the game indicates.

 

And the game itself indicates - by the buttons themselves - that Need is if you can use it, Greed is if you want to sell it, and pass is if you don't want it.

 

Establish any rules beyond that you want, but don't assume the unwritten rules are the standard. Assume the game's indication is the standard. And if Bioware adds a "Companion" button, then great. That's the standard.

 

Every single person that is suggesting Need for companions completely understands that it means their own PC will lose some rolls to companions. And they're fine with it. Clearly, that's not an argument based on greed. It's an argument based on what they think is fair.

[Somokon]

It's very simple. Rolling need for your companions (when someone else needs the item) is detrimental to the community as a whole, because everyone gears up slower.

 

It's analogous to the prisoners dilemma. Sure, it may help you in the short term to grab that gear piece for your companion, but if everyone starts doing that, everyone (including you) gets a lot less loot overall.

Edited February 25, 2012 by Somokon

[Vecke]

It's very simple. Rolling need for your companions (when someone else needs the item) is detrimental to the community as a whole, because everyone gears up slower.

 

It's analogous to the prisoners dilemma. Sure, it may help you in the short term to grab that gear piece for your companion, but if everyone starts doing that, everyone (including you) gets a lot less loot overall.

 

Again, that's predicated on the assumption that the only person worth gearing up is the PC. That's the entire crux of this debate. For people that see it as a team that they want to gear up collectively, it doesn't slow anything down. Your way slows them down, because you make it harder for them to gear up their team.

 

Why do you think it's simple that - because you value your PC more - it's okay to make them take longer to gear up their team - which they put at an equal value as the PC?

 

Edit: that's also predicated on the idea that taking longer to gear up is a bad thing. Many people in this game disagree, and there are 100 page threads complaining about just that.

Edited February 25, 2012 by Vecke

[Kourage]

If they need for their companion when someone else needed, simply kick them out of the group and grab someone else. Add player to ignore. So simple.

[terminova]

It's very simple. Rolling need for your companions (when someone else needs the item) is detrimental to the community as a whole, because everyone gears up slower.

 

It's analogous to the prisoners dilemma. Sure, it may help you in the short term to grab that gear piece for your companion, but if everyone starts doing that, everyone (including you) gets a lot less loot overall.

 

If you are that worried about "gearing up" only group with people who agree with you about loot and go over your in-depth rules about loot and who is/isn't allowed to have what at the beginning.

 

If they need for their companion when someone else needed, simply kick them out of the group and grab someone else. Add player to ignore. So simple.

 

Kicking people for doing something you don't like without having established loot rules first is something a jerk does. So simple.

Edited February 25, 2012 by terminova

[Vecke]

If they need for their companion when someone else needed, simply kick them out of the group and grab someone else. Add player to ignore. So simple.

 

I don't care if out of your last 100 groups, all 100 of them operated on a "Greed for companions" rule, if on that 101st group, if you don't explain your loot rules, then kick someone for taking an action the game mechanics suggest is okay, the rude behavior is not theirs.