universeman Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 I'm not sure what that has to do with the comment you quoted. If someone wants you to roll need for your companion, even though their own PC could use it, how does what you say mean they're being greedy? And feel free to clarify if I'm making an incorrect assumption here. I just don't see how your comment means the person I'm describing is not being generous. That's my only point. That maybe the person that supports rolling Need does so from a place of generosity, not selfishness. I don't see how your post here contradicts that. Generosity is not in question here. It's equality of opportunity given the, I can roll NEED for my companion side... Some classes have a more diverse set of eq wearing companions. So, why should a Smuggler be able to click NEED 2 or 3x more often than a Trooper simply because he has companions that can wear more types of loot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
universeman Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 Which doesn't matter. Do you realize 90% of your posts are not being constructive at all? If all you're going to say is "it doesn't matter", then you're doing nothing to help anyone understand your side of things. Vecke really seems to be the only one making sense of your side of the argument, which I'm beginning to understand. But, I still don't think it's best for the community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vecke Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 I don't think you're seeing our points of view properly. We're just trying to keep the system fair and respectful to all while putting some simple rules in place that help the community police itself. There are more people out there IMO that do not NEED for their companion than do, so all we're saying is if you want to click NEED for your companion, just speak up. I actually feel guilty disagreeing with you, because you're obviously coming from a very good place. I agree 100% that speaking up is the proper thing to do. I'll even acknowledge that the onus for speaking up is on the "Need for companions" group simply because it appears (and I could be wrong) that the majority rolls greed for companions. What I don't agree with is that this is the "fair and respectful method to all." I understand this is what you believe, but what you're saying isn't fair and respectful to all. It actually favors people that think you should roll greed on companions. You're actually saying, "Just suck it up because - in my experience - the majority disagrees with you." And that's fine, but it isn't a "fair and respectful to all" approach. It's a "majority rules" approach. And I abide by that. I personally never, ever, ever roll Need for a companion in a pug. But the truly fair method is to require everyone to explain their group's loot preference, not just the people on one side of it, because - right now - the game mechanics suggest rolling Need is the appropriate action. Assuming they should just know to "speak up" is unfair to them. The fair option is for everyone to speak up, then there's zero chance that anybody will make that mistake. Do you see my point here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmdatcs Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 (edited) My companion needs good gear to help me clear heroic 2+ content at level, so we aren't talking about that one elite at the end of a solo quest, we are talking about those two champions standing next to each other with no viable CC for either one, or the champion standing next to two elites, or the boss standing by himself waiting to eat me alive. Learn to play, and learn to play. Heroic 2+ quests aren't meant to be done with one player and one companion, they are meant to be done by two+ players and companion(s). You not wanting to play properly isn't a reason to steal gear from someone that does. The second learn to play is because if you can't solo a heroic 2+ with your companion in level appropriate greens, you should probably try an easier game. Edited February 26, 2012 by jmdatcs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vecke Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 Generosity is not in question here. It's equality of opportunity given the, I can roll NEED for my companion side... Some classes have a more diverse set of eq wearing companions. So, why should a Smuggler be able to click NEED 2 or 3x more often than a Trooper simply because he has companions that can wear more types of loot? While I'm perfectly fine with that, I admit you make a good point about the fairness of it. Perhaps the best point I've seen yet. It just didn't really apply to my point that people shouldn't just assume someone supporting Need is being greedy. That's really been my issue from the start. The demonizing of people just because you disagree with them. I'm not saying you're doing that. I'm too lazy to go check. I'm just saying that was the only point I was making on the post you quoted, then commented on it with a point that had nothing to do with my point. My post wasn't about fairness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperGrunt Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 While I agree that you shouldn't be rolling Need on items that are not for your character, I think that the Dev response to that is appropriate. They are adding a button that is meant for companions, and locking the Need button from being pressed when the item is not something that you need for your advanced class. Personally I think that they should also require a setting that declares a primary companion and that option not be available while in any group. Then also lock the for companion button from being used if you are a BH and Mako is your primary companion and a heavy armor or light armor drops. Or maybe you select a companion from a drop down and if it's our primary companion it adds x to your loot roll to make it so that you are more likely to win the roll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vecke Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 (edited) While I agree that you shouldn't be rolling Need on items that are not for your character, I think that the Dev response to that is appropriate. They are adding a button that is meant for companions, and locking the Need button from being pressed when the item is not something that you need for your advanced class. Personally I think that they should also require a setting that declares a primary companion and that option not be available while in any group. Then also lock the for companion button from being used if you are a BH and Mako is your primary companion and a heavy armor or light armor drops. Or maybe you select a companion from a drop down and if it's our primary companion it adds x to your loot roll to make it so that you are more likely to win the roll. All they really need to do is make it clear that the game wants the companion to be above credits but below PCs. Even if I don't agree with that personally, if the game mechanics show this, it's enough for the community to back it up. I personally don't even see locking it to the primary stat being necessary. Just adding a companion button between the greed and need buttons is enough, because it makes the game mechanic's intent clear. Right now, it suggests the exact opposite, which is where a lot of the problems come from. If they just add a companion button, the overwhelming majority will press that button instead of need. I don't think the greedy, selfish, "I WANT EVERYTHING" people are anywhere near as common as everyone thinks. Most people are decent enough people, on both sides. Edited February 26, 2012 by Vecke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noire Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 Need button, class restricted. Need for companion, not class restricted. Greed. Pass. If that were implemented, there would be no arguements cause you have clear restrictions, not that I see the 'needing for a companion' as an issue. If someone does that, I'll just ignore that person and never group with him/her again (as to avoid unnecessary complications) then try and get that particular piece of loot at some other occassion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imraziel Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 IMHO you should be asking the group if you can loot for your companions prior to starting the mission. Putting in a companion button will do nothing as the people who are the problem will still hit need. The worst are people who loot for cash but still put need for everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rzrknight Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 IMHO you should be asking the group if you can loot for your companions prior to starting the mission. Putting in a companion button will do nothing as the people who are the problem will still hit need. The worst are people who loot for cash but still put need for everything. If they add that only the class can roll on the item? Nah , then it should get at least a bit better , ifyou want to make sure dont party on groups that got your class , which can be a pain. People ninja get used to it , i for one only party with my guild or a guild im friendly with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revenaught Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 (edited) Well all I can say is that when the "need for companion" button gets put in game I will have absolutely no reason to run group content after my Avatar is fully geared out. With a guaranteed method for someone to always trump my roll when trying to gear a companion I have no reason left to do that content. Thus a large portion of my planned end game activities will be denied me. Edited February 26, 2012 by Revenaught Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grecanis Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 Well all I can say is that when the "need for companion" button gets put in game I will have absolutely no reason to run group content after my Avatar is fully geared out. With a guaranteed method for someone to always trump my roll when trying to gear a companion I have no reason left to do that content. Thus a large portion of my planned end game activities will be denied me. Don't know where else you'll find it then.. You could do what should have been done in the first place ...do farming runs with friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmdatcs Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 (edited) Well all I can say is that when the "need for companion" button gets put in game I will have absolutely no reason to run group content after my Avatar is fully geared out. With a guaranteed method for someone to always trump my roll when trying to gear a companion I have no reason left to do that content. Thus a large portion of my planned end game activities will be denied me. Good riddance. I don't want or need a player that is so weak they "need" to have their companion geared to complete solo content bringing down the skill level of the group. Edited February 26, 2012 by jmdatcs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vecke Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 Good riddance. I don't want or need a player that is so weak they "need" to have their companion geared to complete solo content bringing down the skill level of the group. So someone's personal skill level as a player should determine whether or not they get to roll on loot? Is that your stance here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmdatcs Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 So someone's personal skill level as a player should determine whether or not they get to roll on loot? Is that your stance here? No. F for reading comprehension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vecke Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 No. F for reading comprehension. "Good riddance. I don't want or need a player that is so weak they "need" to have their companion geared to complete solo content bringing down the skill level of the group." I'd say you're right. I can be pretty stupid sometimes. I thought you were saying this person shouldn't even be in groups (thereby not able to get the loot they want) because their skill level is too low. Considering in your two previous posts you actually suggested they not play this game at all, based on their skill level. But I admit, maybe I'm interpreting your position incorrectly. I'm totally open to a clarification here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revenaught Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 Good riddance. I don't want or need a player that is so weak they "need" to have their companion geared to complete solo content bringing down the skill level of the group. And I have no need to play with someone who thinks he has the right to tell me just how far I may gear up my companion. Get off your high horse you are not all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmdatcs Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 (edited) And I have no need to play with someone who thinks he has the right to tell me just how far I may gear up my companion. Get off your high horse you are not all that. You can gear it up all you want, you just take a backseat to player characters that need it for an upgrade. And since you're too selfish to do this on your own, Bioware is, rightly, forcing you to. Edited February 27, 2012 by Zoggel Rude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revenaught Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 Don't know where else you'll find it then.. You could do what should have been done in the first place ...do farming runs with friends. Farming runs with friends will be possible of course. I was refering to the PUGs usually mentioned in these threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revenaught Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 (edited) You can gear it up all you want, you just take a backseat to player characters that need it for an upgrade. And since you're too selfish to do this on your own, Bioware is, rightly, forcing you too. I'm selfish? Really? When I have no problem allowing others to roll on items for themselves and their companion while I do the same. When you will only allow me to roll on my Avatar so that you may have unhindered opportunity at gear for your Avatar. And you call me selfish? Wow! Bioware my indeed follow through on this idea but I belive it's the wrong decision to have made. Edited February 27, 2012 by Zoggel Rude Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vecke Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 And since you're too selfish to do this on your own, Bioware is, rightly, forcing you to.. If Revenaught is in a pug with you and a piece of loot drops that Revenaught can use for their PC and you can use for your companion... Revenaught would want you to roll against their PC for your companion. Care to explain how that means Revenaught is being selfish? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grecanis Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 I'm selfish? Really? When I have no problem allowing others to roll on items for themselves and their companion while I do the same. Yes, selfish ..we all are because we're human. It's a peculiar trait we all share. I would rather call it "less conciderate" as your method forces those who would otherwise not roll need, to conform to your more liberal definition of the term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vecke Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 (edited) Yes, selfish ..we all are because we're human. It's a peculiar trait we all share. I would rather call it "less conciderate" as your method forces those who would otherwise not roll need, to conform to your more liberal definition of the term. I can understand how different people would have a different take on a companion's importance, but I just can't wrap my brain around the "shelfish" name-calling. If Revenaught is in a group with you and an item drops that your companion can use, but Revenaught's player character can use... if Revenaught says to you, "Hey, if your companion can use that, you should roll against my PC, just so we both get a shot." Please explain how that act is selfish. Edited February 27, 2012 by Vecke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revenaught Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 (edited) Yes, selfish ..we all are because we're human. It's a peculiar trait we all share. I would rather call it "less conciderate" as your method forces those who would otherwise not roll need, to conform to your more liberal definition of the term. And yet isn't it just as inconsiderate for you to force me to conform to your definition of the term? My way does not prevent you the opportunity to roll on the gear you want. Your way prevents me from rollin on gear I want. I know which I consider more selfish. Oh and my way forces no one to do anything. I offer them the same opportunity to roll as I would. Whether they do roll on something or not is up to them. Edited February 27, 2012 by Revenaught Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grecanis Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 I can understand how different people would have a different take on a companion's importance, but I just can't wrap my brain around the "shelfish" name-calling. If Revenaught is in a group with you and an item drops that your companion can use, but Revenaught's player character can use... if Revenaught says to you, "Hey, if your companion can use that, you should roll against my PC, just so we both get a shot." Please explain how that act is selfish. I would ask him to join the rest of us on a greed roll. This loot system is like communism ..because as long as there is one person who wan't more than another ..neither will work. As for the selfish part ..you must not have gotten the jist of the post you quoted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts