People who ninja for their companions

[Vecke]

 

As for the selfish part ..you must not have gotten the jist of the post you quoted.

 

No, I really didn't get it. I can understand every single point in this thread (on both sides) except the "You're selfish" name-calling part. That part is flat out an untrue accusation.

 

Not one person on this thread that's genuinely advocating Need rolls for companions is being selfish. Not one.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Vecke

[Grecanis]

And yet isn't it just as inconsiderate for you to force me to conform to your definition of the term?

 

That was the expected response ..which is why we're in the quandry we're in

 

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.

 

What if a player who wouldn't roll that way, rolled greed first thinking you would be conciderate enough to follow suit? ..you would have essentially aced them out of thier "equal chance".

[Grecanis]

No, I really didn't get it. I can understand every single point in this thread (on both sides) except the "You're selfish" name-calling part. That part is flat out an untrue accusation.

 

Not one person on this thread that's genuinely advocating Need rolls for companions is being selfish. Not one.

 

Yes, selfish ..we all are because we're human. It's a peculiar trait we all share.

 

I wouldn't be offended ..welcome to the human race

[Vecke]

I wouldn't be offended ..welcome to the human race

 

Oh... You were just making a general statement that both sides are selfish by nature because it's just the human condition... Yeah, sorry I came at you like an enraged wookiee. You weren't singling out either group.

 

Edit: I still disagree with you, but I admit I misinterpreted what you were saying with the selfish comment.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Vecke

[Revenaught]

That was the expected response ..which is why we're in the quandry we're in

 

 

 

What if a player who wouldn't roll that way, rolled greed first thinking you would be conciderate enough to follow suit? ..you would have essentially aced them out of thier "equal chance".

 

No. This would not happen. Should I join a PUG I would be considerate enough to let them know if I was in that instance for gear for my companion whether or not they were considerate enough to speak about their prefered loot rules or just arrogantly assumed that I automatically followed in lock step with them.

[Grecanis]

No. This would not happen. Should I join a PUG I would be considerate enough to let them know if I was in that instance for gear for my companion whether or not they were considerate enough to speak about their prefered loot rules or just arrogantly assumed that I automatically followed in lock step with them.

 

Then why are you arguing ..this debate is about those who just roll anyway.

 

Both sides have already pretty much agreed that speaking up solves almost everything.

[jmdatcs]

No. This would not happen. Should I join a PUG I would be considerate enough to let them know if I was in that instance for gear for my companion whether or not they were considerate enough to speak about their prefered loot rules or just arrogantly assumed that I automatically followed in lock step with them.

 

Yeah, it's totally their fault for assuming the people they group with posses common decency and consideration, and not assuming everyone is a ninja looting ******.

 

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.

 

Oh, you'll let us have turds we don't want because we don't "need" purples for companions to do solo content in return for you stealing gear we actually do need for ops.

 

I stand corrected you are clearly the most magnanimous person in this game.

 

This opens up a whole new world for me. Tonight when I go to Donovan's and walk out on a $400 tab, I'll explain to them they can come over and raid my fridge any time they want. I'm sure that will go over well.

 

Bioware is putting an end to your crap. If you want to QQ, be my guest, just don't expect anyone to care.

Edited February 27, 2012 by jmdatcs

[Vecke]

Yeah, it's totally their fault for assuming the people they group with posses common decency and consideration, and not assuming everyone is a ninja looting ******.

 

 

 

Oh, you'll let us have turds we don't want because we don't "need" purples for companions to do solo content in return for you stealing gear we actually do need for ops.

 

I stand corrected you are clearly the most magnanimous person in this game.

 

This opens up a whole new world for me. Tonight when I go to Donovan's and walk out on a $400 tab, I'll explain to them they can come over and raid my fridge any time they want. I'm sure that will go over well.

 

Bioware is putting an end to your crap. If you want to QQ, be my guest, just don't expect anyone to care.

 

Revenaught has specifically stated that he asks before he rolls need.

 

You've still not explained how that makes him a bad person. He's offering to let you roll on the best gear in-game for your companion.

 

Please, explain how Revenaught is a selfish person for offering you a roll on that gear.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Vecke

[Revenaught]

Then why are you arguing ..this debate is about those who just roll anyway.

 

Both sides have already pretty much agreed that speaking up solves almost everything.

 

I argue it because there are plenty speaking up that would ban it period. Regardless of whether it's talked about or not.

 

I argue it because all to many don't even bother to hold the conversation beforehand just because they believe thier way is the only way and everyone should already be on the same sheet of music as they.

 

I argue it because I believe the companions are an integral part of the Avatars and there should be no reason a person shouldn't be able to roll on top quality gear. I understand that hasn't been the case in previous games but this game isn't the same as those other MMOs and certain alterations to the usual loot etiquette are justified.

[Hanscholo]

The way i see it is, if you can use it, you can roll on it.

 

I dont really care what anyone else thinks tbh. Ive sat thru enough loot rules from enough selfish people to know that everyone just wants what is best for them.

[Revenaught]

Yeah, it's totally their fault for assuming the people they group with posses common decency and consideration, and not assuming everyone is a ninja looting ******.

 

 

 

Oh, you'll let us have turds we don't want because we don't "need" purples for companions to do solo content in return for you stealing gear we actually do need for ops.

 

I stand corrected you are clearly the most magnanimous person in this game.

 

This opens up a whole new world for me. Tonight when I go to Donovan's and walk out on a $400 tab, I'll explain to them they can come over and raid my fridge any time they want. I'm sure that will go over well.

 

Bioware is putting an end to your crap. If you want to QQ, be my guest, just don't expect anyone to care.

 

Grecanis (sorry if that's misspelled) is at least willing to discuss the matter rationally, you sir are not and seen to only be responding to act insulting. I have no interest in continuing this with you. So you are now ignored so I no longer have to read your inane drivel.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Revenaught

[universeman]

Seriously I am going to respectfully bow out of this discussion. I wish you all (regardless of which side you're on) the best and hope the issue (one way or the other) gets resolved sooner than later.

 

(let's see how long it lasts)

Edited February 27, 2012 by Zoggel
Spam Quote

[Vecke]

Seriously I am going to respectfully bow out of this discussion. I wish you all (regardless of which side you're on) the best and hope the issue (one way or the other) gets resolved sooner than later.

 

(let's see how long it lasts)

 

Same here. Everything's really been said on this one. For the record, most of the folks in this epic thread (including you, universeman) are pretty cool in my book.

[terminova]

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.

 

Do troll less. I've been very constructive, you just don't like the points I've been making.

[terminova]

*snipped useless part of post*

 

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.

 

Are you sure? No really, are you? I just finished soloing Terminal Injuries on my Sith Marauder and his companion at level. The "2+" is simply a recommended group size of at least two characters meaning you can fill that second position with a companion. Heroic 4 can be done with two players and two companions.

 

 

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.

 

I just soloed Terminal Injuries with my companion completely in greens at level. I'm not sure what your point is. Are you trying to tell me that I cannot solo Heroic 2+ content at level even though I just did? I'm pretty sure I know how to play and know exactly what I'm doing, but thanks anyway.

Edited February 27, 2012 by terminova

[terminova]

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?

 

They wouldn't be able to roll more often. If both players had the same number of companions they'd both be able to roll the same number of times as they were getting gear upgrades for their companions. Different armor/weapon types won't change that, only changes what they would roll on.

[BoyZzDEViL]

Ok Guys. lets not try to outsmaort Immanuel Kant and ask him

 

thats what he says :

 

(...)every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.

 

it meens. Only do things which could be out in as universal law.

With the number of companions it meens everybody could press need for everything all the time most of the times. after all almost every class has a companion which could need a specific item:

 

everybody needing everything till everybody has stuffed out all of companions is what you want?

 

i salve this problem with masterloot. i dont join grps without masterloot. problem salved.. cosue there will be allways a 13 years old arguing that hes companion is hes soulmate etc. i i dont bother hearing that anymore.

[universeman]

They wouldn't be able to roll more often. If both players had the same number of companions they'd both be able to roll the same number of times as they were getting gear upgrades for their companions. Different armor/weapon types won't change that, only changes what they would roll on.

 

Maybe we should figure out what companions actually require what gear, but I do know they are not all the same...

 

If your three companions all use AIM equipment and my three use AIM, WILLPOWER, and CUNNING. I will be rolling NEED on AIM, WILLPOWER, and CUNNING drops and it's totally acceptable in a NEED for companions way, while you are only allowed to roll NEED for AIM.

 

Whenever AIM drops, we'll both be rolling on it in competition. When WILLPOWER and CUNNING drop, only I will be rolling NEED on it...unless you're going to roll NEED to sell it. If you're ok with doing that, then we open the door for those who would use the system immorally and we can't do anything about it (and everyone should probably just roll NEED at all times). I don't agree with that.

 

Do troll less. I've been very constructive, you just don't like the points I've been making.

 

Half the posts you've made were one liners, or defensive disagreements without any reasoning behind them. If you're going to be constructive and help this conversation move along, you need to explain your reasoning like you did above.

[universeman]

With the number of companions it meens everybody could press need for everything all the time most of the times. after all almost every class has a companion which could need a specific item:

 

I just checked: Troopers and all of the Troopers companions only use AIM. Consulars, as a counter example, have companions that use AIM, WILLPOWER, and CUNNING. I didn't bother checking any others.

 

This inequality is partially why I don't support NEED for companions as a standard practice.

[Irusan]

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.

 

Because the Grammar Police are giving you a hard time, and I regard you as a buddy, please allow me to give you some sentences with examples of "board" and "bored" in them.

 

"I am so bored with that guys ceaseless trolling that it's not funny."

 

"I would like to bludgeon that guys head into a bloody pulp with a heavy oak board."

 

Just trying to help, not being a smart alec about it.

[DarthKhaos]

So based on this, there are some things we can safely infer:

 

They are leaning towards - but aren't sure - the idea that a new button and a restriction on the need button will help this issue.

 

They have given no statement about what they personally think.

 

They do not agree with the people that are saying this is a clear-cut issue and they do not believe there is a clear "right or wrong" position on this issue. The devs agree that companions and mods have changed the paradigm.

 

They don't see this as a high priority issue and have no intention of working it into the March patch.

 

They suggest we work it out for ourselves.

 

Me, personally, I think they might be waiting it out a bit to make sure the community standard on this issue is clear. While they think it's probably that "greed" is appropriate, they're not sure yet.

 

I actually came into this thread thinking it was pretty clear cut and everyone should roll greed for companions. After reading all the intelligent replies from the "need" crowd (ignoring the trolls, etc), I'm not so sure anymore. I kinda think rolling need for a companion - at the very least - is an idea that has merit, and it's an idea that is probably the most fair across the board. I think it's most certainly the simplest solution.

 

At the very least, I understand their perspective better and I don't think they're greedy little jerks. It genuinely is a difference on perspective, and one that has all but won me over.

They don't have to. By planning to restrict the NEED button to your CLASS ONLY and adding a SEPARATE button for companion means that the NEED button should NOT be used for companions.

 

However as it is now if a player that would like the item for their companion ask, most of the times it is not an issue.

[ThiborF]

What's to discuss?

 

The biggest justification I have read in this thread is that the system allows it, so, if the system doesnt allow it, that should end the argument.

 

BTW That system is coming sooner rather than later.

 

*shrug*

 

I don't recall them saying the reason they're updating the rolling system is because they agree one view is more valid than the other. Nor have I seen them state exactly what changes to the rolling system they are making.

 

Like every other time the devs state and change/update is coming, people read into it all sorts of things.

 

One could just as easily argue that the reality of it is that they're tired of watching many of those pitching fits in these arguments as being as incapable of coming to an understanding as two pre-teen siblings screaming at each other, "IT'S NOT FAIR!!! MOM!!!!!!!", that they're simply going to offer more options of choice of roll system that the group leader can select.

 

In other words, I would bet it is far more likely they are adding to the current system rather than simply changing how the existing NBG works.

 

Which is great because having options is fine. It's the way the go. It lets the players decide what works best for them. It just likely means that instead of the group leader having to take a few seconds to state how loot should work, the other players can simply see it somewhere in the UI.

 

I only hope that whatever changes they're making to the roll system in their hopes to alleviate this issue is flexible/robust enough to handle the next loot storm that's on the horizon and is due to hit when they release dual-spec into the game ...

MS>OS

Another player-construct that players will debate on the forums with the same fervor with both sides insisting their way is the only true fair way.

[terminova]

Maybe we should figure out what companions actually require what gear, but I do know they are not all the same...

 

If your three companions all use AIM equipment and my three use AIM, WILLPOWER, and CUNNING. I will be rolling NEED on AIM, WILLPOWER, and CUNNING drops and it's totally acceptable in a NEED for companions way, while you are only allowed to roll NEED for AIM.

 

Whenever AIM drops, we'll both be rolling on it in competition. When WILLPOWER and CUNNING drop, only I will be rolling NEED on it...unless you're going to roll NEED to sell it. If you're ok with doing that, then we open the door for those who would use the system immorally and we can't do anything about it (and everyone should probably just roll NEED at all times). I don't agree with that.

 

I've already stated many times, I'm fine with you rolling Need on items for your companion. I'm fine with not winning any loot rolls in a FP.

 

But you really should stay away from slippery slope fallacies, they are really treacherous from what I've heard.

 

Half the posts you've made were one liners, or defensive disagreements without any reasoning behind them. If you're going to be constructive and help this conversation move along, you need to explain your reasoning like you did above.

 

That's because you don't put any thought into why I might have said what I said, you just go "OMG ONE LINE POST MUST COMPLAIN!!!1!111!!!!!1!!11!1!"

Edited February 27, 2012 by terminova

[universeman]

I've already stated many times, I'm fine with you rolling Need on items for your companion. I'm fine with not winning any loot rolls in a FP.

 

Good, you can PASS on every item when you're grouped with me and everything will go great! In fact, I'll bring you along through every FP

 

But you really should stay away from slippery slope fallacies, they are really treacherous from what I've heard.

 

I haven't slipped yet...and if you don't care to join me, then stop wasting our time in this thread. People are here to discuss the many aspects involved in loot distribution.

[Valketh]

long winded way of stating your definition of need. also, you don't speak for the universe, and these "universally accepted rules" do not apply universally. they apply in your world from your experiences. others have different views and different experiences. don't try to speak for everyone. it makes you look bad.

 

i'm not advocating one way or the other btw. i'm simply stating we do not have a definition of need as determined by the overseers of this game. right now, it's possible to roll need in what i suppose a lot of people believe is too many situations. i don't personally feel that way but i don't really care and my opinion doesn't matter anyway.

 

There is no written law that you shouldn't cut in line but it's "universally" accepted that you don't do it. Whether at a grocery store, in line for dvd rental at blockbuster, or in a cafeteria, you just don't do it. If you do, there will be words, and more if words don't make you see what an *** you're being, I wouldn't sympathize if you got your face stomped.

 

Same applies here. It's *********** rude to need if you don't need. Just because there's a pop up window doesn't mean do w t f you want. Unfortunately you have the same "I'm entitled to what I want when I want" mentality of most youngsters today. Perhaps manners and etiquette were never taught in your home, for that, I'm sorry.

Edited February 29, 2012 by Valketh