People who ninja for their companions

[Vydor_HC]

BTW, The guy who said that is the "Principal Lead Systems Designer". So stop with the "what he said doesn't mean much" stuff, ok? They're fixing it because they disagree with your way of thinking on this subject. So again, who's playing the game the way they intend it? You guys or us?

 

-shrugs-

 

I don't know. Like I said, it won't be anytime soon, if at all. There wasn't much that was very clear in that statement to me. Take it as you like.

 

And what is my take on the subject since you seem to know it already.

[Setanian]

You definitely have the right. There's no game mechanic that's stopping you. I think that's where the "greed" camp is going wrong. They think this is a hard rule; it's not.

 

But if you rolled need, do you think it would be a fair judgment for them to think you're an inconsiderate jerk and never group with you again?

 

I understand you don't care if they never group with you again. I'm just asking if you agree with them that it would be a jerk-ish thing to do.

 

I think I would be a jerk for needing on something I didn't need. I have never done such a thing. I have never advocated such a thing.

 

Where this all gets blown out f proportion, is people 'thinking' they can force me to do what they want. And that is a mistake.

[Setanian]

BTW, The guy who said that is the "Principal Lead Systems Designer". So stop with the "what he said doesn't mean much" stuff, ok? They're fixing it because they disagree with your way of thinking on this subject. So again, who's playing the game the way they intend it? You guys or us?

 

Please, show me where he said that's the way they intended it?

 

Fact is he said no such thing. You're trying to bend his words to fit your argument. And failing.

[ferroz]

The only thing I don't respect is those who don't respect others.

So, that'd mean that you have no self respect, since you don't respect others.

 

There are a few people in the game (you seem to be one of them) who are playing the game for themselves only.

where would you get that idea?

 

Is that from the fact that I pass on most gear, even stuff that is a statistical upgrade, since that doesn't really interest me?

 

You are not caring what other people do or how they play (you said it yourself)...

I think I've been clear that I am not bothered by what people do or how they play; that's not the same thing as "not caring"

 

 

So, to claim I am the one who is not respecting other play styles is completely wrong,

No, you're clearly not respecting that other people have a different priority in loot than you do, or play the game differently than you do.

 

if you did respect that, then you couldn't demand that they not roll need for their companions. You wouldn't be upset at them for doing so.

 

The fact that you are upset about that means that you don't respect their choices.

 

since the only reason I'm here explaining the situation is because you don't seem to be respecting others play styles.

No, I respect other people play styles. If you want to only need on items that give you a specific type of improvement, be it looks, or stats of a particualr type, or your companion, or whatever, I respect your right to do so.

 

I just don't agree that you get to dictate that to other people; the fact that you are insisting that I allow you to do so isn't about respect...

 

Like I said, you can click whatever you want.

That's true

But, some of us do respect others choices and that is why we don't use that NEED button the way you seem to.

Us isn't correct. I respect other's choices. You don't. So you can't use "us" in that sentence and be saying something true.

 

Simple as that

[Vecke]

I think I would be a jerk for needing on something I didn't need. I have never done such a thing. I have never advocated such a thing.

 

Where this all gets blown out f proportion, is people 'thinking' they can force me to do what they want. And that is a mistake.

 

I agree. I think the extreme language in the debate has kind of derailed this from a "value of companions" debate to a debate on extremely unlikely scenarios over specific events that almost never happen.

 

Most people self-regulate on rolls just fine, out of respect for the other players. They do it because they want to do it and don't appreciate being told they have to do it.

 

A few don't play that way, but most do. The problem comes when people on the "you should greed" camp start demanding certain behaviors, which then causes the "need is subjective camp" to start defending actions that neither they nor most people that group regularly would ever do anyway.

[Pandabutt]

Need roles should be for the player only, not for companions. If no one in the group can use the item, and it's better than whats on your companion... by all means ask the group if you can roll Need on it for you companion... don't just roll need on every single item that is better for you or your companion...

 

I don't know how many times I or a guild mate have kicked randoms for ninja looting for companions. When your grouped with other players common sense tells you, they are looking for gear too, especially when one or two of them are lower level and the gear from the FP/OP is lightyears better than what they have on.

 

Group looting is designed for the group. if your companion isn't part of the group then the is no reason you should be rolling for your companion. Consider your companion rolls to be GREED rolls not NEED. Trust me, everyone else in the group sees your companion rolls as GREED, so you should roll GREED for them.

[Setanian]

The only thing I don't respect is those who don't respect others. There are a few people in the game (you seem to be one of them) who are playing the game for themselves only. This is where it starts. You are not caring what other people do or how they play (you said it yourself)...

 

So, to claim I am the one who is not respecting other play styles is completely wrong, since the only reason I'm here explaining the situation is because you don't seem to be respecting others play styles.

 

Like I said, you can click whatever you want. But, some of us do respect others choices and that is why we don't use that NEED button the way you seem to.

 

Simple as that

 

This is a complete fallacy.

 

Most players in PuGs are playing for themselves. If you think otherwise, I think you are sadly mistaken.

 

Do I care about other people in PuGs? Not a bit. In my guild? Absolutely.

 

Most players do a PuG to get a quest done. They really don't care if you die, in game or in RL. All they want is the end-goal.

 

And then we go into this 'respect' thing.

 

You have to earn respect. You don't just get it because you joined my group. Sorry, that's life. When you reach my age, you'll understand.

 

I never go into any PuG respecting or trusting anyone. I'm there to achieve my goals. If others are willing to help because it also achieves their goals too, great! Off we go.

 

This whole 'I roll greed so should you' is just a vision blinkered by an imagination not borne in reality.

[Vydor_HC]

I agree. I think the extreme language in the debate has kind of derailed this from a "value of companions" debate to a debate on extremely unlikely scenarios over specific events that almost never happen.

 

Most people self-regulate on rolls just fine, out of respect for the other players. They do it because they want to do it and don't appreciate being told they have to do it.

 

A few don't play that way, but most do. The problem comes when people on the "you should greed" camp start demanding certain behaviors, which then causes the "need is subjective camp" to start defending actions that neither they nor most people that group regularly would ever do anyway.

 

I think your line of argument though is outside the discussion. You are trying to get someone to say they would select need on an item they do not need. Which no one is arguing in favor of.

[ferroz]

Ummm...the whole point of my argument is that each player should have equal right to an item

No, if you think that there are situations where it's not right for people to roll need on the item, then you're not in favor of each player having equal right to the item... that's pretty much cut and dry.

[ferroz]

I think your line of argument though is outside the discussion. You are trying to get someone to say they would select need on an item they do not need. Which no one is arguing in favor of.

I agree. If someone feels they need an item, and picks need, then they're not being a jerk... not even if you don't agree with his evaluation.

[Vecke]

I think your line of argument though is outside the discussion. You are trying to get someone to say they would select need on an item they do not need. Which no one is arguing in favor of.

 

I think you might be surprised how unclear that is on this thread. I was trying to establish exactly what you just said. That most people aren't in favor of that. This debate has derailed because many people think that's exactly what's being argued here. I don't think it is, and was trying to establish that and make it clear.

[Vecke]

I agree. If someone feels they need an item, and picks need, then they're not being a jerk... not even if you don't agree with his evaluation.

 

Just for clarity's sake, what would your answer be to my example? You personally, not someone else. You. Would you roll need or greed on the lightsaber in my example if you were a smuggler?

[Vydor_HC]

I think you might be surprised how unclear that is on this thread. I was trying to establish exactly what you just said. That most people aren't in favor of that. This debate has derailed because many people think that's exactly what's being argued here. I don't think it is, and was trying to establish that and make it clear.

 

OK, thanks for the clarity.

 

This debate is never ending, in every game I've played since EQ, this has been a topic of discussion and heated arguments. What I generally find is there are a lot of players that make the assumption that need before greed is universally accepted but forget that everyone has a different opinion of what need actually is, and that is what leads to so much bad blood. The only time it's really certain is when you are playing with people you've grouped with before and have already cleared the issue up with.

[Vecke]

I think your line of argument though is outside the discussion. You are trying to get someone to say they would select need on an item they do not need. Which no one is arguing in favor of.

 

Also, I'm not trying to get anyone to say they'd roll need on something they don't need. I'm just trying to demonstrate the opposite, because people seem to think that's what they're saying. I don't think it is what they're saying at all.

[ferroz]

I'm saying, purely from a respect and etiquette perspective, do you think there's absolutely nothing wrong with rolling need on that lightsaber if you KNOW for an absolute fact that the jedi needs it for a direct upgrade.

I'd say that "need" isn't the right word. It's want.

 

The jedi wants it for one reason. Someone else wants it for some other reason.

 

If I'm the jedi, I'm not going to mind if someone else hits need and wins it. I don't think that I'm entitled to more than a roll, and I don't think it's my loot until I've won it.

If I'm a smuggler, I'm personally not going to roll need, so it's a moot point. EDIT: unless it can be equipped by smugglers and used in place of a shotgun for the move that uses it; I'd roll need in that case.

 

Now, if someone really did ninjaloot it... meaning, I won the roll but someone else looted it and took it, that'd be a different story. But that can't happen in this game.

Edited February 22, 2012 by ferroz

[Vydor_HC]

Also, I'm not trying to get anyone to say they'd roll need on something they don't need. I'm just trying to demonstrate the opposite, because people seem to think that's what they're saying. I don't think it is what they're saying at all.

 

That is exactly how it comes across. You put out an example of a situation where someone would not have a need for an item and are asking them would they roll need on it? It's can't be any clearer than that.

[Vecke]

OK, thanks for the clarity.

 

This debate is never ending, in every game I've played since EQ, this has been a topic of discussion and heated arguments. What I generally find is there are a lot of players that make the assumption that need before greed is universally accepted but forget that everyone has a different opinion of what need actually is, and that is what leads to so much bad blood. The only time it's really certain is when you are playing with people you've grouped with before and have already cleared the issue up with.

 

I agree. I even made the error of saying it's universally accepted myself on this thread. I fully admit I was wrong to use that phrase; it's quite obviously not universally accepted. It was bad wording on my part.

[Saurakk]

My two year old tells me she NEEDS Minnie to go to sleep. I tell her Pooh and Daisy are just fine.

 

She manages to get to sleep anyway.

 

Need is an extremely subjective concept without a qualifier attached.

[Vecke]

I'd say that "need" isn't the right word. It's want.

 

The jedi wants it for one reason. Someone else wants it for some other reason.

 

If I'm the jedi, I'm not going to mind if someone else hits need and wins it. I don't think that I'm entitled to more than a roll, and I don't think it's my loot until I've won it.

If I'm a smuggler, I'm personally not going to roll need, so it's a moot point.

 

now, if someone really did ninjaloot it... meaning, I won the roll but someone else looted it and took it, that'd be a different story. But that can't happen in this game.

 

See, I agree with everything you just said.

 

I think the "you should greed" camp is assuming (incorrectly) that you are arguing your point to justify your own jerk-behavior. That's definitely not what you're saying. I can respect what you're saying here.

 

And I think very few people in game would ever roll need in my example. If they did, I might be disappointed that they rolled need, but I wouldn't flip out on them or anything. It's kind of like the person in front of you in line that has a 1000 items in their buggy, and you're behind them with a single slim jim. Sure, it would be awesome if they let me jump ahead of them, but I'm not going to start screaming at them if they don't.

[Tirfin]

It is interesting that this debate still exists, I have also found it interesting observing how different people go about this idea in practice.

 

On one hand I have found that the vast majority of people I play with adhere to the "greed unless this character I am playing can use it" idea. This has even been extended to items for their class that are below their current stats.

 

Though people in this camp even tend to split between greed/pass, as in pass for non-class items, greed for low class items, and need for something you can use right now.

 

But ultimately the reality of the issue that it is a question of societal/community responsibility vs government/developer control. In other words, the unspoken rule of greed/pass on non-class items is one of community preference. People can act against it, and their is no overt punishment. As such the rule is managed by the community as a whole. If the vast majority of the community shun this practice, those that do it will be ignored, kicked, and otherwise avoided by most people. They are welcome to do otherwise, and even form their own community within the game that adheres to their same ideals. This could be even more easily managed by giving the community option to prevent people from rolling need on non-class items (key word there is option).

 

On the other hand the government (aka the developers) could step in and set up rules that the community adheres to, especially if it becomes a major issue. I doubt they would do this as it restricts people's game play, but it could happen.

 

Still, at the end of the day we are dependent upon self regulation. This gives everyone the freedom to act upon this issue as they see fit. So, as it stands, you are free to select need for everything, but then you must be willing to accept the consequences of your actions. So no complaining if you get kicked, ignored, or that you can't find a group because the vast majority of people have placed you on their "will not play with" list.

Edited February 22, 2012 by Tirfin

[Vydor_HC]

It is interesting that this debate still exists, I have also found it interesting observing how different people go about this idea in practice.

 

On one hand I have found that the vast majority of people I play with adhere to the "greed unless I can use it idea". This has even been extended to items for their class that are below their current stats.

 

Though people in this camp even tend to split between greed/pass, as in pass for non-class items, greed for low class items, and need for something you can use right now.

 

But ultimately the reality of the issue that it is a question of societal/community responsibility vs government/developer control. In other words, the unspoken rule of greed/pass on non-class items is one of community preference. People can act against it, and their is no overt punishment. As such the rule is managed by the community as a whole. If the vast majority of the community shun this practice, those that do it will be ignored, kicked, and otherwise avoided by most people. They are welcome to do otherwise, and even form their own community within the game that adheres to their same ideals. This could be even more easily managed by giving the community option to prevent people from rolling need on non-class items (key word there is option).

 

On the other hand the government (aka the developers) could step in and set up rules that the community adheres to, especially if it becomes a major issue. I doubt they would do this as it restricts people's game play, but it could happen.

 

Still, at the end of the day we are dependent upon self regulation. This gives everyone the freedom to act upon this issue as they see fit. So, as it stands, you are free to select need for everything, but then you must be willing to accept the consequences of your actions. So no complaining if you get kicked, ignored, or that you can't find a group because the vast majority of people have placed you on their "will not play with" list.

 

Good post.

 

I think the game is healthier if there are a myriad of choices the players can make about looting, instead of being tied down by the "system". This is a social game after all, one of the key components of that is to communicate with the people you play with. What happens is people skip that communication part, get upset, and demand that the developers reduce our looting options.

[ferroz]

Can we talk about the discussion topic? If you want to get warnings and infractions, there are easier ways to do it.

 

and now back to the discussion...

 

 

This debate is never ending, in every game I've played since EQ, this has been a topic of discussion and heated arguments.

Definitely it was a hot topic in EQ; it was an almost perpetual discussion topic on the caster realms forums (before it got sold and they basically axed the forums).

 

There were a lot of servers were NBG just didn't happen except in guild groups. On my server it was fairly split, but most of the groups in say, BOT, were not NBG. We did master loot, sell off the sellables and split the coins, and then roll and split the items in the order that you won.

[Saurakk]

It is interesting that this debate still exists, I have also found it interesting observing how different people go about this idea in practice.

 

On one hand I have found that the vast majority of people I play with adhere to the "greed unless I can use it idea". This has even been extended to items for their class that are below their current stats.

 

Though people in this camp even tend to split between greed/pass, as in pass for non-class items, greed for low class items, and need for something you can use right now.

 

But ultimately the reality of the issue that it is a question of societal/community responsibility vs government/developer control. In other words, the unspoken rule of greed/pass on non-class items is one of community preference. People can act against it, and their is no overt punishment. As such the rule is managed by the community as a whole. If the vast majority of the community shun this practice, those that do it will be ignored, kicked, and otherwise avoided by most people. They are welcome to do otherwise, and even form their own community within the game that adheres to their same ideals. This could be even more easily managed by giving the community option to prevent people from rolling need on non-class items (key word there is option).

 

On the other hand the government (aka the developers) could step in and set up rules that the community adheres to, especially if it becomes a major issue. I doubt they would do this as it restricts people's game play, but it could happen.

 

Still, at the end of the day we are dependent upon self regulation. This gives everyone the freedom to act upon this issue as they see fit. So, as it stands, you are free to select need for everything, but then you must be willing to accept the consequences of your actions. So no complaining if you get kicked, ignored, or that you can't find a group because the vast majority of people have placed you on their "will not play with" list.

 

My assumption is that until they are bothered with a lot of petitions from players about this (not saying it is petitionable but that does not stop people) it will be a very minor area of concern for them any time soon.

[Vydor_HC]

Can we talk about the discussion topic? If you want to get warnings and infractions, there are easier ways to do it.

 

and now back to the discussion...

 

 

Definitely it was a hot topic in EQ; it was an almost perpetual discussion topic on the caster realms forums (before it got sold and they basically axed the forums).

 

There were a lot of servers were NBG just didn't happen except in guild groups. On my server it was fairly split, but most of the groups in say, BOT, were not NBG. We did master loot, sell off the sellables and split the coins, and then roll and split the items in the order that you won.

 

Yeah, players can come up with some pretty neat ways to distribute loot, as long as the game allows them to. It's one of the reasons I hate BOP items.

[Setanian]

See, I agree with everything you just said.

 

I think the "you should greed" camp is assuming (incorrectly) that you are arguing your point to justify your own jerk-behavior. That's definitely not what you're saying. I can respect what you're saying here.

 

And I think very few people in game would ever roll need in my example. If they did, I might be disappointed that they rolled need, but I wouldn't flip out on them or anything. It's kind of like the person in front of you in line that has a 1000 items in their buggy, and you're behind them with a single slim jim. Sure, it would be awesome if they let me jump ahead of them, but I'm not going to start screaming at them if they don't.

 

The whole past 7 rolls of this topic have been about one side saying here are the norms and the facts. The other side saying no, you play this way or I boot you.

 

Add to that, the difference between 'what I can do' and 'what I will do' seem to be lost on most.

 

And add to that the same side making crazy internetz threats about mass expulsion and throwing every insult under the sun, to in some way garner support or prove factless points, has led to 'well wait a sec, these are facts'.

 

The irony has been, for me at least, to see how people can throw an insult in one sentence followed by a 'you have no respect' in the next.

 

It's been both funny and to be honest, a little sad, that our education systems have failed so miserably to educate the upcoming generations.