Primalis Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 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. My three year old daughter is the same way. But she'll scream when she wakes up and her favorite animal isn't there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
souloferdrick Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 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? The reason why this debate is allowed to rage on is so they can garner information about how and what they should implement. So until you have it, you don't have it and don't be surprised if they pull back on the idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irusan Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 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. Short version: I am old and wise. You are all uneducated. Now who is throwing insults? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Setanian Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 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. Like most things in life, they are subjective. My Son said he needed 600 euro for a bike. I said he needed a job. He said he needed to think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primalis Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Like most things in life, they are subjective. My Son said he needed 600 euro for a bike. I said he needed a job. He said he needed to think about it. Setanian...that name sounds familiar...you play Battlefield 3? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
universeman Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 So, that'd mean that you have no self respect, since you don't respect others. 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. Yes, you got me...I have no self respect. Really? Was that from left field? And why would you say I am demanding things? I haven't demanded anything...not really sure where you're coming up with that You can roll need on whatever you want! All the love to you! If that isn't clear enough, I don't know what is. All I'm saying is have some consideration for your group mates. Oh wait...of course you do Hey I don't know your style. All I know is you're claiming you press NEED whenever you decide you want to. And I'm saying, dude...think about that for a second. Thanks for playing a social game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Setanian Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Setanian...that name sounds familiar...you play Battlefield 3? No.. Was my Necro on EQ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vydor_HC Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 A question that should be asked is, if you go into a group and do not discuss the looting rules ahead of time, do you have the right to call someone a ninja or jerk for looting in a manner do you not agree with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
souloferdrick Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 A question that should be asked is, if you go into a group and do not discuss the looting rules ahead of time, do you have the right to call someone a ninja or jerk for looting in a manner do you not agree with? Nope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vecke Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 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. Yeah, the last several pages have been people getting outraged at behavior that almost never happens anyway, and other people are defending the principle behind behavior that almost never happens anyway. The actual topic (I think) is whether or not companions are worth a need roll when against the roll of someone's created character (ferroz, I'm trying to think of a way to differentiate them in a way that you won't criticize, without specifying their value Is "created character" okay?) I mostly play with my wife, so it's moot for me anyway. We roll need on companions because they are much more integrated into character progression for this game than any other MMO we've played. However, I'd never do that in a pug. I'd ask what the rule is, just to prevent any strife, and I'd abide by whatever answer they gave. But that's just me. I don't think the companion vs created character debate will ever be resolved, except by BW, and even then, it'll be a hotly debated issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zunayson Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 your definition of need may not be the same as someone else's definition of need. and until bioware says what their definition of need is by changing the system, i don't see how it can be called ninja. you need the gear so you can wear it so you can have an easier time doing the things in the game you like to do. someone else needs the gear so their companion can wear it so they can have an easier time doing the things in the game they like to do. how is it any different? it isn't. people lose a roll and look for any excuse to throw a temper tantrum. it's sad really. Hovering over need says "You really want the item" And furthermore, you do not NEED anything in a videogame. Although there is no official definition of need, I know most people to probably take it as a necessity, or something to solve a predicament. Either way, you don't need food to die, so therefore you don't "need" to eat. So it is very difficult to say, however I would say that Real player > Companion > Disassemble > Vendor Trash I have also heard suggestions about a "Need for Companion" in the last reincarnation of the thread. Of course people would abuse this as well because it's higher than greed. And there you have it, a nearly obsolete button! What I think is better is making gear for a certain companion "Requires Khem Val" or whatever. Or even better, only let you roll need on certain pieces of gear (As in ones that have your primary stat). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nategray Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Wow another need for companion thread, with go figure the exact same 3-5 people defending this clearly ridiculous action. If your companion helps the group down the content then by all means need for them, if they are no part of the group then they have no need for items dropped. Also always discuss loot rules up front so you can know not to group with people who would do something like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tirfin Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 (edited) 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. I agree. I would hope that the devs never step in and mandate how rolling on loot works. And I also agree it would take a great deal of noise for them to decide to regulate this. It would be nice it they added a loot option that did restrict rolls on non-class items (though I have no idea how hard this would be) so that a group could easily manage the looting rules. This would also help limit debate on looting early on so a group isn't out a player half way through a quest. Still, right now we have to maintain discussion about this and at the very least discussing these questions in the game will help to keep the community healthy (hopefully). Edited February 22, 2012 by Tirfin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vecke Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 (edited) A question that should be asked is, if you go into a group and do not discuss the looting rules ahead of time, do you have the right to call someone a ninja or jerk for looting in a manner do you not agree with? Not really, no. It would be perfectly fine to make a mental note that this person plays by different standards than you, and decide you won't group with them again. But it's most definitely not okay to berate them or assume they're a jerk, IMO. Edited February 22, 2012 by Vecke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferroz Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 (edited) Yes, you got me...I have no self respect. Really?You don't respect people who don't respect other people There are are people who exist that don't respect other people Therefore you don't respect other people Therefore you don't respect yourself. is there something unclear there? And why would you say I am demanding things? Your stance is something like "Loot the way i say you should or I'll call you a jerk and disband you from group right before the boss dies just to grief you" So, yeah, that's demanding something... All I know is you're claiming you press NEED whenever you decide you want to. Maybe you're thinking of someone else? You're demonizing the people who are in favor of respecting our fellow players, and clearly not respecting other people. Your argument insisting that respect is the root of the issue is entirely hypocritical. Edited February 22, 2012 by ferroz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vydor_HC Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Wow another need for companion thread, with go figure the exact same 3-5 people defending this clearly ridiculous action. If your companion helps the group down the content then by all means need for them, if they are no part of the group then they have no need for items dropped. Also always discuss loot rules up front so you can know not to group with people who would do something like this. Actually this is the same thread that has been restarted over and over due to the 100 page limit rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
universeman Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 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 don't know what world you live in, but my experience is completely different than yours. Most people I PUG with are respectful with those buttons. And all I do is PUG. And yes, I've been playing for as long as you (since I know past history has merit with you). Hell, I may be older than you...so lets not bring seniority into the equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferroz Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Actually this is the same thread that has been restarted over and over due to the 100 page limit rule. there are a couple of them that are in that boat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datku Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 (edited) Why is this even a debate. Common sense (yea sadly few seem to actually have it) would say if you can equip an item and its an upgrade for you then need. If its to vendor, disassemble, or give to a companion then greed. Sure you can claim that your companion is a part of you, but real life player trumps NPC every day. When you make a group/operation be sure to state the rules. Need for an upgrade for your class only. Greed for vendor, disassemble, companion. If someone breaks it then kick them from the group, blacklist them, and never run with them again. If in an operation full of Pug's...MASTER LOOT. You can run a group have an item drop and when you see everyone selecting greed then you can ask if you can need for your companion but if others are also interested for their companion greed like everyone else. Plan and simple...if you are in a group with me and need something that you can not equip or have the skill for and then say its for your companion your out of the group right then. Loot drops, people are greeding, you ASK if you can need for a companion unless others in group have issues with it I most likely will say go for it because you asked before taking. If others say they want for their companion then will say just roll greed and good luck. How hard to understand is that? Seriously we are all going to get burned at some point...once it happens kick the offender from the group, blacklist them and move on. People that constantly do it and get kicked/listed will soon find themselves unable to group for anything. Edited February 22, 2012 by Datku Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Setanian Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 I don't know what world you live in, but my experience is completely different than yours. Most people I PUG with are respectful with those buttons. And all I do is PUG. And yes, I've been playing for as long as you (since I know past history has merit with you). Hell, I may be older than you...so lets not bring seniority into the equation. Well my experience differs. What can I say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
souloferdrick Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Why is this even a debate. Common sense (yea sadly few seem to actually have it) would say if you can equip and item and its an upgrade for you then need. If its to vendor, disassemble, or give to a companion then greed. Sure you can claim that your companion is a part of you, but real life player trumps NPC every day. When you make a group/operation be sure to state the rules. Need for an upgrade for your class only. Greed for vendor, disassemble, companion. If someone breaks it then kick them from the group, blacklist them, and never run with them again. If in an operation full of Pug's...MASTER LOOT. You can run a group have an item drop and when you see everyone selecting greed then you can ask if you can need for your companion but if others are also interested for their companion greed like everyone else. Plan and simple...if you are in a group with me and need something that you can not equip or have the skill for and then say its for your companion your out of the group right then. Loot drops, people are greeding, you ASK if you can need for a companion unless others in group have issues with it I most likely will say go for it because you asked before taking. If others say they want for their companion then will say just roll greed and good luck. How hard to understand is that? Seriously we are all going to get burned at some point...once it happens kick the offender from the group, blacklist them and move on. People that constantly do it and get kicked/listed will soon find themselves unable to group for anything. Why is your opinion on what constitutes "common sense looting practices" better than someone else'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferroz Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 (edited) Why is this even a debate. Common sense (yea sadly few seem to actually have it) would say if you can equip and item and its an upgrade for you then need. If its to vendor, disassemble, or give to a companion then greed. No, common sense says that if you think you need it, hit need. That might be because it looks sweet; it might be because you want to put it on your companion; or the stats are awesome, or whatever. your personal bias != common sense. Sure you can claim that your companion is a part of you, but real life player trumps NPC every day. Real life players are the only ones who can roll for loot; thier rolls will always beat the rolls of NPCs (since the latter don't get rolls). That doesn't have anything to do with rolling need for a companion though. When someone does that, it's one real life player rolling against another real life player. Neither of the real life players trump each other. They're both equal, regardless of what slot that's going to go in... even if that slot is in one of their companions. If in an operation full of Pug's...MASTER LOOT. You know there's no /roll command, right? Edited February 22, 2012 by ferroz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vydor_HC Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Why is this even a debate. Common sense (yea sadly few seem to actually have it) would say if you can equip an item and its an upgrade for you then need. If its to vendor, disassemble, or give to a companion then greed. Sure you can claim that your companion is a part of you, but real life player trumps NPC every day. When you make a group/operation be sure to state the rules. Need for an upgrade for your class only. Greed for vendor, disassemble, companion. If someone breaks it then kick them from the group, blacklist them, and never run with them again. If in an operation full of Pug's...MASTER LOOT. You can run a group have an item drop and when you see everyone selecting greed then you can ask if you can need for your companion but if others are also interested for their companion greed like everyone else. Plan and simple...if you are in a group with me and need something that you can not equip or have the skill for and then say its for your companion your out of the group right then. Loot drops, people are greeding, you ASK if you can need for a companion unless others in group have issues with it I most likely will say go for it because you asked before taking. If others say they want for their companion then will say just roll greed and good luck. How hard to understand is that? Seriously we are all going to get burned at some point...once it happens kick the offender from the group, blacklist them and move on. People that constantly do it and get kicked/listed will soon find themselves unable to group for anything. It's not an issue, when you are playing with people that view the game the same way you do. Just make sure you're in agreement before you begin. Otherwise, if you boot someone or grief them because they do not agree with your opinions, then you are the one being a jerk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zunayson Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 (edited) To those saying companions have a right to be need'd if they help take down the boss, consider this: If this is like the House of Representatives: Usefulness to the group is population of the state's delegate The roll a player places on an item is the number of votes the delegate has The player who gets the item is the one elected president That being said, should a state with less population have an equal say than that of a larger one? No, that's why anyone stood with the House of Representatives. Applying this to SWTOR, since when is a companion as useful to the group as a real player? Should the vote/roll of a real player, one who was 99% chance way more useful than someone's companion be equal to that of a player for his or her companion? Is the usefulness of the companion directly affecting the usefulness to the group of the player who owns the companion? No, gearing a companion only affects the companion's performance in the group (Forget any solo pve encounters). Since the companion most likely did less to the group than one of the 3 agents in the group, shouldn't the agent's vote have more say in the matter? Did the agent not only do more for the group - but even work harder to obtain the gear? Obviously, the ones who designed the United State's government made a compromise to settle the matter, and to have two rolls (rolls are votes, remember?): One based on population (Usefulness to the group), and one strictly based on counting (RNG). Why not do the same here? Okay, they most likely won't have two rolls, but discuss please, so I can feel like I contributed to the conversation by taking the time to write it. Edited February 22, 2012 by Zunayson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vydor_HC Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 To those saying companions have a right to be need'd if they help take down the boss, consider this: If this is like the House of Representatives: Usefulness to the group is population of the state's delegate The roll a player places on an item is the number of votes the delegate has The player who gets the item is the one elected president That being said, should a state with less population have an equal say than that of a larger one? No, that's why anyone stood with the House of Representatives. Applying this to SWTOR, since when is a companion as useful to the group as a real player? Should the vote/roll of a real player, one who was 99% chance way more useful than someone's companion be equal to that of a player for his or her companion? Is the usefulness of the companion directly affecting the usefulness to the group of the player who owns the companion? No, gearing a companion only affects the companion's performance in the group (Forget any solo pve encounters). Since the companion most likely did less to the group than one of the 3 agents in the group, shouldn't the agent's vote have more say in the matter? Obviously, the ones who made the United State's government made a compromise to settle the matter, and to have two rolls (rolls are votes, remember?): One based on population (Usefulness to the group), and one strictly based on counting (RNG). Why not do the same here? Okay, they most likely won't have two rolls, but discuss please, so I can feel like I contributed to the conversation by taking the time to write it. Analogies will always be picked apart. I just avoid them all together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts