Selecting need for loot

[Khevar]

You're last statement is true, obviously.

 

Your post fails to answer my question, though. Players A and B will likely never be grouped again after the particular FP they are running. Player A will see much more benefit for his game if his companion gets an upgrade than if Player B's character gets the upgrade. How is it better for player A if Player A passes on an upgrade for his companion in favor of Player B's character, since Player A will likely never be grouped with Player B again?

To answer:

Taken as a single isolated instance, Player A would gain a benefit by needing for his companion, yes.

 

Now, this is why the Prisoner's Dilemma is an imperfect analogy for the Need/Greed situation. It does come close, though. By NOT cooperating, only one prisoner wins. But by cooperating, they BOTH win. Extending this to the Need/Greed rule I attempted to put into words above, the more people that cooperate with this rule, the more everyone wins.

 

The reason I'm making this point, is I'm trying to show you that this rule isn't "social convention as a weird arbitrary moral code" but is instead "social convention founded in a good idea"

 

When someone told me about only needing for one's main toon, I thought about it and accepted it as a logical, rational approach to loot that would not only benefit others, but in the long run would benefit myself. In my personal estimation, needing for companions is a shortsighted selfishness. Needing only for main toon upgrades is a longsighted selfishness.

 

HOWEVER, this only works if to the degree that other people follow this same rule. If I opt to give away loot that isn't a direct upgrade for me, it will only benefit me if other people give away loot that isn't a direct upprade for them. "Give away" is perhaps a strong word in this regard. "Not roll Need" is what I'm referring to.

 

Edit: Let me also mention this fact: I have 8 level 50s, each with at least 1 companion that is thoroughly geared. This gear (when not hand-me-downs) was won by a greed roll. On a personal basis, I never greed for my companions. And for the most part, every pug I run also never needs for companions.

 

So unless someone in the pug is actually going to get an immediate main-toon upgrade, we're all greeding. We all have a fair chance of getting loot. And I have companions wearing Columi to Dread Guard. With the exception of the DG stuff, I would guess close to half of my companion's gear came from HM FP pugs and HM Ops pugs.

 

So it isn't necessary to Need to get great gear for companions.

Edited March 28, 2013 by Khevar

[Ratajack]

To answer:

Taken as a single isolated instance, Player A would gain a benefit by needing for his companion, yes.

 

Now, this is why the Prisoner's Dilemma is an imperfect analogy for the Need/Greed situation. It does come close, though. By NOT cooperating, only one prisoner wins. But by cooperating, they BOTH win. Extending this to the Need/Greed rule I attempted to put into words above, the more people that cooperate with this rule, the more everyone wins.

 

The reason I'm making this point, is I'm trying to show you that this rule isn't "social convention as a weird arbitrary moral code" but is instead "social convention founded in a good idea"

 

When someone told me about only needing for one's main toon, I thought about it and accepted it as a logical, rational approach to loot that would not only benefit others, but in the long run would benefit myself. In my personal estimation, needing for companions is a shortsighted selfishness. Needing only for main toon upgrades is a longsighted selfishness.

 

HOWEVER, this only works if to the degree that other people follow this same rule. If I opt to give away loot that isn't a direct upgrade for me, it will only benefit me if other people give away loot that isn't a direct upprade for them. "Give away" is perhaps a strong word in this regard. "Not roll Need" is what I'm referring to.

 

Edit: Let me also mention this fact: I have 8 level 50s, each with at least 1 companion that is thoroughly geared. This gear (when not hand-me-downs) was won by a greed roll. On a personal basis, I never greed for my companions. And for the most part, every pug I run also never needs for companions.

 

So unless someone in the pug is actually going to get an immediate main-toon upgrade, we're all greeding. We all have a fair chance of getting loot. And I have companions wearing Columi to Dread Guard. With the exception of the DG stuff, I would guess close to half of my companion's gear came from HM FP pugs and HM Ops pugs.

 

So it isn't necessary to Need to get great gear for companions.

 

The point I am making is that by demanding that all players "co-operate" the only person to win is the one who wants the gear for their character. The player who wants that item for his companion does not "win" as he will see very little if any benefit from giving away the item. He may 'win" later, but as you say, only if everyone he is grouped with co-operates. As I said in an earlier thread, there are plenty of players who will demand that no one roll need for an item they want for their character, but will also roll need, without asking first, if they want another piece for a companion. I'm sot saying that they can't roll, but if player A gives away an upgrade for his companion so that player B can upgrade his character, then player A does not "win" especially when player B wants that next drop for his companion even though it would be an upgrade for player A's character. This despite the fact that Player A co-operated and gave Player B the first item for Player B's character.

 

You mention all your 50's and the geared companions you have. Good for you. What you seem to be missing is that a lot of the people in this thread are referring specifically to leveling FP's and not hard modes or OP's. Although with every 50 being handed tionese, I find most drops in hardmode FP's to be sidegrades at best, and therefore generally greeded by everyone.

[Icestar]

What you seem to be missing is that a lot of the people in this thread are referring specifically to leveling FP's and not hard modes or OP's.

 

It refers to whenever ninjalooting can occur, may it be through groupfinder or random pug ops recruited through general chat. The dififculty of the flashpoint/op is not set it is the opportunity of taking a item that is discussed.

 

Guildruns or teams/raids with friends already have set lootrules 99% from the start and would not leave much room for random ninjalooting.

[Khevar]

The point I am making is that by demanding that all players "co-operate" the only person to win is the one who wants the gear for their character. The player who wants that item for his companion does not "win" as he will see very little if any benefit from giving away the item. He may 'win" later, but as you say, only if everyone he is grouped with co-operates.

This is the foundation of the Prisoner's Dilemma. Only if everyone cooperates. Almost every single pug I've ever been in has cooperated int his exact manner. And the interesting thing is, ANYONE can destroy this balance by simply not cooperating. Thus the people in this thread trying to convince others that cooperation will benefit everyone involved.

As I said in an earlier thread, there are plenty of players who will demand that no one roll need for an item they want for their character, but will also roll need, without asking first, if they want another piece for a companion.

Plenty? I believe you're exaggerating. I've only ever encountered 3 players that exhibited this degree of blatant self-serving greed with loot rolls. Out of hundreds and hundreds of pugs. But it is these types of players that the rest of come to this threads to argue against.

I'm sot saying that they can't roll, but if player A gives away an upgrade for his companion so that player B can upgrade his character, then player A does not "win" especially when player B wants that next drop for his companion even though it would be an upgrade for player A's character. This despite the fact that Player A co-operated and gave Player B the first item for Player B's character.

See above. If Player A and Player B cooperate, everyone wins. If Player A cooperates and Player B is selfish, Player A feels betrayed, no? Thus the frustrations some have expressed in this thread.

You mention all your 50's and the geared companions you have. Good for you. What you seem to be missing is that a lot of the people in this thread are referring specifically to leveling FP's and not hard modes or OP's.

And wouldn't this rule benefit players while leveling JUST AS MUCH as it would during end game? I don't know about you, but on my first toon I was always broke. If an awesome chestplate dropped that would raise my stats without me having to spend my meager credits, wouldn't it be great if I only had to roll against other players that could also get a main stat upgrade?

 

And if I saw a drop that I couldn't wear, yet another player could directly benefit, why would I be so selfish as to roll against him?

Although with every 50 being handed tionese, I find most drops in hardmode FP's to be sidegrades at best, and therefore generally greeded by everyone.

There are Exotech and Columi drops. Rarely are they not a direct upgrade to Tionese.

 

I've also pugged HM EV, HM KP and even HM TfB. There's plenty of upgrades to be had there.

Edited March 29, 2013 by Khevar

[Ratajack]

 

There are Exotech and Columi drops. Rarely are they not a direct upgrade to Tionese.

 

I've also pugged HM EV, HM KP and even HM TfB. There's plenty of upgrades to be had there.

 

 

Hence, the part about "most" drops being sidegrades. Even exotech may not be an upgrade, especially a direct upgrade, if you add in giving up the set bonus.

 

You stated the rule as ""Always Greed or Pass on all loot drops everywhere with one exception: 'You can Need a direct upgrade to your main toon currently in the group'" If even exotech is not a "DIRECT" upgrade, then does the player who wants the direct upgrade for their companion have the right to roll need for their companion if another player rolls need?

 

You can talk about ripping mods out and putting them into your tionese gear, but then that opens up the whole debate about "if one player can roll need to rip a mod that would be an upgrade out of loot, why can't everyone else roll need if there is a mod that might be an upgrade"?

 

I've not seen too much columni gear drop in hardmode FP's with the exception of the end boss.

[Khevar]

...

 

You stated the rule as ""Always Greed or Pass on all loot drops everywhere with one exception: 'You can Need a direct upgrade to your main toon currently in the group'" If even exotech is not a "DIRECT" upgrade, then does the player who wants the direct upgrade for their companion have the right to roll need for their companion if another player rolls need?

 

...

Here is my opinion on how this should be handled:

 

If nobody in the group can get a direct upgrade to their main toon for the Exotech drop, nobody Need on it. Anyone who would like to have it Greeds it.

 

If the player would like to Need it for his/her companion, ask "Can I need on this for my companion?"

 

If the companion is filling in a spot in the group, and the drop is a direct upgrade for said companion, I think it is 100% fair to Need for the companion no matter what.

[Ratajack]

Here is my opinion on how this should be handled:

 

If nobody in the group can get a direct upgrade to their main toon for the Exotech drop, nobody Need on it. Anyone who would like to have it Greeds it.

 

If the player would like to Need it for his/her companion, ask "Can I need on this for my companion?"

 

If the companion is filling in a spot in the group, and the drop is a direct upgrade for said companion, I think it is 100% fair to Need for the companion no matter what.

 

I respect your opinion, although not everyone shares that same opinion, just as you and I do not entirely have the same views. We've already seen people in this thread state that they do not care if a player is using their companion in an FP, that player should not roll need for that companion, no matter what.

[Khevar]

I respect your opinion, although not everyone shares that same opinion, just as you and I do not entirely have the same views. We've already seen people in this thread state that they do not care if a player is using their companion in an FP, that player should not roll need for that companion, no matter what.

Fair enough.

 

I believe I've made a decent argument that following this rule results in players gearing up their main toons faster. This rule is founded, not in the idea that "I'm more important than you", but in "You are more important than my companion." This rule works if someone is willing to give up loot now, to get loot later. It is, in my opinion, a less selfish view.

 

If someone doesn't care about this and wants to Need for their companion anyway, without asking first, and happen to be grouped with 3 other people who DO care, they're going to get a bad reaction. Nothing is going to change that.

 

My purpose in this thread is to present a rational, cogent argument on behalf of why Needing only on main toon upgrades is a good thing. If someone is on the fence on this subject, reads this thread, and decides that it is a good idea, I'm happy.

[CharleyDanger]

I respect your opinion, although not everyone shares that same opinion, just as you and I do not entirely have the same views. We've already seen people in this thread state that they do not care if a player is using their companion in an FP, that player should not roll need for that companion, no matter what.

 

You are still going? Wow, 2 weeks of being the only person defending needing for a companion. I kind of respect that you stick to your guns, but 2 weeks and 89 pages is crazy. The worst part is that the OP did not even try to help you out. Maybe he quit the game after getting put on everyone's ignore list.

[Draak]

Did you solo the bosses that dropped the scattergun and tanking legs? I'm betting you didn't. If you didn't, then everyone who participated in the fight has the right to roll on the loot dropped.

 

Every player in the group is an "actual real person" and a player's companions are an integral part of the game and as important as their character. When you're not in a group, do you play without your companion or do you use your companion for extra DPS, tanking or heals?

 

Did your companion participate in the boss fight?? if not.. ****.

[Ratajack]

Did your companion participate in the boss fight?? if not.. ****.

 

Did the PLAYER participate in the boss fight? If so, ...

[CharleyDanger]

Did the PLAYER participate in the boss fight? If so, ...

 

How many times have you made this point? The debate has just gone in circles for the last 30 pages. Why cant you just accept that the vast majority of the community disagrees with you and the OP (the only two people I have ever seen defend rolling need for a companion btw) No one is saying the OP does not have the right to roll need, we are just saying that it is a dick move. How many pages are you going to keep going for? 99? 107? maybe 200? The worst part is that you do not even roll need for your companion. You are just defending people that do. 89 pages spent defending something that you yourself do not do lol. You have problems bro.

 

EDIT: If you are trolling... I swear on everything I love in this word... I will burn all my money, hitchhike to South America, steal 7 chickens, pluck those 7 chickens, stick the feathers up my ***, roam the hillsides, yell out quizzy koo koo ka jank jank, and become known as the urban legend of the crazy man with the *** of a chicken.

Edited March 29, 2013 by CharleyDanger

[cidbahamut]

I see that Ratajack and Icestar are still posting. Is it safe to assume the discussion hasn't made any progress since I last posted?

[Icestar]

I see that Ratajack and Icestar are still posting. Is it safe to assume the discussion hasn't made any progress since I last posted?

 

This discussion will not make any more progress unless Bioware responds to the massive feedback they get from the community.

 

It is like a wheel that goes round and round with Ratajack on one side and the rest of the community on the other side

[Ratajack]

How many times have you made this point? The debate has just gone in circles for the last 30 pages. Why cant you just accept that the vast majority of the community disagrees with you and the OP (the only two people I have ever seen defend rolling need for a companion btw) No one is saying the OP does not have the right to roll need, we are just saying that it is a dick move. How many pages are you going to keep going for? 99? 107? maybe 200? The worst part is that you do not even roll need for your companion. You are just defending people that do. 89 pages spent defending something that you yourself do not do lol. You have problems bro.

 

EDIT: If you are trolling... I swear on everything I love in this word... I will burn all my money, hitchhike to South America, steal 7 chickens, pluck those 7 chickens, stick the feathers up my ***, roam the hillsides, yell out quizzy koo koo ka jank jank, and become known as the urban legend of the crazy man with the *** of a chicken.

 

 

I guess I'm just one of those crazy people that can actually accept and respect that others may have different views than I have. This does not make them wrong, just different. I do not have to agree with a given viewpoint in order to defend the person who's view it is and that person's right to express and act on that opinion.

 

Btw. the OP and I are not the only ones in this thread defending a player's right to roll need. If you had actually read the entire thread you would know that. If you did read the entire thread, and do know that, I would appreciate you being more honest in your statements.

 

Those who wish to claim that the companion didn't participate inthe fight are more than welcome to continue ignoring that fact that the PLAYER did contribute, and that it is the PLAYER who is being denied the chance to roll need, not the companion. If it makes you feel better about trying to take another person's rights away from them(even if only in a video game), then knock yourself out.

Edited March 29, 2013 by Ratajack

[Ratajack]

This discussion will not make any more progress unless Bioware responds to the massive feedback they get from the community.

 

It is like a wheel that goes round and round with Ratajack on one side and the rest of the community on the other side

 

I have a few more people on my side than just me.

[DarthTHC]

I have a few more people on my side than just me.

 

The community would love to know the servers and character names of all these righteous players. Of course since they're so upstanding and on the right side of this debate, they've nothing to fear by providing that information, right?

[Anzel]

I always select "NEED". They should just remove the other button. I have no idea why there's any option. I pick need. I need everything. Edited March 29, 2013 by Anzel

[Khevar]

I always select "NEED". They should just remove the other button. I have no idea why there's any option. I pick need. I need everything.

Ooohhh, it's the return of the "because I said so" troll. How you been?

Edited March 29, 2013 by Khevar

[Ratajack]

The community would love to know the servers and character names of all these righteous players. Of course since they're so upstanding and on the right side of this debate, they've nothing to fear by providing that information, right?

 

Nothing to fear? Yeah, right.

 

People who have a different view than you should provide the names of server and character? Why? So that they can be "punished" for simply having different views? In all likelihood, not one of those players who has a different view than you has ever done anything to you or broken any game rules. Yet there are people who want to punish them despite that fact, in a pre-emptive move. "Guilty until proven innocent?"

 

How far will that "punishment" go? Some will claim that they will only add the others to their ignore lists, yet we have those posters int his thread that have openly stated their intent to "name and shame" them in fleet, ostracize them and otherwise try to make any offender's life as miserable as they possibly can.

 

For simply having a different opinion, or sticking up for your own rights, or the rights of others?

 

So, yeah, those with differing views really have nothing to fear.

[DarthTHC]

Nothing to fear? Yeah, right.

 

People who have a different view than you should provide the names of server and character? Why? So that they can be "punished" for simply having different views? In all likelihood, not one of those players who has a different view than you has ever done anything to you or broken any game rules. Yet there are people who want to punish them despite that fact, in a pre-emptive move. "Guilty until proven innocent?"

 

How far will that "punishment" go? Some will claim that they will only add the others to their ignore lists, yet we have those posters int his thread that have openly stated their intent to "name and shame" them in fleet, ostracize them and otherwise try to make any offender's life as miserable as they possibly can.

 

For simply having a different opinion, or sticking up for your own rights, or the rights of others?

 

So, yeah, those with differing views really have nothing to fear.

 

I don't want to punish anyone. I just want to put them on my ignore list so I'm not faced with the hassle of vote-kicking them and putting them on my ignore list later.

 

There's nothing to fear there. They won't appreciate my reaction to their rolling need on stuff they don't need so it's a win-win, right?

 

Oh, wait, if you're saying yourself that they fear community will ostracize them, isn't that an admission that what they're doing is socially unacceptable? Interesting how that logic thing works...

[cidbahamut]

You're either really slow or you haven't been paying attention.

[Dinosaurocker]

Waaaaah

[Ratajack]

I don't want to punish anyone. I just want to put them on my ignore list so I'm not faced with the hassle of vote-kicking them and putting them on my ignore list later.

 

There's nothing to fear there. They won't appreciate my reaction to their rolling need on stuff they don't need so it's a win-win, right?

 

Oh, wait, if you're saying yourself that they fear community will ostracize them, isn't that an admission that what they're doing is socially unacceptable? Interesting how that logic thing works...

 

"Social convention" does not make it right. "Socially acceptable" isn't always right. Hard to fathom, I know, but sometimes the majority is wrong. Sometimes the majority just has a different view. There is power in numbers, but sometimes it is the power of the mob mentality.

 

If it is simply that you want to put them on your ignore list and won't have someone roll need for a companion, then why do you need my characters names and server? If I don't roll need for a companion, what need is there for me to be on your ignore list, or anyone's ignore list?

Edited March 29, 2013 by Ratajack

[DarthTHC]

"Social convention" does not make it right. "Socially acceptable" isn't always right. Hard to fathom, I know, but sometimes the majority is wrong. Sometimes the majority just has a different view. There is power in numbers, but sometimes it is the power of the mob mentality.

 

If it is simply that you want to put them on your ignore list and won't have someone roll need for a companion, then why do you need my characters names and server? If I don't roll need for a companion, what need is there for me to be on your ignore list, or anyone's ignore list?

 

If people intend to roll Need on stuff they don't, it's far more convenient for me and them to simply never be grouped. They MIGHT get the item they rolled Need on, but they will certainly be vote-kicked from my group. Or, I guess, the group can instead vote-kick the tank or healer (whichever I happen to be playing at the time). I'm sure the group will wisely select the most socially acceptable and convenient option in that moment.

 

Just seems like a smart move to get the ignore lists ironed out, doesn't it? That way nobody's wasting time being grouped with people whose "opinions" differ and subsequently being inconvenienced by being forcibly removed from groups.

 

Now if you don't intend to roll need for stuff you don't actually need, there wouldn't be any advantage to getting all that stuff out of the way ahead of time, would there?

 

Believe me, I'm right there with you that sometimes the majority is wrong. Hell, 1,000 years ago -everybody- thought our planet was flat. They were so convinced of this that they imprisoned and threatened to kill very smart people who were brash enough to disagree and offer evidence while doing so.

 

However, this isn't one of those times. This isn't a disagreement over a scientific fact. This is actually a debate about socially acceptable behavior. In such debates, the only way to determine "right" is by understanding the (seemingly vast) majority opinion. And, of course, the admission of those arguing the counter-point that they realize they're in the wrong helps too, as you did when you admitted they fear being ostracized. The righteous tend to stand proudly and proclaim their correctness rather than hiding behind a wall flinging *****.

Edited March 29, 2013 by DarthTHC