Selecting need for loot

[Lostpenguins]

Why?

 

There would be no car without John's efforts. Why not draw straws, or use some other random method giving each of he members of the group the same chance at getting the car? If Jim wins the car, great. If Carl or Dave win the car, they can give it to Jim. If John wins the car, he can give it to his wife. In fact, if all four members drew straws, it would actually give Jim a 75% chance of getting the car, assuming that Carl and Dave gave the car to Jim if either of the won.

 

I can understand the thought process behind Carl and Dave choosing to pass on the chance for the car so that either Jim or John can get it. I'm trying to understand the thought process behind taking away John's chance to get the car in favor of Jim.

Please look at my response because:

1) Your analogy isn't close to the scenario of loot and companions

2) My analogy was much better and clearly favors the player over the companion

 

If you think your situation is closer than mine feel free to point out how and also any other answer than Jim would be the correct answer because it wouldn't.

[Ratajack]

Sorry, but that's completely different factors and your example is so bad.

1) John's wife is a real person as well. Fail #1

2) Your companion's gear didn't break and they can still do whatever they needed to do (dps, heal, tank) with about the same efficiency. John's wife went from car to no car in the situation you provided. Fail #2.

3) Jim can learn to drive the car. You cannot learn how to wear heavy armor as a Marauder. Fail #3.

4) Jim is the only person in this situation car-less. If he wants to get anywhere else in this world besides the job he would still have to walk if he doesn't have a car and thus distance becomes a real issue. Fail #4.

 

Wow, so many holes in your argument that it's virtually nothing like the original argument.

 

A better example would be that the 4 guys carpool (taking turns with their own car) and John doesn't have a wife, he has a sister that doesn't carpool with them. The car is a transmission that only Jim and John's sister know how to drive and the other guys could never learn how to drive a manual transmission. No one is carless, even John's sister. Both she and Jim still have cars. Now, the car is newer and fancier than everyone else's car, but, I repeat, it's a manual and the 3 other guys will never learn how to drive a manual. Only Jim and John's sister know how to.

 

I seriously, seriously doubt that anyone in the group would be okay with John's sister getting it. Since they would shoot down the idea of her getting it it defaults to Jim since he's the only one that can possibly drive manual.

 

That's way closer to the analogy than what you gave. Way closer and it favors the players character and not the companion.

 

Wait a minute. Isn't John's sister a real person? I guess not since you claim that my analogy fails in point 1 because John's wife is a real person and therefore does not compare to a companion, yet you want to use John's sister as a comparison to a companion.

[Lostpenguins]

Wait a minute. Isn't John's sister a real person? I guess not since you claim that my analogy fails in point 1 because John's wife is a real person and therefore does not compare to a companion, yet you want to use John's sister as a comparison to a companion.

Uh... I said "better analogy". Not 100% right, but much better than yours. You're the one who presented the argument and turned the companion into a real person first. That's a bad analogy... mine isn't 100% either, but it's definitely closer to the scenario at hand. Shouldn't have opened that door if you didn't want to walk through it.

 

So answer my scenario since you're so eager to have people answer yours. Does John's sister deserve it even if she has a car, just like Jim, but isn't part of the team and the other guys will never get to see that car during there carpool trips? John's not driving it either. He may carpool to stuff with his sister from time to time, but do you really think the other guys would let John's sister take it over Jim? I'm guessing, no.

 

I seriously don't think you can squirm your way out of this one w/out looking wrong.

Edited March 21, 2013 by Lostpenguins

[Ratajack]

False assumption. If there was no group kick tool I'm pretty sure a lot of those people who leave group and reform.

 

True, but I'm betting that far fewer would actually choose to exercise their right to avoid having to play with the offending player if the non-punishment option were used. By choosing to use the vote kick option for each and every player who does not share your views, you are not simply "exercising your right to avoid playing with the offending player". You are not only punishing the player for simply not acting as you expect, but also, in effect, skewing the result by offering an easier route for the other two members of your group to take.

 

Look at the outcry over the Ilum debate. Do you honestly believe that most players will NOT choose the easier route and the route that has fewer consequences for them?

[scraycroft]

Why?

 

There would be no car without John's efforts. Why not draw straws, or use some other random method giving each of he members of the group the same chance at getting the car? If Jim wins the car, great. If Carl or Dave win the car, they can give it to Jim. If John wins the car, he can give it to his wife. In fact, if all four members drew straws, it would actually give Jim a 75% chance of getting the car, assuming that Carl and Dave gave the car to Jim if either of the won.

 

I can understand the thought process behind Carl and Dave choosing to pass on the chance for the car so that either Jim or John can get it. I'm trying to understand the thought process behind taking away John's chance to get the car in favor of Jim.

 

There would be no car without Jim's efforts. However, there would be a car without John's Wife's efforts.

 

John's wife should stop being so lazy and get a job and get a new car or ride the bus.

[Lostpenguins]

True, but I'm betting that far fewer would actually choose to exercise their right to avoid having to play with the offending player if the non-punishment option were used. By choosing to use the vote kick option for each and every player who does not share your views, you are not simply "exercising your right to avoid playing with the offending player". You are not only punishing the player for simply not acting as you expect, but also, in effect, skewing the result by offering an easier route for the other two members of your group to take.

 

Look at the outcry over the Ilum debate. Do you honestly believe that most players will NOT choose the easier route and the route that has fewer consequences for them?

That's for leveling. When it comes to loot you better believe they would be more inclined to take my route if they believe someone was "someone who takes items (they consider) selfishly".

 

The thing is, with group kick, you're making a choice: who should be inconvenienced more when there's an impasse in group philosophy: the single person or the many people. And that's why there's a vote kick.

Edited March 21, 2013 by Lostpenguins

[river_of_Gem]

True, but I'm betting that far fewer would actually choose to exercise their right to avoid having to play with the offending player if the non-punishment option were used. By choosing to use the vote kick option for each and every player who does not share your views, you are not simply "exercising your right to avoid playing with the offending player". You are not only punishing the player for simply not acting as you expect, but also, in effect, skewing the result by offering an easier route for the other two members of your group to take.

 

Do you think if i start a vote kick again you because i "don't like your face", other people in group will agree on because it's "easier route" ? People kick ninja because ninjaing is wrong for them. Period.

Edited March 21, 2013 by river_of_Gem

[Ratajack]

Sorry, but that's completely different factors and your example is so bad.

1) John's wife is a real person as well. Fail #1

2) Your companion's gear didn't break and they can still do whatever they needed to do (dps, heal, tank) with about the same efficiency. John's wife went from car to no car in the situation you provided. Fail #2.

3) Jim can learn to drive the car. You cannot learn how to wear heavy armor as a Marauder. Fail #3.

4) Jim is the only person in this situation car-less. If he wants to get anywhere else in this world besides the job he would still have to walk if he doesn't have a car and thus distance becomes a real issue. Fail #4.

 

Wow, so many holes in your argument that it's virtually nothing like the original argument.

 

A better example would be that the 4 guys carpool (taking turns with their own car) and John doesn't have a wife, he has a sister that doesn't carpool with them. The car is a transmission that only Jim and John's sister know how to drive and the other guys could never learn how to drive a manual transmission. No one is carless, even John's sister. Both she and Jim still have cars. Now, the car is newer and fancier than everyone else's car, but, I repeat, it's a manual and the 3 other guys will never learn how to drive a manual. Only Jim and John's sister know how to.

 

I seriously, seriously doubt that anyone in the group would be okay with John's sister getting it. Since they would shoot down the idea of her getting it it defaults to Jim since he's the only one that can possibly drive manual.

 

That's way closer to the analogy than what you gave. Way closer and it favors the players character and not the companion.

 

Ok.

 

The four members John, Carl, Dave and Jim have just received a new car as a bonus for a project they just completed. All four have cars and all four have wives who have cars. All of their cars are in good running condition, but are several years old. The new car is a four door sedan that seats four and is also a standard transmission. Only Jim and John's wife drive standard and none of the others can learn to drive a standard. The new car is shinier and has more bells and whistles than any of the cars currently being used. The car that John's wife drives is a two door coupe that seats four, while everyone else currently drives a four door sedan. John and his wife have young children in car seats. John's wife can get the kids into an out of the car seats but it would be easier and more effective if hey had four doors as opposed to two doors. Jim wants the new bells and whistles, but John wants the new car because it would make it easier for him and his wife to get the kids into and out of their car seats. Jim would use the car everyday, but John would only be in his wife's car some of the time, mostly the weekends and some evenings out with the family.

 

Let's see if I hit all the salient points.

 

Four group members contribute equally? check

One reward to be awarded to only one member? check

All members have wives(companions)? check

Reward only suitable for two people, an actual group member(character) and a wife(companion)? check

Current cars(gear) in working order? check

Reward used by actual group member (character) all the time versus only time with wife (companion)? check

Evidence of upgrade for both? check

Evidence of possible better upgrade for wife (companion)? check

[ZionHalcyon]

Ok.

 

The four members John, Carl, Dave and Jim have just received a new car as a bonus for a project they just completed. All four have cars and all four have wives who have cars. All of their cars are in good running condition, but are several years old. The new car is a four door sedan that seats four and is also a standard transmission. Only Jim and John's wife drive standard and none of the others can learn to drive a standard. The new car is shinier and has more bells and whistles than any of the cars currently being used. The car that John's wife drives is a two door coupe that seats four, while everyone else currently drives a four door sedan. John and his wife have young children in car seats. John's wife can get the kids into an out of the car seats but it would be easier and more effective if hey had four doors as opposed to two doors. Jim wants the new bells and whistles, but John wants the new car because it would make it easier for him and his wife to get the kids into and out of their car seats. Jim would use the car everyday, but John would only be in his wife's car some of the time, mostly the weekends and some evenings out with the family.

 

Let's see if I hit all the salient points.

 

Four group members contribute equally? check

One reward to be awarded to only one member? check

All members have wives(companions)? check

Reward only suitable for two people, an actual group member(character) and a wife(companion)? check

Current cars(gear) in working order? check

Reward used by actual group member (character) all the time versus only time with wife (companion)? check

Evidence of upgrade for both? check

Evidence of possible better upgrade for wife (companion)? check

 

I stopped doing word problems after college, but I think I know the answer to this one - the answer is, you're a troll, and you want to keep this thread going because you love all the attention you are getting for holding a position that you admitted that you don't actually do while in-game.

 

I'll take the grand prize home now, thank you.

[Ratajack]

Uh... I said "better analogy". Not 100% right, but much better than yours. You're the one who presented the argument and turned the companion into a real person first. That's a bad analogy... mine isn't 100% either, but it's definitely closer to the scenario at hand. Shouldn't have opened that door if you didn't want to walk through it.

 

So answer my scenario since you're so eager to have people answer yours. Does John's sister deserve it even if she has a car, just like Jim, but isn't part of the team and the other guys will never get to see that car during there carpool trips? John's not driving it either. He may carpool to stuff with his sister from time to time, but do you really think the other guys would let John's sister take it over Jim? I'm guessing, no.

 

I seriously don't think you can squirm your way out of this one w/out looking wrong.

 

Ok. I'll answer your scenario. I would give each member an equal chance at the car. If John wins, he can give it to his sister. If Jim wins, he can keep it. If Dave or Carl win, they can give it to Jim. Again, this gives each member an equal chance to win the car, but in effect gives Jim a 75% chance of ending up with it, while still giving John at least a 25% chance to end up with it.

[river_of_Gem]

I stopped doing word problems after college, but I think I know the answer to this one - the answer is, you're a troll, and you want to keep this thread going because you love all the attention you are getting for holding a position that you admitted that you don't actually do while in-game.

 

I'll take the grand prize home now, thank you.

 

Tbh if he troll he spent far too much effort, but i will stop feeding him from now on and keep kicking dem ninja

Edited March 21, 2013 by river_of_Gem

[Ratajack]

Do you think if i start a vote kick again you because i "don't like your toon's name", other people in group will agree on because it's "easier route" ? People kick ninja because ninjaing is wrong for them. Period.

 

Try it sometime. Just initiate a random vote kick and see if it passes, especially after a wipe. I'll bet it passes more often than not.

 

I'm not saying that people won't vote to kick a player who rolls need for a companion.

 

Player A rolls greed

Player B rolls greed

Player C rolls need for character

Player D rolls need for companion

 

Player A initiates vote to kick against Player C with the reason NINJA. Go ahead, try it sometime. Take a couple of friends into an instance and have one of you roll need for your companion, one roll need for character and the third start drama and then initiate a vote to kick against the one who rolled need for character.

 

I'm betting that the vote will pass even though it was actually Player D who was the offending player. I'm betting that most players don't read the name and/or reason for the vote kick. I'd be very surprised if anyone actually bothered to read the name if they saw the NINJA in the reason, esp after a player just rolled need for a companion.

[Lostpenguins]

Ok. I'll answer your scenario. I would give each member an equal chance at the car. If John wins, he can give it to his sister. If Jim wins, he can keep it. If Dave or Carl win, they can give it to Jim. Again, this gives each member an equal chance to win the car, but in effect gives Jim a 75% chance of ending up with it, while still giving John at least a 25% chance to end up with it.

Ha ha... in my scenario I cannot see David, Carl, or Jim allowing John's sister to take the car. It's been giving to the 4 guys... not anyone else outside of the four. I can see John giving that resolution of drawing straws and everyone else looking at him and saying, "No."

 

As for your situation, that's a pretty good one, but you're playing on the "kids element". The point of loot is to improve your situation. The situation would have to be that both Jim and John have kids and both could use a new car to accomodate their kids, since the loot is an upgrade to both players, hence the car is an upgrade in performance to both people. Having kids and not having kids is too far of a gap to compare between a player getting stat upgrades.

 

I can't even believe we're going down this road to use this analogy. It's still bad analogies because there's no kids and no wives as you can't compare the human element with companions. It'd be better simply to say that Jim and John's wife can both use the car, and it benefits them equally and hurts both equally if they don't get it. However, the car seats only 4 people. John's wife would be willing to drive everyone in the new car, but since it only sits 4 someone would have to sit out or they can't use the new car. Jim, however, would be able to fit all the guys in the car and thus no one has to sit out on carpool days when they're getting in the car.

 

So either the 4 guys don't get to carpool together in the new car if John's wife has it, or they do if Jim gets it.

 

And with that, you still want to give it John's wife?

[CharleyDanger]

Lets say you are doing some solo quests, just you and your companion, and you get a purple drop from an elite. You and your companion have the same primary and secondary stats, and the piece of gear is a major upgrade for you and your companion... Who do you equip the piece to? Unless you are straight up being dishonest, the answer to the question is you equip the gear to yourself. It goes without saying that your gear is more important than your comps gear.

 

So it is clear to everyone that plays that a comps gear comes 2nd to your own gear. Well if you need for comp gear in a FP you are telling your group that your comps gear is more important than their gear.... Kind of messed up right?

Edited March 21, 2013 by CharleyDanger

[scraycroft]

Ok.

 

The four members John, Carl, Dave and Jim have just received a new car as a bonus for a project they just completed. All four have cars and all four have wives who have cars. All of their cars are in good running condition, but are several years old. The new car is a four door sedan that seats four and is also a standard transmission. Only Jim and John's wife drive standard and none of the others can learn to drive a standard. The new car is shinier and has more bells and whistles than any of the cars currently being used. The car that John's wife drives is a two door coupe that seats four, while everyone else currently drives a four door sedan. John and his wife have young children in car seats. John's wife can get the kids into an out of the car seats but it would be easier and more effective if hey had four doors as opposed to two doors. Jim wants the new bells and whistles, but John wants the new car because it would make it easier for him and his wife to get the kids into and out of their car seats. Jim would use the car everyday, but John would only be in his wife's car some of the time, mostly the weekends and some evenings out with the family.

 

Let's see if I hit all the salient points.

 

Four group members contribute equally? check

One reward to be awarded to only one member? check

All members have wives(companions)? check

Reward only suitable for two people, an actual group member(character) and a wife(companion)? check

Current cars(gear) in working order? check

Reward used by actual group member (character) all the time versus only time with wife (companion)? check

Evidence of upgrade for both? check

Evidence of possible better upgrade for wife (companion)? check

 

Jim Still.

 

I'm starting to hate this John guy, they should votekick him.

Edited March 21, 2013 by scraycroft

[scraycroft]

Lets say you are doing some solo quests, just you and your companion, and you get a purple drop from an elite. You and your companion have the same primary and secondary stats, and the piece of gear is a major upgrade for you and your companion... Who do you equip the piece to? Unless you are straight up being dishonest, the answer to the question is you equip the gear to yourself. It goes without saying that your gear is more important than your comps gear.

 

So it is clear to everyone that plays that a comps gear comes 2nd to your own gear. Well if you need for comp gear in a FP you are telling your group that your comps gear is more important than their gear.... Kind of messed up right?

 

This guy hit the nail on the head.

[CharleyDanger]

Four guys are chopping wood in the summer to stock for the winter. 3 of the guys are exhausted and thirsty, but the 4th guy has been stacking the wood instead of chopping and is feeling pretty good. The 3 exhausted guys walk over to the ice cooler and find one bottle of water left inside. The 3 guys decide to settle the situation by picking straws. The 4th guy walks over and says "I would like to pick straws as well" The others look at him and say "You have been in the shade and admitted to not being thirsty" the 4th guys says "Yeah, but my dog is thirsty"

 

Do you let the 4th guy roll for his dog?

Edited March 21, 2013 by CharleyDanger

[Ratajack]

Lets say you are doing some solo quests, just you and your companion, and you get a purple drop from an elite. You and your companion have the same primary and secondary stats, and the piece of gear is a major upgrade for you and your companion... Who do you equip the piece to? Unless you are straight up being dishonest, the answer to the question is you equip the gear to yourself. It goes without saying that your gear is more important than your comps gear.

 

So it is clear to everyone that plays that a comps gear comes 2nd to your own gear. Well if you need for comp gear in a FP you are telling your group that your comps gear is more important than their gear.... Kind of messed up right?

 

I've already stated my position on that matter. I've stated that I prioritize MY character higher than MY companion. What I do NOT do is to prioritize MY character higher than YOUR companion. YOUR companion has the same priority as does MY character, as far as I am concerned.

[Lostpenguins]

I've already stated my position on that matter. I've stated that I prioritize MY character higher than MY companion. What I do NOT do is to prioritize MY character higher than YOUR companion. YOUR companion has the same priority as does MY character, as far as I am concerned.

Yes you did, but you're also saying that your gear > your companion's gear, but my gear is as important as your companion's gear.

 

That's pretty messed up.

Edited March 21, 2013 by Lostpenguins

[scraycroft]

I've already stated my position on that matter. I've stated that I prioritize MY character higher than MY companion. What I do NOT do is to prioritize MY character higher than YOUR companion. YOUR companion has the same priority as does MY character, as far as I am concerned.

 

 

 

And...../thread. You are more important than your companion but your own companion is more important/equally important as another players character?

 

 

 

Edit: already pointed out.

[Ratajack]

Yes you did, but you're also saying that your gear > your companion's gear, but my gear is as important as your companion's gear.

 

That's pretty messed up.

 

No. It's not. It's accepting of the possibility that your companion may be as important to you as my companions or characters are to me. It's also recognizing the fact that that new shiny would not be there for MY character or YOUR companion if not for the efforts of all the PLAYERS in the group, including you and me. I'm not going to tell you that you cannot roll need for your companion after you helped to produce the shiny. You may tell me that I cannot roll need for my companion after I helped to produce that shiny, but that does not make it right for me to tell you that you cannot roll need for your companion.

 

You can say that the character did the work, but it was the person behind the keyboard that did. This game does not even have an auto attack feature. If not for the PLAYER at the keyboard, the CHARACTER could not have contributed anything. The PLAYER is the one who has the right to roll need, not the character or the companion.

[Ratajack]

I've already stated my position on that matter. I've stated that I prioritize MY character higher than MY companion. What I do NOT do is to prioritize MY character higher than YOUR companion. YOUR companion has the same priority as does MY character, as far as I am concerned.

 

 

And...../thread. You are more important than your companion but your own companion is more important/equally important as another players character?

 

 

 

Edit: already pointed out.

 

Read it again. You got it half right, but you might have let your feelings and assumptions about me color your vision.

 

I did say that I prioritize MY character higher than MY companion, yes. I do value my character a little more than my companion.

 

You got the next part backwards. I do not think that my companion is more important/equally important as another players character, just the opposite. I said "What I do NOT do is to prioritize MY character higher than YOUR companion. YOUR companion has the same priority as does MY character, as far as I am concerned." Another player's companion is just as important as my character. How does that make me a bad person or a player to be vote kicked or ostracized?

[Lostpenguins]

No. It's not. It's accepting of the possibility that your companion may be as important to you as my companions or characters are to me. It's also recognizing the fact that that new shiny would not be there for MY character or YOUR companion if not for the efforts of all the PLAYERS in the group, including you and me. I'm not going to tell you that you cannot roll need for your companion after you helped to produce the shiny. You may tell me that I cannot roll need for my companion after I helped to produce that shiny, but that does not make it right for me to tell you that you cannot roll need for your companion.

 

You can say that the character did the work, but it was the person behind the keyboard that did. This game does not even have an auto attack feature. If not for the PLAYER at the keyboard, the CHARACTER could not have contributed anything. The PLAYER is the one who has the right to roll need, not the character or the companion.

Um, my companion obviously isn't as important to me since I value my character more important than my companion so it's insulting to put my companion on the same level as your character.

[CharleyDanger]

I've already stated my position on that matter. I've stated that I prioritize MY character higher than MY companion. What I do NOT do is to prioritize MY character higher than YOUR companion. YOUR companion has the same priority as does MY character, as far as I am concerned.

 

If you are trying to defend why you do not care if others roll for companions, then your statement works. If you are trying to defend people actually rolling for companions then you statement is hypocritical.

 

If the OP said "I prioritize MY character higher than MY companion" then it is over. The OP is saying he is more important than his comp, but his comp is on the same level as my character.

 

When you say "I prioritize MY character higher than MY companion" then its is fine. You do not roll need for companions, therefore, there is no double standard.

 

I agree with what you are saying about others having the right to roll need. What I am saying is that regardless of the right to do it, it is still wrong to do it.

 

Tell me, do you think it is right to roll for companions? If so, why do you not roll need for your own companions?

Edited March 21, 2013 by CharleyDanger

[TheShootist]

Wow can't believe people are so different on this. It's quite simple Need for main and Greed for companion/sell, unless you ask. If you don't follow these simple rules you get kicked from the group and added to my ignore list.

 

Go ahead and keep up with needing on all the gear you like, I just won't have to deal with you but only the one time, as I'm sure you'll be added to many other players list as well. Eventually you'll only be sitting in Q for long periods of time or with other players like yourself.