Selecting need for loot

[Ratajack]

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.

 

Insulting to whom? You? You may find it insulting. Again, our views differ in many ways.

 

Insulting to me? I find it courteous and there are plenty of players who appreciate the courtesy.

[Mufang]

It's a social game. All social activities in life have unwritten social rules. You're going to wear the visitor's jersey at a game? Prepare to get booed. There's no "rule" about that.

 

There's no "rule" that when you walk into an elevator that you face the door, but everyone does it and when someone faces the other way it weirds people out. Why? Who knows? But it's an unwritten rule.

 

Demanding that a social interaction not have socials rules is rather silly and foolish.

 

Let me refraise what I said. Thier wouldn't be any reason for a unwritten rule about when to use need, greed, or pass if you only had two options: Need or Pass. If you are new to the game, or MMOGs, your going to sellect "need" before "greed" because greed has a negative conotation. Why do we have an unwritten rule where "need' really means your being greedy? We should only have two options, select need if you want a shot a getting the item or pass if you want to give it up as courtasy to others.

 

Also, all this talking about do need only when its for your player character and greed when its for your compaion. How do you know how the person is going to use it. With Legacy, many of us are playing multiple characters at the same time. I pass items to my other characters all the time by mail.

[imnotawitch]

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?

 

Here is how I see it:

 

Let's say gear drops! It is an upgrade for me. There is person A who could also use it for their own character, but no companions, and person B who could use it for their most used companion. My view goes:

 

My right to the gear = A's right to the gear > B's right to the gear > the right of anyone else who wouldn't use it for their companion. A and I hit NEED, B hits GREED, everyone else also hits greed. Everyone has followed convention.

 

Here is another scenario following convention.

 

Cunning gear drops. I am a Marauder, so I use strength. However, my Primary companion, Quinn, uses Cunning. There is one agent in the group, so only they use Cunning. The agent doesn't need the gear for an upgrade.

 

If everyone follows convention, we all roll GREED (or pass). Say the agent wins the roll. I ask the agent if I can have it for my primary companion. If the agent doesn't need it for his companion, he says yes and gives it to me. If some one else wants it for their companion, they have a roll-off with me. Everyone who needs it for their companion has a fair chance.

 

Now, in summary:

 

My character = Other characters > My companion = other companions.

 

Now, the way I see your view. You've said many times that your character is more important than your companion. Okay. So far we have:

 

Your character > Your companion.

 

You've also said that you consider your companion to have the same rights to gear as other characters. So now:

 

Your character > Your companion > Other Characters.

 

But you also say that you put other people's companions above your character. Now:

 

Other companions > Your character > Your companion > Other characters.

 

Still, don't you think that other people would put their own characters above their companions when it comes to gear?

 

Other characters??? > Other companions > Your character > Your companion > Other characters???

 

But you put your companion above other players:

 

Your companion? > Other Characters? > Your character > Your companion > Other characters??

 

But you put your character above your companion....

 

So here is why people don't agree with your view. Logically, it makes no sense and turns into an infinite loop of priority shifting. Please correct me if I made a mistake with my understanding, because that is how I understand it from your posts here.

[Ratajack]

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?

 

I might be wrong, but I do not see the OP as giving his companion a higher priority than your character. After all, he is not telling you that you cannot roll need because he wants it for his companion. That would be giving his companion a higher priority than your character. What he advocates is that he has as much right roll need for his companion as you do for your character. This gives his companion exactly the same priority as your character, no more, no less. I do not think that the OP would give his character a higher priority than your companion by telling you that you could not roll need for your companion if he wanted it for his character, either.

 

I choose to roll greed on that upgrade for my companion in favor of your character, but I do so because I believe it is the courteous thing to do. I also believe that everyone contributed to the kill and it is not my place (or the group's) to tell any player they cannot roll need, unless there were ground rules actually agreed upon by the group and not simply ASSUMED to be in effect.

[Lostpenguins]

Insulting to whom? You? You may find it insulting. Again, our views differ in many ways.

 

Insulting to me? I find it courteous and there are plenty of players who appreciate the courtesy.

Because you create a paradox in your statement.

 

Your character > Your companion (No roll)

Your companion = My character (Roll)

Your character = My companion (Roll)

My character > My companion (No Roll)

 

This is the paradox you created. Your character is more important than your companion. And my character is just as important as your character. Therefore, my character is also more important than your companion. But clearly you thinks that's false. Also, since my character is more important than my companion, and you seem to think that my companion is just as important as your character, therefore my character is more important than your character. But you already said that my character is equal to your companion, who is less important than your character.

 

That's a paradox. You're beliefs do not logically hold up.

 

Edit: I see someone else beat me to it and also points out the logical paradox you created.

Edited March 21, 2013 by Lostpenguins

[Lostpenguins]

Let me refraise what I said. Thier wouldn't be any reason for a unwritten rule about when to use need, greed, or pass if you only had two options: Need or Pass. If you are new to the game, or MMOGs, your going to sellect "need" before "greed" because greed has a negative conotation. Why do we have an unwritten rule where "need' really means your being greedy? We should only have two options, select need if you want a shot a getting the item or pass if you want to give it up as courtasy to others.

You are correct. A long time ago in WoW (I think) there wasn't a need and greed. In fact, one of my friends who didn't understand used to roll need all the time as the term "greed" was taken as being selfish.

 

However, the reason they added this was simple.

 

If no one needed the loot, everyone passed, and now there's loot sitting there that no one is going to use except to vendor/dench. But now, who gets the loot to vendor/dench? We already passed. So now we have to do a /roll. This slowed the system down. Some people on some servers (like the one I was on) simply came up with the idea to roll on all loot except BoP and if someone needed it they could ask for it and it'd be given if the winner didn't need the BoE. That way you didn't have to deal with the second roll.

 

However, this also slowed down because someone had to ask, someone had to find it, then they had to trade.

 

That's why there's a need/greed/pass roll. Pass really means that you don't even want to vendor it. Greed means you are going to vendor/dench it. Need means you need it as an upgrade. That dealt with the above scenarios.

 

However, this game now brings in a Need for Companion which would really go above Greed, but below Need. So, people typically:

1) Roll greed and hope their companion gets the item

2) Asks if they can take for a companion

 

Most people recognize that it's not a need so they errr on the side of courtesy so do not roll need for a companion. However, BW should make a Need for Companion Roll. However, this happens so rarely to be an issue (like I said, there's like 6 people in sea of voices on this thread, that actually differ in viewpoint) so that's why BW doesn't make it a policy.

Also, all this talking about do need only when its for your player character and greed when its for your compaion. How do you know how the person is going to use it. With Legacy, many of us are playing multiple characters at the same time. I pass items to my other characters all the time by mail.

It's assumed people are talking about their actual character and not going to roll Need to pass off to an alt via legacy gear. Alts and Companions exist on the same field, right now, but if the Need/Need for Comp/Greed/Pass roll went into affect I believe Alts would be under greed.

Edited March 21, 2013 by Lostpenguins

[Elyssandra]

lol Lost you have some patience

[Lostpenguins]

lol Lost you have some patience

If you notice my response times they're almost always in a 9-hr window... the same length of time someone would have at a job.

[Elyssandra]

I've just never heard of this unwritten rule where facing the mirror on the backwall of the elevator is reason for the other passengers to kick you out of the elevator.

 

Yeah if you make some friends they'll tell you these unwritten rules...

Or if you are capable of perception, you'll eventually get the hint when you find yourself alone on elevators

[Elyssandra]

If you notice my response times they're almost always in a 9-hr window... the same length of time someone would have at a job.

 

What you don't have enough illogical co-workers? Clearly I need to set up an export system.

[Lostpenguins]

What you don't have enough illogical co-workers? Clearly I need to set up an export system.

I'm alone, in the back, coding and waiting for stuff to compile. =)

[imnotawitch]

I'm alone, in the back, coding and waiting for stuff to compile. =)

 

Ah. I finished my coding for the day. Now I'm watching tv and leveling my consular while my dog noms on my feets.

[CharleyDanger]

I might be wrong, but I do not see the OP as giving his companion a higher priority than your character. After all, he is not telling you that you cannot roll need because he wants it for his companion. That would be giving his companion a higher priority than your character. What he advocates is that he has as much right roll need for his companion as you do for your character. This gives his companion exactly the same priority as your character, no more, no less. I do not think that the OP would give his character a higher priority than your companion by telling you that you could not roll need for your companion if he wanted it for his character, either.

 

I choose to roll greed on that upgrade for my companion in favor of your character, but I do so because I believe it is the courteous thing to do. I also believe that everyone contributed to the kill and it is not my place (or the group's) to tell any player they cannot roll need, unless there were ground rules actually agreed upon by the group and not simply ASSUMED to be in effect.

 

The OP did say his companion has a higher priority than my character. The OP says it every time he rolls need for his companion when another in the group could use the gear for their character. When you roll need you are saying that you need the gear just as much, if not more, than any other rolling for the item. If the OP rolls need for his comp, and I roll need for my character, then the OP is saying his comp is > or = to my character. With all that said, that is still not the issue...

 

It goes without saying that the OPs character has a higher priority than his companion. No matter how you look at it, everyone upgrades their character over their companion. Therefore, no one should then upgrade their companion over another's character.

 

You say "I choose to roll greed on that upgrade for my companion in favor of your character, but I do so because I believe it is the courteous thing to do" So you admit that the OP is being discourteous in your opinion? You are saying that in your opinion people that roll need for their comps are being discourteous?

Edited March 21, 2013 by CharleyDanger

[Ratajack]

Here is how I see it:

 

Let's say gear drops! It is an upgrade for me. There is person A who could also use it for their own character, but no companions, and person B who could use it for their most used companion. My view goes:

 

My right to the gear = A's right to the gear > B's right to the gear > the right of anyone else who wouldn't use it for their companion. A and I hit NEED, B hits GREED, everyone else also hits greed. Everyone has followed convention.

 

Here is another scenario following convention.

 

Cunning gear drops. I am a Marauder, so I use strength. However, my Primary companion, Quinn, uses Cunning. There is one agent in the group, so only they use Cunning. The agent doesn't need the gear for an upgrade.

 

If everyone follows convention, we all roll GREED (or pass). Say the agent wins the roll. I ask the agent if I can have it for my primary companion. If the agent doesn't need it for his companion, he says yes and gives it to me. If some one else wants it for their companion, they have a roll-off with me. Everyone who needs it for their companion has a fair chance.

 

Now, in summary:

 

My character = Other characters > My companion = other companions.

 

Now, the way I see your view. You've said many times that your character is more important than your companion. Okay. So far we have:

 

Your character > Your companion.

 

You've also said that you consider your companion to have the same rights to gear as other characters. So now:

 

Your character > Your companion > Other Characters.

 

But you also say that you put other people's companions above your character. Now:

 

Other companions > Your character > Your companion > Other characters.

 

Still, don't you think that other people would put their own characters above their companions when it comes to gear?

 

Other characters??? > Other companions > Your character > Your companion > Other characters???

 

But you put your companion above other players:

 

Your companion? > Other Characters? > Your character > Your companion > Other characters??

 

But you put your character above your companion....

 

So here is why people don't agree with your view. Logically, it makes no sense and turns into an infinite loop of priority shifting. Please correct me if I made a mistake with my understanding, because that is how I understand it from your posts here.

 

You seem to be confusing the fact that I will defend ANOTHER player's rights to roll need for loot they helped to produce with my position regarding MY character and MY companion relative to YOUR character and YOUR companion. As I said I place MY character ahead of MY companion. I do not place MY character ahead of YOUR companion. The best way to express how I prioritize for MY character and companion is:

 

MY character=YOUR character=YOUR companion>MY companion

 

I hope that clears it up for you. I do not expect anyone else to share this view, although I've found several players who do.

 

That does not mean I do not recognize another person's right to prioritize differently, even if I do not agree with that prioritization. Some may look at it like :

 

Player A's character=Player B's character>either companion

 

This seems to be the closest to "social convention", in my opinion.

 

There is no end to the different ways players can prioritize.

 

 

In regards to my defense of a player's right to roll need on loot he helped to produce, it is just as wrong, in my opinion, for player A to tell a player B that he cannot roll need on an upgrade for his companion because Player A wants it for their character as it is for player A to tell player B they cannot roll need for his character because player A wants it for his companion.

[imnotawitch]

If that is the case, then why are you defending the OP, who has stated he puts his companion on scale or higher than other characters?

[Khevar]

@Ratajack, So you're saying:

 

1. You would never need for your own companion.

2. If someone else needs for their companion, it's okay.

 

Is that right?

[Ratajack]

The OP did say his companion has a higher priority than my character. The OP says it every time he rolls need for his companion when another in the group could use the gear for their character. When you roll need you are saying that you need the gear just as much, if not more, than any other rolling for the item. If the OP rolls need for his comp, and I roll need for my character, then the OP is saying his comp is > or = to my character. With all that said, that is still not the issue...

 

It goes without saying that the OPs character has a higher priority than his companion. No matter how you look at it, everyone upgrades their character over their companion. Therefore, no one should then upgrade their companion over another's character.

 

You say "I choose to roll greed on that upgrade for my companion in favor of your character, but I do so because I believe it is the courteous thing to do" So you admit that the OP is being discourteous in your opinion? You are saying that in your opinion people that roll need for their comps are being discourteous?

 

When the OP chose to roll need for his companion, he did NOT tell anyone they could not roll need for their character, as far as I can tell from the original post. To me, that equates to the OP putting his companion and the other player's characters on the same level. This is not putting his companion AHEAD of anyone's character as they both had equal chance at the loot, assuming both rolled need.

 

Is the OP being discourteous? I would say he is not being as courteous as I would be. Is the OP telling anyone they cannot roll need on any items, or that if another member of the group wants to roll need they have to ask permission from the lords of loot? No, he is not. He is extending the same courtesy to everyone else in the group as he expects to receive, the courtesy for every player to be able to roll need if they so choose. I know many feel this violates some "social taboo".

 

If the OP were telling you that you could not roll need for your character because he wanted that item for his companion, then I would be here defending your right to roll need for whatever reason, since you helped to produce that loot.

[Ratajack]

If that is the case, then why are you defending the OP, who has stated he puts his companion on scale or higher than other characters?

 

Because the OP never said that he puts his companion on a HIGHER scale that other characters, only that he puts his companion on the SAME scale. Since the PLAYER contributed, the PLAYER has the right to roll. The character contributed NOTHING to that boss kill. The PLAYER at the keyboard did. Without the PLAYER at the keyboard, that character would have stood there looking pretty, and probably died.

[Ratajack]

@Ratajack, So you're saying:

 

1. You would never need for your own companion.

2. If someone else needs for their companion, it's okay.

 

Is that right?

 

Basically, yes. Although never is a strong word.

 

I generally do not roll need for a companion, that is correct. There are exceptions, such as if a group agrees to free rolls for all loot before the run.

 

If you choose to roll need for your companion and win that item over my character, I will congratulate you on your win. There would have been no roll without your efforts and contribution, after all.

Edited March 22, 2013 by Ratajack

[enderandrew]

If someone selected Need for their companion, I'd tell that player not to do it again. If they did it a second time, I'd vote to kick them from the group and ignore them to never group with them again.

 

Other players actual characters come first before outfitting companions.

[Ratajack]

If someone selected Need for their companion, I'd tell that player not to do it again. If they did it a second time, I'd vote to kick them from the group and ignore them to never group with them again.

 

Other players actual characters come first before outfitting companions.

 

Player A-You can't have that, it's MINE!!!!!

 

Player B- That would be an upgrade for your character and my companion, let the dice decide.

 

Who is more selfish?

[tronot]

This thread is so pointless. It's like a religious debate. Nobody's mind is going to get changed. You people continue needing for companion gear when another player can use it for their character. Whatever. You'll just get ignored. Hope that's ok with you. Hope it was worth it.

[Khevar]

Player A-You can't have that, it's MINE!!!!!

 

Player B- That would be an upgrade for your character and my companion, let the dice decide.

 

Who is more selfish?

How about

 

Player A: Can I need for my companion?

Player B: Sure

Player C: Sure

Player D: That's a direct upgrade for my merc, no

 

or

 

Player A: Can I need for my companion?

Player B: Sure

Player C: Sure

Player D: Sure

 

I've seen both of these scenarios played out. I've also seen:

 

Player A: *Needs*

Player B: You're a Scoundrel and you just needed on Trooper gear

Player A: It's for Corso

Player B: DON'T DO THAT

 

The third example is rude on the part of Player A. You might argue that Player B is being rude for coming down hard on Player A.

 

However, it is my contention that if someone wants to need for their companion, it would be the exception rather than the rule, and should ask first. In other words, it is the responsibility of the companion-needer to gain agreement on the action beforehand.

[Khevar]

This thread is so pointless. It's like a religious debate. Nobody's mind is going to get changed. You people continue needing for companion gear when another player can use it for their character. Whatever. You'll just get ignored. Hope that's ok with you. Hope it was worth it.

The only mind I want to change is the person who isn't sure, and comes to this thread to get more data.

[Ratajack]

How about

 

Player A: Can I need for my companion?

Player B: Sure

Player C: Sure

Player D: That's a direct upgrade for my merc, no

 

or

 

Player A: Can I need for my companion?

Player B: Sure

Player C: Sure

Player D: Sure

 

I've seen both of these scenarios played out. I've also seen:

 

Player A: *Needs*

Player B: You're a Scoundrel and you just needed on Trooper gear

Player A: It's for Corso

Player B: DON'T DO THAT

 

The third example is rude on the part of Player A. You might argue that Player B is being rude for coming down hard on Player A.

 

However, it is my contention that if someone wants to need for their companion, it would be the exception rather than the rule, and should ask first. In other words, it is the responsibility of the companion-needer to gain agreement on the action beforehand.

 

You failed to answer the question posed.

 

Those that expect "social convention" to prevail should make that clear before the run begins, rather than to just ASSUME that will be the case. Likewise, if a player intends to roll need for his companions, he should make that clear. When neither group makes the effort to ensure that all members of the group are on the same page with regards to loot rules, it can lead to drama.