Selecting need for loot

[river_of_Gem]

So you would vilify me because you have an opinion that I do not agree with?

Nice, hope treating other people with such indignity and callous retaliation works out for you in life

 

Yes i would since i don't reason with stupid opinion/ppl

 

And thank you my real life work out pretty good for me right now, and my game too, too bad we can't say the same about yours

 

And can we please have your toon name and server pls ?

Edited March 26, 2013 by river_of_Gem

[DarthTHC]

Yes i would since i don't reason with stupid opinion

 

And thank you my real life work out pretty good for me right now, and my game too, too bad we can't say the same about yours

 

And can we please have your toon name and server pls ?

 

You'd think that a person so proud of his opinion and certain of his conviction would not have a problem sharing his characters' names for all to see.

[Lostpenguins]

You'd think that a person so proud of his opinion and certain of his conviction would not have a problem sharing his characters' names for all to see.

Not true.

 

Batman hides his identity to become a symbol!

 

And if you argue against Batman's reasonings, you're just wrong. =)

[river_of_Gem]

Not true.

 

Batman hides his identity to become a symbol!

 

And if you argue against Batman's reasonings, you're just wrong. =)

 

Batman do not go cry in public after he got his *** kicked

 

<3 Batman

 

edit : ignore this need/greed stuff, let's talk about Batman imo =))

Edited March 26, 2013 by river_of_Gem

[Aebrynis]

I think Swtor should really change the loot system to how WoW does it, where only that class/sub tree can roll need on that one item but if they already have that specific item you cannot need on it anymore just greed.

 

The longer this thread gets, with more and more arguments for Needing gear for people and companions that aren't even there, the better your idea is starting to look. I remember this mechanic when I played WoW, and while I didn't particularly like it, I saw the reason for it.

 

I run Esseles/Black Talon five or six times for gear and Social Points before I hit DK/Coruscant when I whip up a new toon. In almost all cases, both my friend list and the Ignore list have a bunch of names for me to share with my guildies, so they know who will be an awesome FP groupmate to run with, and who they should avoid like the Black Death. I don't bother making a fuss when someone repeatedly Needs -without asking- something they can't use - I'll put them on Ignore and then add them to the guild blacklist, as well as tell my non-guilded friends, with the advice they should spread it around.

 

I once ran a Merc through BT a half-dozen times, and literally got nothing (apart from Social Points) on rolls (Needing only on Aim gear), and all but one of those times, I was the only BH in the party. So I don't see where I'm not justified in how I handle the situation. Losing a chestpiece to some bozo's Kaliyo, who isn't even in the flashpoint? I don't think so.

[RandomXChance]

These threads are great.

 

The only time I have needed on gear for a companion is when we lose a group member and my companion filled that role (although I still ask). The companion was present and aided the group, so therefore should be entitled to a roll.

 

Does your guildmate who runs all the planetary quests with you and helps you out but is not in the FP get a roll on gear in the flashpoint? Does your alt that crafts stims for you to make questing easier for you get a roll? Both examples are helpful for you outside the FP, so why not? I am out of credits and cannot fund repairs so I need that gear to vendor it to get the credits? Where do the justifications end? At that rate, just have the game randomly hand out the loot since all members will be needing on everything.

 

And I would STRONLY suggest never needing on a tank piece without the tank saying it is OK. Since DPS and healers use mostly the same gear, tanks only have an opportunity 1/3 as often. If a DPS needs on a piece of tank gear that I need and will not hand over, Vote Kick. Have fun waiting for an hour again as a DPS for the GF to pop.

[Icestar]

If that Trooper had rolled Greed on the Cunning item, we could have had that conversation. Sadly, he chose to roll Need on something he didn't, which is one of the quicker ways to get on my ignore list (along with queueing as what you are not and starting fights if you're not the tank).

 

I'm quite patient and willing to teach people who are polite and willing to learn. I have absolutely no patience for those who behave badly.

 

I simply ment that the trooper might have assumed that the trooper healing companion uses cunning and therfore rolled need. It is a known mistake to do so, as I mentioned before that snipers are assumed to use aim by many new players.

 

However, if the player intentionally knowing what he/she did used need and kept the item then the player belongs on the ignorelist ofcourse.

Edited March 26, 2013 by Icestar

[Icestar]

I didn't read the full thread cause it is waaaayy too long so someone might have said that already, but in my opinion (not that its worth anything) it is OK to need for companion if nobody else needed for their character.

 

Your opionion is ofcourse worth something but lets compare it to this game current social rules. If everyone but one uses greed and the last player press need without actually having character need it will be considered ninjalooting.

 

A item that no character in the team can use themselves will be greedrolled since almost everyone (except trooper) has a companion that uses all stats and ofcourse everyone can sell it for cash aswell.

 

So, no it is not ok to use need as the last player that rolls. It will probably get you into trouble and could end up with a kick from the team and a spot on the ignorelist.

 

The best way is to ask before using need if it is intended for a companion at all times.

Edited March 26, 2013 by Icestar

[Ratajack]

Heh. Mr. Pink would definitely Need for companions.

 

The interesting thing, is that Steve Buscemi's character makes a reasoned and logical argument against tipping the waitress, and the others all argue against it. I wouldn't be but a bit surprised that the dialog in the film was something Tarantino actually heard.

 

That scene is not dissimilar to this thread. One person is trying to make logical arguments against the practice of Need isn't for companions, defending the OP, saying that it is a social convention, yada yada. Most everyone else is arguing against him. One or two people are like Mr Orange: "give me my dollar back"

 

This subject has similarities to the Prisoner's Dilemma. If both prisoners cooperate, everyone wins. The comparison is that if everyone were to follow the "only Need for main gear uprades" than everyone would gear their main toon faster.

 

The reason why this is a social convention, is that it is logical. It actually helps people gear up their main toons.

 

The prisoner's dilemma theory only holds true if everyone in the group is going to benefit. Unfortunately, we are talking about random pugs, and especially while leveling. If Player A gets that upgrade for his character, Players B, C and D most likely will not see any benefit except through the end of that particular run. Most players won't need a particular upgrade to complete a run, meaning that Players B, C and D will likely see no real benefit to gearing Player A's character. Most likely those 4 players will not be grouped again. Tell me again why it is better for Player B if he passes on an upgrade for his companion in favor of player A's character if Player B is going to see much more benefit from that particular piece of gear on his companion than he would if it was on Player A's character.

[Ratajack]

There's 2 different arguments going on:

1) Whether people should follow social conventions or not.

2) Is this social convention right?

 

#2 is debatable. To me, it reminds me of Nash's theory that instead of "every man for himself", that through cooperation better results are achieved. Ratajack and a few others argue about the necessity of the companion, etc. etc. In the end, it's still argumentative and trying to convince them has been futile.

 

#1 is debatable. Ratajack tries to spin it with punishment and group-kicking as the bad guys, yet going against the grain and breaking social conventions is the start of the offense for which he tries to place no blame on.

 

I could care less about issue #2 so long as the people don't violate #1.

 

Actually, in my opinion, the first offense is someone telling another player they have no right to roll need on a piece of loot they helped to produce. If we're going to throw stones, let's at least throw the correct ones.

[Ratajack]

I have a quick question since you continue to defend this position.

 

Do you not tip waiters and waitresses at restaurants unless there's a mandatory gratuity? I mean, you don't have to tip. No one is holding a gun to your head. Amirite? Or do you tip but applaud someone who stands up for their right to not tip because they don't have to tip. And I'm not talking about bad service. I'm talking, regular, run-of-the-mill, standard levels of service for parties of less than 6. No one is forcing anyone to tip, but social convention says you should and, generally, society looks at those who don't tip as being bad mannered.

 

I still love the fact that most (and I'm talking over 90%) know exactly what the rules of etiquette are. You're trying to defend such a small minority of people who either feel entitled or are simply ignorant to the social norms. They're going to get corrected on their behavior - this is unavoidable. People, in this game, seem to generally dislike people who roll need on anything that is not directly an upgrade to their toon. The fact that you continue to argue this point is hilarious. The fact that you won't admit who you are, in game, on what server, is hilarious. The fact that you also follow social norms is hilarious.

 

You are quite a riot.

 

 

Yes, as a matter of fact I do tip the waitstaff, very generously, provided the service was not atrocious. I'm not going to tell the person in the next booth that they have to tip the waitstaff.

 

Let me turn it around, though. If the person in the next booth chooses not tip, do you think the the waiter/waitress should throw the customer out on his ear and never allow him back in the restaurant? Do you think the other customers should throw him out on his ear and browbeat him, giving his picture and name to every other restaurant in town, for not tipping and going against "social convention"?

 

If someone does not share the same values I have, it does not make them stupid, or wrong. As the saying goes, minds are like parachutes, they work best when open.

[DarthSylar]

I know it's been said 1000 times in this thread and on the forums in general, but YES you have the right to need anything you want, even items you can't use, but "need" to sell for the credits. But I certainly have the right to add you to my ignore list. And if the other two group members agree with me, we certainly have the right to kick you from the flashpoint.

 

It's clearly obvious to you why people feel strongly on this, and anyone who doesn't feel the same way, should simply accept that people may ignore them and may kick them from groups.

[Chelz]

Let's face it, we only run those dumb fp's for the gear and the coms it gives us to upgrade our toons with. We don't run them for credits. I pass on all loot drops unless that toon that I am running needs the item as an upgrade. If that is the case, and only then, I need.

 

So pass on loot you don't need, and need for upgrades for the toon you are running only. Upgrade your comps another way. Use coms.

 

This rocket science? Stop being rude.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Chelz

[Khevar]

The prisoner's dilemma theory only holds true if everyone in the group is going to benefit. Unfortunately, we are talking about random pugs, and especially while leveling. If Player A gets that upgrade for his character, Players B, C and D most likely will not see any benefit except through the end of that particular run. Most players won't need a particular upgrade to complete a run, meaning that Players B, C and D will likely see no real benefit to gearing Player A's character. Most likely those 4 players will not be grouped again. Tell me again why it is better for Player B if he passes on an upgrade for his companion in favor of player A's character if Player B is going to see much more benefit from that particular piece of gear on his companion than he would if it was on Player A's character.

The Prisoner's Dilemma posits a single interaction. To see how this would be applicable here, extend the idea of the 'prisoner cooperation' to every loot drop with every group.

 

Let's assume this wording of the rule:

 

"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 EVERY player were to apply this rule, then players would more easily obtain direct upgrades, and be less likely to lose a loot roll on direct upgrades. <-- Do you agree that this last statement is true?

[Risq]

Yes, as a matter of fact I do tip the waitstaff, very generously, provided the service was not atrocious. I'm not going to tell the person in the next booth that they have to tip the waitstaff.

 

Let me turn it around, though. If the person in the next booth chooses not tip, do you think the the waiter/waitress should throw the customer out on his ear and never allow him back in the restaurant? Do you think the other customers should throw him out on his ear and browbeat him, giving his picture and name to every other restaurant in town, for not tipping and going against "social convention"?

 

If someone does not share the same values I have, it does not make them stupid, or wrong. As the saying goes, minds are like parachutes, they work best when open.

I wasn't going to comment, but I have to just say this based on you still defending this.

 

In the analogy you just used you said:

 

{snip}

Let me turn it around, though. If the person in the next booth chooses not tip, do you think the the waiter/waitress should throw the customer out on his ear and never allow him back in the restaurant? Do you think the other customers should throw him out on his ear and browbeat him

{snip}

 

In the state I'm in we tip because it's the social norm, but I've never "not" tipped unless I got up and left the restaurant because the service was so bad that I didn't finish anything there. I just paid for what I used. Mainly because I know that the staff who works there has their salary adjusted "down" based on the fact the owners "expect" patron's to tip. That's just a fact of the industry.

 

But, what I wanted to get at was this, once when the food was delivered to myself and a co-worker (who was visiting my office from New York) we found that his food wasn't cooked all the way through. So much that personally I couldn't have eaten it. When I suggested he send it back he emphatically said no.

 

When I asked why he said that where he was from, if you routinely failed to tip or sent food back, the staff "would do stuff too anything that you ordered" so he didn't want to take the chance. So he ate around the uncooked parts of the food and still gave a tip.

 

That's also the possibility of bucking the social norm. No they don't "boot you from the restaurant/group" but they may often do a little "rough justice" as well if your not careful and make a practice of doing this.

 

So just like your analogy above, sure you don't "have to tip" and you don't "have to say anything to the someone who feels they don't have to tip the staff" but they better not make it a habit or the "staff" of some places will make it a point to get even either knowingly or "unknowingly".

 

Knowingly is when the staff decides to give you "extremely" bad service because they know you're a dead beat and they are wasting their time on you when they could be earning their commission on someone who appreciates their service. "UN-knowingly" is when they don't even tell you how they got even and you may not "ever" know.

Edited March 28, 2013 by Risq

[Glorthox]

Wow people needing on loot for their companions. How hard is it to ask someone if they need it first? If they don't need it then ask if you can have it. If you just need on it without asking, then you are just showing people how rude and disrespectful you are.

[translucentwolf]

Came across two flashpoints yesterday where I was verbally talked down to by a gamer each time for winning loot for my companion. I dont understand the big deal. Why the sense of entitlement over another gamer? If I see an item that would be needed for my companion to equip im going to roll for it. If someone else wins it, cool, good for them as far as im concerned. If i win it f, suddenly there are problems.

First flashpoint came across an item, i passed as neither i nor my companions needed it, Second one selected need for my tank. Got it. Third one, great for my tank, selected need, got it again. Then got told I was scum and voted off.

Second one, passed on two items, third one great for my tank, selected need and was told I had no right if it was for my companion and that I cant select need. I say why not? Out of 13 loot drops in that flashpoint i chose need on 2. How is that greedy?

 

As far as im concerned, im a paid subscriber. Why should some other gamer dictate to me what I can or cannot do to benefit them? If someone wants help on a mission or flashpoint and asks me, ill have no problem helping them but if i see something my tank needs, im selecting need. Im certainly not going to cry over it if someone else wins it. This sense of entitlement over someone else is baffling. There is no rulebook in the game that states that you cant do it and everyone who rolls for it has an equal chance

 

Dirtbag OP is Dirtbag. There will always be this sort of player. Once their character is added to enough 'ignore' lists, and they can get no more queue pops, they'll re-roll, and you won't see them in your FP range for a while.

[AsheraII]

I wasn't going to comment, but I have to just say this based on you still defending this.

 

In the analogy you just used you said:

 

{snip}

Let me turn it around, though. If the person in the next booth chooses not tip, do you think the the waiter/waitress should throw the customer out on his ear and never allow him back in the restaurant? Do you think the other customers should throw him out on his ear and browbeat him

{snip}

 

In the state I'm in we tip because it's the social norm, but I've never "not" tipped unless I got up and left the restaurant because the service was so bad that I didn't finish anything there. I just paid for what I used. Mainly because I know that the staff who works there has their salary adjusted "down" based on the fact the owners "expect" patron's to tip. That's just a fact of the industry.

 

But, what I wanted to get at was this, once when the food was delivered to myself and a co-worker (who was visiting my office from New York) we found that his food wasn't cooked all the way through. So much that personally I couldn't have eaten it. When I suggested he send it back he emphatically said no.

 

When I asked why he said that where he was from, if you routinely failed to tip or sent food back, the staff "would do stuff too anything that you ordered" so he didn't want to take the chance. So he ate around the uncooked parts of the food and still gave a tip.

 

That's also the possibility of bucking the social norm. No they don't "boot you from the restaurant/group" but they may often do a little "rough justice" as well if your not careful and make a practice of doing this.

 

So just like your analogy above, sure you don't "have to tip" and you don't "have to say anything to the someone who feels they don't have to tip the staff" but they better not make it a habit or the "staff" of some places will make it a point to get even either knowingly or "unknowingly".

 

Knowingly is when the staff decides to give you "extremely" bad service because they know you're a dead beat and they are wasting their time on you when they could be earning their commission on someone who appreciates their service. "UN-knowingly" is when they don't even tell you how they got even and you may not "ever" know.

Funny, this "giving tips" analogy. In plenty countries in the world, tipping the waiter/waitress is NOT the norm. Sure, they take the extra cash, but there are places where they will look at you very oddly. Especially if you get away a bit from the tourist trap regions. Sure, it may be normal/natural in your country or state or town or local pub or whatever. But that norm is far from universal. I've been in hotels where it was normal to tip the chambermaid. I've also been to hotels where tipping the chambermaid was considered prepayement or downpay for "additional services".

 

And keep in mind, we're just talking LEVELING CONTENT here. The gear in this content is

1. Never "needed" to succeed the content or progress through the following piece of content

2. Easily aquirable otherwise

 

To me, this whole debate just means Bioware should overhaul the loot distribution in leveling flashpoints, and step away from the failure WoW mindset on this matter, by either

A. Provide each player with a personal lootdrop from each boss (this does NOT mean that a Trooper would be guaranteed to get a Trooper drop though, on that run, the item drop might still be something more applicable to any other class!), so the overall gearing up of players still remains comparable to how that works now.

B. Seperate the item modifications from the item dropped, so instead of one fully modded item, the boss would drop 1 shell, 1 armoring/hilt/barrel, 1 mod and 1 enhancement, for which the groupmembers roll seperately. With this solution too, the avarage gearing up of players will remain comparable to their gear progression as it is now.

 

Either one works in my opinion. And either one would greatly reduce the lootdrama involved with the current system.

[jovianus]

Actually, in my opinion, the first offense is someone telling another player they have no right to roll need on a piece of loot they helped to produce. If we're going to throw stones, let's at least throw the correct ones.

 

You absolutely do have the right to roll need on anything you like. And the rest of your group has the right to kick you and ignore you for putting your pet ahead of other players.

[Arlon_Nabarlly]

I know it's been said 1000 times in this thread and on the forums in general, but YES you have the right to need anything you want, even items you can't use, but "need" to sell for the credits.

 

I disagree. Selling for credits is the main concept of the greed button, hence it's icon being the credit symbol. This should not be allowed all the system should be improved to not allow needing unless there is at least a possibility you can use it.

[TheBBP]

People have the right to loot as they desire. My $15 is no better than your $15. However, there are consequences for behavior that is not fitting a cooperative community. Ignore lists, vote-kicks etc... If you wish to act like an anti-social pud, that is your right. Just don't cry about being vote-kicked or overtly shunned when your name gets attached to that sort of behavior.

[AsheraII]

I disagree. Selling for credits is the main concept of the greed button, hence it's icon being the credit symbol. This should not be allowed all the system should be improved to not allow needing unless there is at least a possibility you can use it.

And THAT is the WoW mindset we should get rid of. The items from flashpoints don't have any class restrictions, so almost everything is usable by about every player in practice. Even if it involves ripping out one or more mods and replacing them, or ripping out one or more mods and moving them into another item. A restrictive "only troopers can roll on heavy aim armor pieces" is very undesirable.

Not to mention..

 

Heavy Aim piece drops

Trooper: greed (already has it)

Jedi Knight: pass

Jedi Consular: greed (might make some credits vendorizing it)

Smuggler: Hey guys, can I need this for Corso? It'd really help him and look good too!

Others: sure mate!

Smuggler tries to press need, but can't, because since the latest patch only the trooper would be allowed to need on it.

 

I'd rather see this happen:

Everybody gets Heavy Aim piece.

Trooper puts it on some companion he never uses because it was undergeared and gearing up more than 2 companions is way too expensive. Or rips out the mods and puts those on his pants instead.

Jedi Knight decides to RE the armoring and mod for mats, since she's a cybertech, and vendorizes the rest to an NPC

Jedi Consular vendorizes the whole thing to an NPC to pay his repairbill

Smuggler puts it on his companion Corso and starts playing with Corso again, because Bowdaar and Risha just didn't work out with his playstyle, but gearing them up did drain all his credits and comms.

[Arlon_Nabarlly]

And THAT is the WoW mindset we should get rid of. The items from flashpoints don't have any class restrictions, so almost everything is usable by about every player in practice. Even if it involves ripping out one or more mods and replacing them, or ripping out one or more mods and moving them into another item. A restrictive "only troopers can roll on heavy aim armor pieces" is very undesirable.

Not to mention..

 

Heavy Aim piece drops

Trooper: greed (already has it)

Jedi Knight: pass

Jedi Consular: greed (might make some credits vendorizing it)

Smuggler: Hey guys, can I need this for Corso? It'd really help him and look good too!

Others: sure mate!

Smuggler tries to press need, but can't, because since the latest patch only the trooper would be allowed to need on it.

 

I'd rather see this happen:

Everybody gets Heavy Aim piece.

Trooper puts it on some companion he never uses because it was undergeared and gearing up more than 2 companions is way too expensive. Or rips out the mods and puts those on his pants instead.

Jedi Knight decides to RE the armoring and mod for mats, since she's a cybertech, and vendorizes the rest to an NPC

Jedi Consular vendorizes the whole thing to an NPC to pay his repairbill

Smuggler puts it on his companion Corso and starts playing with Corso again, because Bowdaar and Risha just didn't work out with his playstyle, but gearing them up did drain all his credits and comms.

 

And this is the gimmie gimmie gimmie mindset we need to get rid of. Ripping mods doesn't help because in most cases the mods have main stat on them as well. I don't want someone winning a need roll over me when I need all 3 components and someone else just wants to rip the enhancement out and vendor the rest, or worse yet give it to a companion. That's like someone taking my steak dinner and feeding it to their dog.

 

I'm fine with people getting gear for companions or just to rip one or two mods out, but they should not get the same priority as someone that truly needs it. This is the difference between WANT and NEED. WANT = GREED.

 

And as far as the "WoW mindset" I hardly ever played that crappy game, my mindset has nothing to do with that game, but logic.

Edited March 28, 2013 by Arlon_Nabarlly

[Ratajack]

The Prisoner's Dilemma posits a single interaction. To see how this would be applicable here, extend the idea of the 'prisoner cooperation' to every loot drop with every group.

 

Let's assume this wording of the rule:

 

"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 EVERY player were to apply this rule, then players would more easily obtain direct upgrades, and be less likely to lose a loot roll on direct upgrades. <-- Do you agree that this last statement is true?

 

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?

[Ratajack]

And THAT is the WoW mindset we should get rid of. The items from flashpoints don't have any class restrictions, so almost everything is usable by about every player in practice. Even if it involves ripping out one or more mods and replacing them, or ripping out one or more mods and moving them into another item. A restrictive "only troopers can roll on heavy aim armor pieces" is very undesirable.

Not to mention..

 

Heavy Aim piece drops

Trooper: greed (already has it)

Jedi Knight: pass

Jedi Consular: greed (might make some credits vendorizing it)

Smuggler: Hey guys, can I need this for Corso? It'd really help him and look good too!

Others: sure mate!

Smuggler tries to press need, but can't, because since the latest patch only the trooper would be allowed to need on it.

 

I'd rather see this happen:

Everybody gets Heavy Aim piece.

Trooper puts it on some companion he never uses because it was undergeared and gearing up more than 2 companions is way too expensive. Or rips out the mods and puts those on his pants instead.

Jedi Knight decides to RE the armoring and mod for mats, since she's a cybertech, and vendorizes the rest to an NPC

Jedi Consular vendorizes the whole thing to an NPC to pay his repairbill

Smuggler puts it on his companion Corso and starts playing with Corso again, because Bowdaar and Risha just didn't work out with his playstyle, but gearing them up did drain all his credits and comms.

 

 

 

And this is the gimmie gimmie gimmie mindset we need to get rid of. Ripping mods doesn't help because in most cases the mods have main stat on them as well. I don't want someone winning a need roll over me when I need all 3 components and someone else just wants to rip the enhancement out and vendor the rest, or worse yet give it to a companion. That's like someone taking my steak dinner and feeding it to their dog.

 

I'm fine with people getting gear for companions or just to rip one or two mods out, but they should not get the same priority as someone that truly needs it. This is the difference between WANT and NEED. WANT = GREED.

 

And as far as the "WoW mindset" I hardly ever played that crappy game, my mindset has nothing to do with that game, but logic.

 

First, I saw nothing in Asherall's post that gave any indication of a "Gimme! Gimme! Gimme!" attitude. Asherall suggestion was not for a single person to randomly be awarded that aim chest piece, but rather for EVERY member of the group to be awarded the same aim chest piece. That gives you the upgrade, the smuggler the option to equip his to corso, and the remaining two members can do whatever they wish to do with it.

 

 

Second, I find someone who insists that another player not roll need for a companion because they want that piece of gear for their character is displaying a "GIMME! GIMME! GIMME!" attitude. "You can't have that!!! It's MINE!!!"