No, it's certainly fair to be allowed to roll on anything.

 

it's unbiased in any way, totally impartial. That's kind of the definition of fair.

 

This isn't "able to roll need on anything" ... this is "able to roll need on certain items based on the criteria that you didn't actually mention anywhere"

 

For any given item, your chance to win it is exactly the same as anyone else that also wants it and chooses to roll.

But at that point, everyone is rolling need on everything. Why even have a NBG system if no one uses it properly? A Trooper will never need cunning. Ever. So, if he wants a "fair" roll like everyone else, he should still roll "need" on it? Even though all he could do is sell it?

Well, if you care what I think, they you'd see that a minority are taking advantage of a majority who are trying to use the system in a polite/respectful way (so we all have equal access to loot).

Personally, I see a group that thinks that it's OK to dictate their personal loot preference to other people, insisting that it is the only true, correct loot preference, and people who don't think that's reasonable.

Of the two, I'd say that the people trying to use the system in a polite, respectful way are the latter group. It certainly isn't the former group.

If you think everyone already has equal access by being able to click NEED every time, then the system needs to be changed to make that viewpoint clear. It obviously wasn't intended to be NEED every time unless you wanted to pass.

It seems clear to me. If you think you need it, press need. If you don't want it at all, press pass. If you wouldn't mind taking it, but don't think you need it, press greed.

Certainly they are.

 

I have 6 wrist slots. 2 of them need light armor with willpower, 2 of them heavy with aim, 2 of them medium cunning.

Come on, Jawa. You know they're different. The companions might - in your opinion - be equally as important as your character (which is the crux of this debate), but they aren't literally that character. If someone says, "Hey, you made a smuggler? Cool. What's his name." Do you seriously say, "His name is Ferroz Corso Riggs Bowdarr Risha"?

The companions are separate form the player character. How important they are TO the experience and playability of the player character is up for debate, but to say they ARE that character is simply not true.

Now if you're saying that in your opinion, they are all part of the same experience and getting gear for them is equally as important to you as a player as getting gear for the actual character , I can respect that. But a companion and a player character are by definition two different things.

On Tarris group of 16 level 32-37 take down ancient one world boss.

 

3 agents in group. A nice purple protype drops clearly meant for agents. All roll need.

 

A sith assasin also rolls need and wins, saying he needed it for his companion.

 

 

***

15 lvl 24 -38s gather for world boss, lvl 50 jugg comes up solo's away from us kills it and says needs it for his companions, lvl 30 purps for lvl 50 companions? lol /gtf

Come on, Jawa. You know they're different.

Personally, I see a group that thinks that it's OK to dictate their personal loot preference to other people, insisting that it is the only true, correct loot preference, and people who don't think that's reasonable.

.

I absolutely can say what is and is not ok in a group/partnership. If someone doesn't agree, they will opt out of said partnership. I'm just pushing for people to try and clear this all up before killing a boss, entering a disagreement, disolving the group there, leaving, finding a replacement, resetting and starting again with a bunch of ill feelings about the whole thing.

Companions aren't part of the player character. The player character is the character you created at the start of the game. Companions are companions to the player character. They're something new. I'm not talking about their importance, but they - quite literally - are not the player character. How important they are TO the player character is what's up for debate.

 

Maybe we're operating under a different definition of player character here, but companions and your character are - literally - two different things. How integrated they are into the value of your character is different, but to say they ARE your character simply isn't true. Corso Riggs is not my main character. He's a companion to that main character.

 

To say he's an absolutely integral part of my main's progression is perfectly valid. But to say he IS that character simply isn't true.

There's a small problem in being so factual in such a topic.

Q: Is a companion an extension of the player character?

This question alone could cause as much debate as this current topic has.

On the progression from 1 to 50, it has to be admitted that the companion plays more than a passing role in that progression. In all honestly, the companion is directly integral to the way you play and how fast/slow you progress.

If you were to level without any companion in the normal way, how long would it take? Is it even possible?

Likewise, after L50, if you assume that the player is going to do nothing but FP and raiding, then the companion become little more than a pet. How-ever, the (and no offense implied) common care-bear / casual player is still going to do stuff that necessitates them using their companion.

So; If we say yes, the companion is an integral part of the leveling process; And that companion needs to be geared, then by extension, both the player and the companion need to be geared.

Now, someone else will say, they managed to level with L15 gear on their L30 companion. And that's fine. But it does not imply that, that is how everyone else should play.

By all that is logical, the companion is by definition, via it's properties and role, an extension of the player character.

All that being said; Even at loot time, there is only 1 player rolling the dice. There is no need to bring in the argument that the companion was not there, didn't help etc etc.

The fact is; everyone is there to get gear. Whether the gear is for the PC or the companion is really irrelevant.

Further, the pure fact that the group got to the stage of being able to get loot, means each individual character helped get to that point. As such, each of them are entitled to roll for the loot.

Where this al becomes unhinged, is in people believing for some reason, that they have any business at all in what the winner does with that they win. At a basic level, you had a roll of the dice, and either won, or lost. You, the other players have no business at all, in what happens to the loot you didn't win.

What players here want is to reduce the chance of someone else getting the piece of gear that they want.

While the NBG consideration is and can be valid, it is so often abused as to negate it's useful ness, unless you are running with people you know.

An additional downfall of the entire system, is that there has been no official stance on this from Bioware. Leaving it to the players to fight out amongst themselves. And the pro-NBG group are claiming all kinds of penalties if you don't conform with their thinking that a lot of less-wise players will just go along with that they're told to do.

The more veteran-types look at it from a different viewpoint, in that they have been there, done that, and know exactly what the penalties are.

Add to all that the sad fact that day by day the numbers on the server are getting lower and lower, and you come to realize, that this argument whatever it's merits or failures, is really immaterial.

If we read and accept the forum posters, there is nothing to do at 50 except roll an alt and do it all again.

I think I've made it clear that I don't agree...

Fair enough. It was a semantics side-track anyway.

Edit: And I'm not accusing you of doing the sidetracking. I'm the one that latched on to the "definition of a character" bit, not you.

There's a small problem in being so factual in such a topic.

 

Q: Is a companion an extension of the player character?

 

This question alone could cause as much debate as this current topic has.

 

On the progression from 1 to 50, it has to be admitted that the companion plays more than a passing role in that progression. In all honestly, the companion is directly integral to the way you play and how fast/slow you progress.

 

If you were to level without any companion in the normal way, how long would it take? Is it even possible?

 

Likewise, after L50, if you assume that the player is going to do nothing but FP and raiding, then the companion become little more than a pet. How-ever, the (and no offense implied) common care-bear / casual player is still going to do stuff that necessitates them using their companion.

 

So; If we say yes, the companion is an integral part of the leveling process; And that companion needs to be geared, then by extension, both the player and the companion need to be geared.

 

Now, someone else will say, they managed to level with L15 gear on their L30 companion. And that's fine. But it does not imply that, that is how everyone else should play.

 

By all that is logical, the companion is by definition, via it's properties and role, an extension of the player character.

 

All that being said; Even at loot time, there is only 1 player rolling the dice. There is no need to bring in the argument that the companion was not there, didn't help etc etc.

 

The fact is; everyone is there to get gear. Whether the gear is for the PC or the companion is really irrelevant.

 

Further, the pure fact that the group got to the stage of being able to get loot, means each individual character helped get to that point. As such, each of them are entitled to roll for the loot.

 

Where this al becomes unhinged, is in people believing for some reason, that they have any business at all in what the winner does with that they win. At a basic level, you had a roll of the dice, and either won, or lost. You, the other players have no business at all, in what happens to the loot you didn't win.

 

What players here want is to reduce the chance of someone else getting the piece of gear that they want.

 

While the NBG consideration is and can be valid, it is so often abused as to negate it's useful ness, unless you are running with people you know.

 

An additional downfall of the entire system, is that there has been no official stance on this from Bioware. Leaving it to the players to fight out amongst themselves. And the pro-NBG group are claiming all kinds of penalties if you don't conform with their thinking that a lot of less-wise players will just go along with that they're told to do.

 

The more veteran-types look at it from a different viewpoint, in that they have been there, done that, and know exactly what the penalties are.

 

Add to all that the sad fact that day by day the numbers on the server are getting lower and lower, and you come to realize, that this argument whatever it's merits or failures, is really immaterial.

 

If we read and accept the forum posters, there is nothing to do at 50 except roll an alt and do it all again.

Like I said in my last post, the "is the companion literally part of your character" bit was really me derailing into another debate, and a semantics one at that.

No matter how we define a companion, the crux of the companion debate boils down to how important you think the companion is to your character... no matter how you define it. It boils down to whether or not the companion is equally as important as your character.

And that's actually the one part of this debate that I get wobbly about, because I honestly can't decide.

I absolutely can say what is and is not ok in a group/partnership. If someone doesn't agree, they will opt out of said partnership. I'm just pushing for people to try and clear this all up before killing a boss, entering a disagreement, disolving the group there, leaving, finding a replacement, resetting and starting again with a bunch of ill feelings about the whole thing.

The difference is;

You start a group and dictate terms and conditions for being allowed to play in your group.

I start a group and get on with the game, allowing people to roll how-ever they want. If I roll need and lose, I accept I lost the roll and continue playing.

I prefer my groups to the thought of yours. My way, we get to play the game rather than play 'it's my group you'll do what I say'..

Like I said in my last post, the "is the companion literally part of your character" bit was really me derailing into another debate, and a semantics one at that.

 

No matter how we define a companion, the crux of the companion debate boils down to how important you think the companion is to your character... no matter how you define it. It boils down to whether or not the companion is equally as important as your character.

 

And that's actually the one part of this debate that I get wobbly about, because I honestly can't decide.

I totally agree. And, I think the only person that can answer the question, is the player themselves. Everyone plays the game differently and uses their companion different.

The question then is; does anyone, have the right to tell you how to use/play your companion or dictate how important/useless that companion is to you?

I totally agree. And, I think the only person that can answer the question, is the player themselves. Everyone plays the game differently and uses their companion different.

 

The question then is; does anyone, have the right to tell you how to use/play your companion or dictate how important/useless that companion is to you?

I really think the only viable solution is:

1. If the loot rule is important to you, speak up.

2. If nobody speaks up, it should be assumed that everyone is rolling need for companions.

Number 2 is the one I'm sure people will have a problem with, but I really think TOR's companion system has changed the paradigm here and there's no longer a "conventional wisdom" on when to roll need.

The difference is;

 

You start a group and dictate terms and conditions for being allowed to play in your group.

 

I start a group and get on with the game, allowing people to roll how-ever they want. If I roll need and lose, I accept I lost the roll and continue playing.

 

I prefer my groups to the thought of yours. My way, we get to play the game rather than play 'it's my group you'll do what I say'..

The problem is, that's never the way it works out. In your group, you may need and lose and be fine with it, but players 2 and three may be furious that you needed for a companion over them (even if you did lose, as they now know your intent) causing the group to fall apart. At least the other posters way, everything was clear from the beginning.

Fair enough. It was a semantics side-track anyway.

 

Edit: And I'm not accusing you of doing the sidetracking. I'm the one that latched on to the "definition of a character" bit, not you.

It's ok, you cannot debate a fact and you are stating a fact.

You can play your character w/o companions. You cannot play a companion w/o your character.

You can play your character w/ any companion you have. You cannot play a companion w/ another companion.

They are not the same.

Your main is the only constant involved. Companions are simply variables that may or may not be needed to play the game and advance but they definitely make it easier.

The fact is that they are not the same regardless of what someone else tries to continually claim.

The problem is, that's never the way it works out. In your group, you may need and lose and be fine with it, but players 2 and three may be furious that you needed for a companion over them (even if you did lose, as they now know your intent) causing the group to fall apart. At least the other posters way, everything was clear from the beginning.

Fair point;

So if I declare, lfm xxx, no loot rules

would be better? I can do that.

It's ok, you cannot debate a fact and you are stating a fact.

 

You can play your character w/o companions. You cannot play a companion w/o your character.

 

You can play your character w/ any companion you have. You cannot play a companion w/ another companion.

 

They are not the same.

 

Your main is the only constant involved. Companions are simply variables that may or may not be needed to play the game and advance but they definitely make it easier.

 

The fact is that they are not the same regardless of what someone else tries to continually claim.

I agree and you stated it much better than I did. I just conceded because the definition of a companion isn't really the issue. The importance of the companion is.

But thanks for clarifying my point.

I really think the only viable solution is:

 

1. If the loot rule is important to you, speak up.

2. If nobody speaks up, it should be assumed that everyone is rolling need for companions.

 

Number 2 is the one I'm sure people will have a problem with, but I really think TOR's companion system has changed the paradigm here and there's no longer a "conventional wisdom" on when to roll need.

Again, that's the problem. Regardless of whether some here will admit it or not, # 2 on your list is NOT the consensus. I've never once had anyone say "Ok guys, no rolling on companions!" and at the same time, I've yet to run into someone who did roll need for a companion over someone's PC. So no, nothing has changed at all. There is a known consensus. If you're going to roll need for anything other than your PC, say so before the run. Otherwise, you have no legs to stand on when someone fusses at you because you knew good and well you were going against how the majority play.

If I walked into a christian youth center and started trying to teach everyone Shintoism, should I get all mad and upset when they ask me to leave? I mean, it's a community center! I should be able to do what I want...

The difference is;

 

You start a group and dictate terms and conditions for being allowed to play in your group.

 

I start a group and get on with the game, allowing people to roll how-ever they want. If I roll need and lose, I accept I lost the roll and continue playing.

 

I prefer my groups to the thought of yours. My way, we get to play the game rather than play 'it's my group you'll do what I say'..

I've never actually had to dictate terms to a group like this. Maybe one day I will get "burned" as you did and feel the need to, at that point that will become a cost to how I play.

Again, I feel its completely fair to make sure that group members intentions align with your own. If I was to tell someone to do as I say or don't join my group, I'd feel completely justified in doing so because I don't owe them anything.

On Tarris group of 16 level 32-37 take down ancient one world boss.

 

3 agents in group. A nice purple protype drops clearly meant for agents. All roll need.

 

A sith assasin also rolls need and wins, saying he needed it for his companion.

 

 

***

companion while levceling is a part of your ability btw, I would have rolled need to

It seems clear to me. If you think you need it, press need. If you don't want it at all, press pass. If you wouldn't mind taking it, but don't think you need it, press greed.

lol, I wish the NEED/GREED system was that simple.

Again, that's the problem. Regardless of whether some here will admit it or not, # 2 on your list is NOT the consensus. I've never once had anyone say "Ok guys, no rolling on companions!" and at the same time, I've yet to run into someone who did roll need for a companion over someone's PC. So no, nothing has changed at all. There is a known consensus. If you're going to roll need for anything other than your PC, say so before the run. Otherwise, you have no legs to stand on when someone fusses at you because you knew good and well you were going against how the majority play.

 

If I walked into a christian youth center and started trying to teach everyone Shintoism, should I get all mad and upset when they ask me to leave? I mean, it's a community center! I should be able to do what I want...

It's a good point, and if you're saying there is a clear consensus still, I'm glad to hear it.

The reason for number 2, though, is a little more about the math of the issue than anything else.

Bottom line, if you're in a group and nobody says anything about the looting system, but one person wants to roll need for companions, that person can roll need for companions. Until he's booted, nobody can stop him.

Conversely, if you're in a group and you want everyone to roll greed, you can't force that option. People that roll need can force it. They can make it happen whether you like it or not. You can't do that.

My second point was also based on the premise that there's no game-wide consensus on which is correct. I admit, though, I based that largely on this thread (big logistical error on my end). If there IS an overwhelming consensus, that changes things entirely, as blacklisting, etc, will still have influence.

However, if it's a pretty even split, you're better assuming they'll roll need.

Of course, the absolute 100% cure to this issue is number one. If it matters, speak up.

(I typically only play with people I know, so this isn't an actual issue to me; I just find the debate interesting)

If I were Bioware, I would have the companions scale with the players level and then add clothing to the customization.

Excellent idea. Or, gear drops that ONLY companions can use. We already have that for PvE quest rewards, but why not add that on top of what's already dropped in ops, flashpoints, etc.?

I'd love to see the day when we get drops in end-game group content where it's something like "Requires Mako". Then every Bounty Hunter rolls need on it. "Requires Lt. Iresso", then every Consular rolls need on it.

See, we're not each others' enemies for Need/Greed rolling expectations. Bioware is. They forced us into this situation, so they should be the ones resolving it.

I'd just make it so dungeon gear cannot be used by companions. Problem solved.

I can't believe some of the responses on this. People should never make a companions priority over other air breathing, living, sentient players. This rule doesn't need to be written on paper or told to you. You only need one working synapse to realize that players always take priority over companions. This thread shouldn't even need to exist or inform people not to do it. IT'S BASIC ETIQUETTE. You can't really justify taking something because 'my companion needs it.' No. They do not. They do not have brain thought. They do not know a lightsaber from a sniper rifle. They are completely indifferent about what you think they need. Khem Val, doesn't give a damn. Corzo, doesn't give a damn. Qyzen, doesn't give a damn. That means the only person that cares is you. And you are acting an idiot believing otherwise.

They will not be there when you want stuff from raids. They will not be there in ilum saving you from all those mouth-breathers huddled at the door. They will not save you when you realize how much of a **** you are.

And you know what? I'm gonna need your blaster, rifle, assault cannon, robe, belt, implant, and anything you find important for vendor trash when it comes up.

Players are always a higher priority than companions. If you can't understand this by now, go play solo and don't do fp's with anyone since, sure as hell, nobody wants you and your needy self.

P.S. I ain't even mad. I just make sure it comes full circle and hurts worse.

That means I need a group of players to get the gear I need for my companions.

 

What's your problem then?

 

 

 

 

Where did you read that? I read one dev inferring that he might not thinks it's right. I don't think he ever inferred that was the feeling of all devs. Nor did he ever say they would take any steps. He said "he'd see about putting it into the works".

 

Can you link me to your version please?

My problem is your lack of reading comprehension.

You roll need for them in groups where they are not used and you know dang well what I meant.

Typical straw man defense.

You have also seen the article we have all seen from the DEV's on this very subject.