People who ninja for their companions

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.
.

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.

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

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 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.

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?

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'..

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.

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.