People who ninja for their companions

Also, with all due respect, there's really absolutely no reason to assume it would go to "need" for everything. It's pretty obvious it wouldn't. This type of argument is used constantly to stop progress out in the real world. Not saying that's what you're trying to do, just saying the assertion's really not accurate. I know it won't be true of me.

Then I adjust how I play to fit their expectations. I give them the freedom to roll on everything. If they decide to do so, then they are telling me that I have to do so as well if I want a shot at getting any loot.

Too late, you already lost a great piece of EQ! On to the next group who may (or may not) play that way as well...

With the way companions are (we have 5 of them, right?)...you sure it wouldn't? Perhaps, it should. Because, at that point, we'll have many more people clicking NEED than GREED...so, it would be just as good (better, even) to revert back to a GREED/PASS system only.

The bottom line is this: Take away the ambiguity of the system so nobody can "ninja" (whatever you want to call it) anything and all would be good. There's no misconception as to how to use the buttons and everyone wins (actually some win more than others - but it evens out)

With the way companions are (we have 5 of them, right?)...you sure it wouldn't?

Because, at that point, we'll have many more people clicking NEED than GREED...

That said, In EQ2, when you win an item, you have a set amount of time to give it away before it's permanently bound to you.

So, you'll be happy to group with 3 other players who roll NEED on every item that pops up?

Then why not just make it a NEED/PASS system

Then I adjust how I play to fit their expectations. I give them the freedom to roll on everything. If they decide to do so, then they are telling me that I have to do so as well if I want a shot at getting any loot.

The problem you think exists doesn't exist in the scenario you just described.

You cannot ninja anything when using the NBG system.

It's not possible.

When you figure out what a ninja is and where it came from, you will understand what I just said. Hint: it dates back to when there was no NBG system.

Maybe instead of turning your dick-switch on, you can just adjust to the fact that he's using "ninja" to mean something slightly different. His post even admits that he knows the term is not being used correctly. The main contention of the people you're arguing with is that (1) there should be a difference between rolling for loot that you're going to equip immediately and one or more other categories of loot; and (2) the game should prevent people from selecting Need if they don't actually need the item, however you want to define "need."

To various other posters, how would removing the NBG system improve anything? It may be true that the system creates some problems in particular situations, but how is it better to assign loot randomly? Then people don't get what they want most of the time. At least with NBG, nobody is getting items they don't want, and that necessarily means some people are getting loot they do want every time. All they have to do is adjust for companions and do their best to make it fair. I would like to point out that, while companions are a unique issue in the genre (because they can freely equip items that have been bound to your character), a debate very similar to this already raged years ago in WoW, when people started Needing the better BoE drops for their alts. That issue is, I speculate, an important part of the reason there are so few quality BoE items in these games anymore. Just like with the problem of people selling the best loot (the other consideration that led to the "bound" mechanic), the developers of these games seem to agree that the things your character has should have been achieved by your character. Unfortunately, that line of thinking doesn't present an obvious answer for companions.

I personally think companion loot should rank below character loot, but I can readily understand those who think there should be no difference. It seems like this argument might be split along some classic party lines. The power gamers who enjoy the parts of the game that allow them to combine loot to make the most powerful and effective character possible are probably going to think Needing for companions is fine, because your companion's effectiveness is a big part of your own general effectiveness in the game. There is of course a subcamp of power gamers who might disagree because companions can't be used in warzones or raids, but I'm not sure. The casual gamers, on the other hand, enjoy the story more, and are more likely to express themselves in their characters. These people (such as myself) feel like the player's character is unique and therefore more deserving of high quality loot than the companion which is the same for everyone. If everyone is rolling Need because they want to equip the item on their characters, that's fair because everyone has an equal stake in the roll. If one person Needs to give to a companion, it is unfair because that person has robbed the others of a chance to improve their unique ego-expression characters. That's sort of a rudimentary (read: crappy) psychoanalysis of the situation. but that's how I see it.

I've run out of thoughts.