Selecting need for loot

Your rhetoric makes it sound like you're trying to be the Rosa Parks of SWTOR.

The people I know personally who believe Need is only for main gear upgrades are less selfish.

1. They're happy to let someone else Need on that loot because it would be a main upgrade for that person.
2. They believe that the other player (getting an immediate bump on his stats), is more deserving of the drop.
3. They're willing to give up their right to roll Need for their companion because they hope that other players will do them the same courtesy down the line.

The player that Needs on everything doesn't care about that. They've decided that they don't want to cooperate. They don't want to see the big picture. They are more selfish.

What you're defending is bad manners.

NOTE: I don't condone rudeness in the other direction either. I firmly believe that someone Needing for companions without asking first should be given the benefit of the doubt. To be educated. To be told why we want to operate that way. When I run into that in pugs, I do just that and almost every case, they're like "Oh, ok"

But you're not arguing about courtesy. You're arguing that "everyone has a viewpoint and they have a right to not be told what to do leave them alone." Of course that is true. But if their viewpoint happens to be selfish and shortsighted, don't ask other players to accommodate that selfishness.

I've been fine... and you?

Livin' the dream, you know.

Amazing. The fact that I pointed out that some might fear, and rightly so, being ostracized is in no way an admission that those that wish to stand up for their rights are "in the wrong". It is simply recognizing that "society" will often punish those who's views are different, as you admit. It makes no difference if we are talking about "scientific fact" or a "social convention".

Look at how those who are "in the minority" are treated in the real world, even today. Take any "hot button" topic and look at how the minority are treated. Does the fact that they are in the minority make them "wrong"?

Sure, you can claim that this is a video game, but if someone is willing to take away another person's rights in a video game, how likely are they going to be to let that behavior start to trickle over into real life?

There's nothing amazing about that. Their thought pattern, as you say, is "If I behave this way most of society will ostracize me while some might support me." The opposite is equally true "If I behave this OTHER way, most of society will support me but nobody (in their right mind) would ostracize me." That is clearly an admission of knowledge of wrongness, or socially unacceptable behavior.

Nobody's talking about taking away anyone's "rights" in a video game. (What rights are there in a video game?)

We're simply talking about actions and the consequences of those actions within the society of this video game. If people choose to behave selfishly, they are very likely to experience the repercussions of that selfish behavior. Those repercussions are likely to be unpleasant, not only for the person acting selfishly, but also for those who have to deal with him.

By publishing their identities, people with selfish intent could, in fact, possibly avoid some of the repercussions of their selfish intent by potentially never being grouped with anyone who would apply those repercussions. Wouldn't that be better for them?

In your opinion, it is more selfish to stand up for your rights, or the rights of others? It may be bad manners to roll need, but it is also a person's right, even if only a virtual right. What some are defending is the denial or removal of another person's rights, even virtual ones.

I hope that we can all recognize bad manners or rudeness. We may find them distasteful, to say the least. We do not have to applaud them, but we do often have to tolerate them. If I'm eating dinner at a restaurant, and the person at the next able is being loud and obnoxious, that does not give me, either alone or along with the rest of the patronage, the right to throw that loud obnoxious person out on his ear. I can either choose to finish my dinner while attempting to ignore that loud customer, ask the management to address the situation or pay my tab and leave the restaurant.

Those in an instance in which a player chooses to roll need for his companion have the same options. They can finish the instance with the offender, even if they roll need for everything, and then choose to give it to whomever they feel is more deserving. They can ask management to do something about the offender, by asking EA/BW to address the loot system. They can choose to pay their tab and leave the restaurant and drop group. Unfortunately, what most groups seem to want to do is to take the offender and bodily toss him out on his ear. This becomes easier and more acceptable to them because it is an anonymous virtual tossing, and not a physical one in which their actual identity would be known. They claim that they are only exercising their right not to have to play with a person who's views they do not share, but I doubt any of them would exercise their right not have to put up with that loud obnoxious customer in the same manner in the real world.

Let's look at selfishness. In your opinion, those people you personally know that do not support the fact that a player should have the right roll need for loot they helped to produce are less selfish than any of those that support a player's right to roll need for any piece of gear? I quote: "The people I know personally who believe Need is only for main gear upgrades are less selfish."

I support a player's right to roll need for any piece of loot they helped to produce. I do not choose to roll need for my companion, but if you choose to roll need for yours, I will congratulate you should you win the roll. In fact, if that piece that drops is an upgrade for my character AND your companion, I will invite you to roll need against me.

Sounds to me like there is at least one person who doesn't believe that need is for "main gear upgrades only" who is actually less selfish than those you know who do. I'm not trying to pat myself or anyone on the back, just pointing out that, as I said, it is possible to respect another person's differing views.

Incorrect. Let's look at a very hot topic, the debate over gay marriage and gay rights. The "social convention" is that gay marriage is wrong. Those that support gay marriage risk being ostracized by most of society(those that believe that gay marrigae is wrong) while some (those that support gay marriage and gay rights) might support them. If on the other hand they choose to fall on the side against gay rights, then most of society would support them, but those who support gay rights (not in their right mind, by your definition) would not. Which side is right and which side is wrong?

I only use that one case as an example to prove that being on the "socially acceptable" side is not always right, or wrong, and that a person's fear that they may be ostracized for holding a minority opinion is often justified.



How about the right that any person should have, the right to have a FAIR and EQUAL chance to benefit from one's efforts. I know the claim is that by rolling need if others roll greed makes it an unequal chance, but the fact is that each and every person that rolled greed did so by CHOICE, not because the group was saying that they had to roll greed.

I'm saying the act itself is selfish. Are you saying that standing up for the right of someone to act selfishly is nobler than asking that person to stop being selfish?

Fair enough.

If you are arguing that players should behave better when faced with bad manners, I agree. This hasn't been the focus of your arguments in the past, however. You seem to come back to the right of the "Need on companion" crowd to act selfishly.

Yes. Remember, this philosophy is predicated on, "I'm giving up my Need roll because it isn't a main toon upgrade" Any player that doesn't get a main toon upgrade is giving up their Need roll. That is why it is unselfish.

If other players behave accordingly, than everyone is more likely to gear up quickly. In the long run, everyone wins.

Now, if everyone were to GREED on that loot, then everyone would have a fair chance to get it. The issue is not that the player wins the roll for his companion. The issue is, the player should have an even chance to win the loot, rolling against everyone else. The one single exception to this rule, the one thing that could elevate one player over the others in terms of "who gets the loot" is if that loot can upgrade the main toon in the instance.

The others are willing to elevate that player's opportunity to roll for two reasons:
1. He will instantly be contributing more to the group helping them get to the end of the Herioc/Flashpoint/Operation
2. They would like others to treat them the same way.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying YOU are acting selfishly in this scenario. I'm saying the player who is Needing for companions without asking first is.

I have not read all 90 pages, but I have read enough to now that you are in the vast minority. Honestly I do not care enough to read 90 pages of you saying the same thing over and over. The fact that you do care enough (even though you do not roll need your self) tells me that you have a serious problem with other who disagree with you. Why cant you accept that virtually the entire community, including your self, will never roll need for a companion.

No one is saying the OP does not have the right to roll need. We are all just saying that we think it is wrong, and we will put anyone who rolls need on a companion on our ignore list. I have said the above at least 3 times, and you never respond to it. You keep defending the OPs right, when no one is questioning it. I think you just like to argue for the sake of it. I mean over 90 pages! Dude, you have problems.

Can we put this to rest now? Damion (Dev poster -- check the "last" page of dev posts in the tracker) stated this. Hopefully they'll put this into the game at some point, like WoW did. No needing for companions, and no needing if you can't even equip the piece (based on light/heavy armor, not level).