Selecting need for loot

Would player B even have the chance at that upgrade for his trooper if not for the scoundrel's efforts and contributions? I don't think so. Likewise, that scoundrel would not even have the chance to go against '"social convention" by rolling on that aim chest piece for Corso without the efforts and contributions of the trooper. Neither one of them has a given right to that chest piece over the other, in my opinion.

I agree that the courteous thing to do is to defer it to the trooper if the trooper wants it, provided that the trooper is going to use it for his character and not Tanno Vik. In my opinion, though, that does not automatically give the trooper the right to roll uncontested, though, should the scoundrel wish to roll need as well. As I see it, attempting to deny the scoundrel the option to roll need for Corso is just as discourteous as you say the scoundrel is for rolling need for Corso without making his intentions known beforehand.

Get with it man, it's common courtesy.

One of the purposes of threads like this, is to inform the uninformed that the social convention is Need isn't for Companions.

Any player I've pugged with, who didn't know about the rule beforehand, agreed to it once informed. Occasionally, I've had to opporunity to explain it to someone verbally in vent, and the person felt the rule made sense. Like it was a logical rule, not an arbitrary statement, but one founded in reason. I've only seen a tiny handful of people ever disagree with this idea EVER, and they were all forum posters in threads like this.

You say that players should make the social convention of "Need isn't for companions" clear at the beginning of the run. Since almost everyone I've EVER pugged with already knows that, it would get really annoying to always ask at the beginning of every group. So eventually, you would stop doing it.

It then falls to the companion-Needer to have the responsibility of speaking up.

There are a few different ideas in your post, so I'm going to try and break them down.
You are correct. The Scoundrel was a vital part of the team. Corso Riggs, on the other hand, contributed exactly nothing as he was sitting back on the ship playing Pazaak. Had we been short a tank and Corso was out helping the group, that would be a different story.
Perhaps the problem is the use of the word "right". As in, "I have a right to be faced by my accuser", or "I have a right to a phone call after being arrested". If you wouldn't mind, I'd like to take that word out of this discussion. "Rights" as regards to entertainment are not resolvable through an internet debate.
I agree.
I only half agree with you. It's not that the Trooper should have an uncontested roll, it's just that he should be rolling against other players that would get a direct upgrade to their gear. If the drop in question is a Trooper piece, but it ISN'T an actual direct upgrade, he shouldn't be rolling need on it either.
Remember that it benefits the Scoundrel in the other direction. The next Smuggler gear that drops, the Trooper doesn't roll Need on it.

The player who thinks their pet is more important than the other player.

There's another aspect of the Greed/Need thing. Let me know what you think of this.

The default, normal, usual activity should be Greed. Everyone deserves a fair chance at loot. If everyone Greeds, everyone gets a chance to win the drop and use it, put it on a companion, sell it, or reverse it for mats. Totally, 100% fair. This should be general, accepted action taken.

Need should be a rare thing. It is a special thing. It should only be used under a specific circumstance:

"One or more of the players in the group, who are cooperating to kill baddies, could put that gear on and contribute more to the group."

It benefits everyone for two reasons:

1. The group will succeed better.
2. EVERYONE a higher chance of getting gear that would make then a better player.

This is the philosophy behind the rules of Need and Greed.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that it was not the "scoundrel" who contributed, it was the PLAYER at the keyboard. Without the PLAYER, that scoundrel contributes nothing, as the trooper would contribute nothing without that player. Both PLAYERS contributed, not the characters or the companions. I'm sorry I did not make my point clear enough. I said scoundrel when what I should have said was "the player controlling the scoundrel" and when I said trooper I should have said "the player controlling the trooper". I refer to the PLAYER by the class they are playing, not actual character.

Actually, I do mind. That word is appropriate in this debate. You are, after all, attempting to deny another player's RIGHT to benefit from their contributions.

Both PLAYERS contributed, and both PLAYERS should have the right to roll need. You can say that denying the scoundrel's rights to roll so the trooper can roll uncontested may work in the scoundrel's favor if a piece of cunning gear drops. It is equally true that not denying the scoundrel's rights to roll need could work in favor of the knight or consular when that cunning piece drops, those two PLAYERS would have the same right to roll need for their companions who use cunning. The trooper still has that same right to roll need, even though he has no companion who uses cunning, since the trooper contributed to the kill.


I'm not saying that everyone should roll need. I'm saying that I just think it's wrong to attempt to deny a player of their right to benefit from their contributions for any reason.

Except that neither of those two players thinks their "pet" is MORE important than the other player's character, but one of those players thinks he is more important and deserving than the other player. I'll give you a hint , it's not player B.

First, as I have said before, I follow "social convention" but I still accept that those other three party members have the right not to follow "social convention" and have the right to expect a fair and equitable chance at the loot.

As has been pointed out in previous posts, the second any person chooses "need" the person who chose "need" elected to take the "fair chance" out of the picture as that person's "need" roll trumps the other party member's greed rolls. Thereby effectively denying those other party members their right to a fair chance at the loot.

I'm not saying that everyone should roll need, but if everyone did roll need as the default roll, then every member of the group has an equal chance at the loot, and if a player who follows "social convention" wins, they can give the loot to the player of the appropriate class. Example:

Vanguard tank
Sage DPS
Gunslinger DPS
Scoundrel healer

Aim chest piece drops with defense and absorb. Every player rolls need and every player has a 25% chance of winning the roll. If the scoundrel wins, he gives the chest piece to Corso. If the trooper wins, he equips the chest piece. If the sage or the gunslinger win, they give the chest piece to the trooper and he equips it. This gives the trooper a 75% chance to end up with the chest piece while still giving the scoundrel the same chance to win the roll for that chest piece as any other single member of the group.

There was another suggestion many posts back that I think would work very well to satisfy all concerned, especially in story mode FP's. That is to give every member of the group the exact same piece of loot. If the aim chest piece drops, then the trooper gets his upgrade, the scoundrel gets his upgrade for Corso, and the sage and gunslinger can vendor it for a few credits if they do not need it. Everybody wins. Since they are giving all 50's free tionese gear, maybe it could even be used in HM FP's. They might have to do find a way to prevent it from being abused to farm credits if they did it for HM FP's, but the gear from story mode vendors for so little, I think, hat it probably would not be an effective use of time for farming credits.

Since you have decided the idea of Need vs Greed falls under something as nebulous as a "right" during entertainment, you firmly hold this subject in an area where no meaningful discussion can occur. Who defines these nebulous rights? The Founding Fathers of Videogames? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are allowed a loot drop"

The subject of "Need" vs "Greed" is one of manners. It is of one of etiquette. It is one of politeness. Do I have a "right" for polite conversion? Do I have a "right" for someone to hold the door open for me when it's raining outside? Do I have a "right" to prevent someone from cutting in line at the movie queue?

These are meaningless arguments.

My only hope is that anyone who is on the fence on the subject considers the idea of Need isn't for companions without asking first to be a logical approach to loot drops.