"Need" should check ilevel

[PArcher]

In the DF/PUG/no-stated-rules PF, If I'm able to Need on an item, and I want the item...I'm Needing on it (or Greeding if no one can Need it). In my group's runs where we are running for specific items or have calls, I have no issues passing on things.

I have most Primal weapons; missing the Garuda SCH, Titan MNK and DRG, and Moogle BRD, MNK, PLD and BLM. I've been asked to pass (and have passed on) many Primal weapons for people, and I feel I have paid my dues now, so I'm not doing it anymore. If I can Need any of those...I'm going to.

Yes, recently I took the Ultima Choaker of Healing because I want it for my collection and Vanity (and it was the first thing from the fight I could actually Need on after many wins) despite having the Allagan Choaker of Healing; the SCH (I was WHM) was not happy, but he spent a good bit of the fight on the ground and honestly did not deserve it. If he had won the roll, then whatever, but he didn't.

Unless you come to an understanding with the other people that can Need your loot...you have to assume that you will be rolling against them. They have a right to roll on it by virtue of their class, and may have been going after that specific item for many runs. Just because you're undergeared doesn't mean you deserve it more (especially if you're not contributing as much as others, which happens more often than I like. So many people in Primal runs looking to be carried...)

[Worm]

Hmm. Worm. Dunno how else to get it through to you. Everyone in the run has the same basic rights to the drops. Why someone wants the gear is completely irrelevant. It is a nice gesture if you pass on gear that presumably, benefits someone else more, subjectively, but it is neither morally wrong nor selfish if you don't.

If we went with your line of thinking, then some people have more rights to loot than others. That is just objectively wrong.

This is a circular argument I've seen going on since WoW LFD and you can delve into as much semantics as you want, but a guy who is going to use a piece of gear deserves it more than someone who is going to break it into seals. Objectivity, Subjectivity, and Philo 101 are what's really irrelevant, it is selfish to roll on a piece of gear someone needs as an upgrade to turn it into seals. That action is basically the definition of selfish, it's assigning the SMALLEST benefit to yourself as more important than the BIGGEST benefit to a stranger. If you want the gear for petty and selfish reasons ... you are being petty and selfish. Also don't give me some "Well needing on gear because it's an upgrade is just as greedy" nonsense. We are literally comparing the the most miniscule and most important impact gear can have. The most important thing gear can do is add stats to a player who doesn't have them. If I roll on a piece of gear with zero consideration for other players that's greedy.

This is implicit in the system, if designers (or anyone really) ever agreed with this "Anyone who can click Need deserves that loot" then why is there a Need/Greed system at all? Since apparently equipping the gear isn't any more valid of a reason than GC Seals, then why have we had this Need/Greed system for so long? Following this line of thought isn't main spec totally irrelevant? It's communally earned gear, it shouldn't matter if you can equip it or not! Well because the Need/Gree system is there because this is just the basic etiquette of these games, it's always been a given that people who can use gear should be among the first to receive it, some automatic system that lets you roll on that gear despite that isn't some magic panacea that alleviates you from this etiquette. Like I said before, I might not know where the Salad Fork goes but I'm not going to launch into some rant about how mealtime etiquette is objectively wrong since there is no 'true' way to eat, nor would I expect to not get dirty looks for walking into a Steakhouse and eating a sirloin with my bare hands.

You guys come around with these arguments that are just as focused on who deserves loot more (generally you) but you dress it up as if Need doesn't imply anything and there's nothing bad or disrespectful about "Needing to click the Need button". Of course clicking Need because you had a small compulsion to click Need is less of a need than clicking Need because you need that upgrade to improve your stats. If you need to subscribe to some absolute moral relativism where nothing is actually "wrong" to justify your actions are you really justifying anything? You're just justifying everything in one giant copout to excuse being a gear queen.

Yes, recently I took the Ultima Choaker of Healing because I want it for my collection and Vanity (and it was the first thing from the fight I could actually Need on after many wins) despite having the Allagan Choaker of Healing; the SCH (I was WHM) was not happy, but he spent a good bit of the fight on the ground and honestly did not deserve it.

I think this is a great example. Simply you made a moralistic judgement and I don't agree with this sense of morals, this is all I'm saying. You imply you might have not needed on it if he had performed well, or that somehow his bad performance justifies your needing on a piece he actually needed so you could put it in a vanity set. Implying that this isn't something we're allowed to call wrong, because of a smoke screen of "How do you define Need?" is just ridiculous.

If you earnestly believe gear is better spent going into your vanity set than giving stats to a player you deem unworthy then fine. It's your life and no one can stop you. Though I wish people would simply realize they're making a choice here where they put a very small benefit for themselves above a measurable benefit for a stranger. All the "Nothing is true, every roll is permitted" defenses just fall flat.

EDIT: Sorry if you were trying to reply while I was fixing up a few things with the post. I'm done with it now.

[PiedPiper]

SnipySnip

Thing is, your arguments are also just as moralistic and circular. You have said "Person for whom it is an upgrade gets the most benefit because its an upgrade because upgrades are the most beneficial use of gear." You're also focusing entirely on the end result. The only thing that impacts who gets to roll on gear, in your opinion, is who it will benefit the most, where you have defined benefiting as improving stats. The question then, is what element actually does the work in the process of "earning" gear.


You have said that the need for stat improvement does this work. Yet, your need, or lack there of, does nothing to actually get you the chance to access loot. Needing heavy allagan gauntlets wont make a chest appear for me to take them out of. The only thing that can get me access to those gloves is winning the fight. Whether or not I need them, or any other piece from turn 4, has no impact on how many turn 4 chests I get to open, or what their contents will be. The only thing that "earns" me access to those chests is completing the fight.

The only way to win the fight, and "earn" gear, is to be on a team with 7 other people so I can zone in and have help killing the what ever.


You see, personal "need" for a piece will always be subjective. There is no universal, this thread has proven that, everyone disagrees and thinks there are different caveats. Not to mention, it is an inherently competitive system. There are only so many drops, and there are always fewer drops than party members. The only way for me to get what I want from a primal is for you, and everyone else on the team, to not get what they want.

Accordingly, we enter into a social contract with each other. We will play the game together, and work together to get the win, that way we get access to the drop or drops, all knowing that more people will lose than win. But we aren't angry when the blm wristelts drop and you wanted bard, at least not at the blm. They played and won just like you did to get that equal chance. Sometimes more than one person will want the same item. This is a reality of the game. If you don't want to play with people who might compete with you, then you're going to have to build your own groups and be very patient to get them filled.

What does the work for earning gear is the actual playing and winning. Everyone zoned in knowing their odds of gear, saying that some people shouldn't be allowed to roll against other for any set of reasons will just cause those people to not come in the first place.


The only exception to this is when a group forms and collectively agrees to its own set of loot rules beyond those built into the game. If everyone agrees to a set of loot rules in this fashion and then breaks them, of course they are wrong and should be punished.