"Need" should check ilevel

[L-D-Omlette]

All previous...

I assume in the simplest form what you mean is that while yes, anyone has a right to roll NEED when they can, it is a matter of courtesy to allow someone who needs a piece of gear for progression to roll over someone who is looking for vanity, GC Seals, gil, etc.

You aren't alone in this. Were you to present this in game, I imagine you would have many more people agreeing with you. I also suspect, were you to put this in the context of say, a particular person's FC, then more would probably agree that group needs are valued more than an individuals, and thus would provide a more tangible example of where a progressive upgrade would trump a vanity roll.

I highly doubt anyone that has contributed to this would say that me getting a drop for vanity is more important than another member of my static team getting an upgrade that would make completing content easier/faster. Likely, they would say that it makes sense for me to pass and let said member get the upgrade, then roll on the next one that comes around.

The unfortunate truth is that this same thinking doesn't apply when it comes to a random person.

[Worm]

I assume in the simplest form what you mean is that while yes, anyone has a right to roll NEED when they can, it is a matter of courtesy to allow someone who needs a piece of gear for progression to roll over someone who is looking for vanity, GC Seals, gil, etc.

I'd actually mince a little over the use of the word "right". The majority of arguments in response to me have been "Anything the game allows you to do is within your rights", I really don't think that qualifies as "rights", "I am able to do this" not "I have a right to do this". That's like saying you have the right to harass players until you get banned, since it really can't be proven you were violating the rights extended to you by Squaresoft until they actually pass the judgement and ban you. (What defines Harassment, etc, etc) You're mistaking the limits of the systems for how it's meant to be used. The choice is left to the player and there actually are wrong choices, like passing on gear you need or rolling on gear you have.

I highly doubt anyone that has contributed to this would say that me getting a drop for vanity is more important than another member of my static team getting an upgrade that would make completing content easier/faster. Likely, they would say that it makes sense for me to pass and let said member get the upgrade, then roll on the next one that comes around.

Well this is still framed in the sense of personal benefit. Do you really feel the only time you are required to pass on loot is when it can benefit a person who is duty bound to be part of a regular group you run in to down content? I don't know what else to describe this as but selfishness, I'm sorry.

The unfortunate truth is that this same thinking doesn't apply when it comes to a random person.

Gotta say here, don't see why not. You guys really are misreading a pretty well documented system. The simple fact that you cannot come up with a hypothetical reason someone who has Need selectable would choose Greed demonstrates that. If this system implied as much as you thought it did then Need being selectable would make Greed un-selectable.

There is no way anyone ever intended for someone who can equip a piece of gear to hit need and then turn that item into GC Seals. There is no way to explain how being able to equip a piece of gear gives you a greater right over all the other self motivated to convert that item into GC Seals. It's funny how the addition of class restrictions was generally to curb this behavior and now it's being used as some justification for it.

I never saw these style of arguments until the LFD system was implemented in WoW. If you joined a group and "Needed for DE" people would react badly, everyone innately understood what the point of the Need over Greed system was. When the actual consequences were removed only then did you see these kind of arguments. There have always been implied loot rules in these games and I don't think people generally had an issue with it. There were mechanisms to make sure people followed the rules. However since no one can get a bad reputation with these new Dungeon Queue systems it seems like people think it's not only an excuse to do whatever you want but further that there actually are no longer wrong actions, just a measure of what is or isn't beneficial to you.

You guys can have as many objectivity/subjectivity arguments as you want. I think it's pretty bad taste to roll on someone's upgrade to turn it into GC Seals, but if you guys want to state it can't be good or bad taste because good and bad taste are subjective and not objective, well whatever makes you happy. I guess I'll just hope you're making these arguments for academic purposes and don't behave this way.

[L-D-Omlette]

I'd actually mince a little over the use of the word "right".

Fair point, I should have said "able" instead of "right". It more accurately represents what I was trying to get across.

Well this is still framed in the sense of personal benefit.

100% agree. I was merely trying to provide an example of why not rolling NEED is better for the group. I would hope that could then extrapolated to apply to the community as a whole. Perhaps I am wrong in this, or I should find a better example.

In all honesty, I'm on your side in this, the person that would have a greater benefit from a drop should get it. I have yet to get every piece of the Infantry set or the Foestriker set for this very reason.