Stop Giving the "Need" Command for Drop Gear in Dungeons to Higher Geared Players!

[Cordie]

Not sure why you bothered quoting my other post because it doesn't help your "point".

I am perfectly fine with a newbie rolling NEED on items for gear and having loot priority.
Just like I will roll NEED on items that are specific to my class

You are (and should be) valuing both cases the same, in which case my suggestion is viable and fair.

The current system is fine. Your "suggestion" is horrible as it only benefits those that don't give a damn what they get.

Current system is quite a bit off.
My suggestion benefits those who need pieces for gearing other classes, glamours, as well as what you mention (seals/desynth) -we could even move desynth into a seperate category according to what you mention.
It's not ok to put the needs of 1 group above 2 (or 3) others.

[Underdog2204]

Current system is quite a bit off.My suggestion benefits those who need pieces for gearing other classes, glamours, as well as what you mention (seals/desynth) -we could even move desynth into a seperate category according to what you mention.
It's not ok to put the needs of 1 group above 2 (or 3) others.

Instead of leveling the class and playing it to get the gear? Then they don't really need it huh....

Lets just face it, you're solution is desinged to punish new players and help get gear for classes they may not ever play instead - Newbie tank - "Ohh I really could do with that new chest... Damn the BRD got it and I got BLM gloves... I don't like magic users so thanks for nothing I guess..."

Instead of you know playing the class and gearing it at the same time >.>

Making the "need" button available to everyone irrespective of job/class/role, as I suggested, does not exclude any job/class/role.

Gear for classes they may play is not magically excluded if everyone can roll "need".

So you want everyone to be holding onto lvl30 gear just incase they may just play it in the future and they cannot guarantee getting it again? Yeah genious suggestion...

Need atm doesn't exclude any job/class/role, you just have to be playing it... Such a hard concept for you to understand...

[Cordie]

Instead of leveling the class and playing it to get the gear? Then they don't really need it huh....

Making the "need" button available to everyone irrespective of job/class/role, as I suggested, does not exclude any job/class/role.

Lets just face it, you're solution is desinged to punish new players and help get gear for classes they may not ever play instead

Gear for classes they may play is not magically excluded if everyone can roll "need".

[Altena]

You are (and should be) valuing both cases the same, in which case my suggestion is viable and fair.

I am. But no it does not. It allows specific targetting of loot for players that do need it for specific purposes. Repeating myself again *sigh*.

Want that Tank glamour? Then play tank.
Need that Tank body piece for gear? Then play tank.
Need Armorer desynth? Then play tank.
Need seals? Then play any thing and you can still NEED on items that drop exclusive to you.

Even your own math shows that the chance of obtaining a piece of gear relevant to the class you're playing is fairly evenly matched across the board.

Not sure if you agree here, but a difference of 1-5% chance is pretty insignificant.

Current system is quite a bit off.
My suggestion benefits those who need pieces for gearing other classes, glamours, as well as what you mention (seals/desynth) -we could even move desynth into a seperate category according to what you mention.
It's not ok to put the needs of 1 group above 2 (or 3) others.

You have it backwards. It only benefits people who need to gear other classes, and those who want seals.
Furthermore you could argue that it actually penalizes seal seekers as well - as they no longer have any priority so they have a higher chance of walking out with nothing.
- It flat out penalizes those that need gear for desynth - as it abolishes the ability to target specific gear (such as levelling Armorer desynth on Tank).
- It massively penalizes those that need stuff for glamour - as those that are hunting glamour are targetting a specific piece. Why would you go on anything but the class you want the glamour for if that was your main reason for doing the dungeon.
- Finally, that newbie Tank that is trying to level up their first job? Yeah they can forget about gear..

You are putting words in my mouth....

It's perfectly ok to have a loot priority that allows absolutely everyone to TARGET specific things that they actually really need. Especially when the chance of obtaining said item is practically the same across all roles.
It is NOT ok to specifically expect others to pass on things just because someone else "Needs" it. As everyone "Needs" loot. However removing the ability to target specific things just penalizes nearly everyone involved, and means that more people will end up with stuff they don't need, and not get the stuff that they do.

Making the "need" button available to everyone irrespective of job/class/role, as I suggested, does not exclude any job/class/role.

But it does. Because that Tank can no longer prioritize their Tank gear. Now that tank piece that they had a 100% chance of winning if it dropped, suddenly drops to 25% - and that is 25% of the whatever % chance that the piece dropped in the first place..

I mean with all your math brains I am surprised you haven't figured this one out..

You say there is like a rough 15% chance to see the piece you need.
With everyone able to suddenly NEED on that piece, you drop your odds of obtaining that piece down to less than 5% chance of getting it.
Really scary when you look at it.

Gear for classes they may play is not magically excluded if everyone can roll "need".

If they need gear for a specific class, targeted loot is more beneficial in the current system. There is literally no argument here.

Again I repeat...

That chest piece (or pants) that has what.. 15% chance to drop to begin with, suddenly becomes sub-5% chance to obtain...

Just play the class you so desperately need that gear for. If you're unwilling to play that class, then no - you don't need that specific piece for gear (because you obviously aren't willing to play it), and you can simply roll with the rest of the party already.

[Cordie]

It allows specific targetting of loot for players that do need it for specific purposes.

It allows the exact same targeting of loot to players that need it for any/all reasons. This is exactly what “non-specific” is.

Not sure if you agree here, but a difference of 1-5% chance is pretty insignificant.

Not when the maximum is 20%. A 4% difference makes for 20% of that range. I wouldn’t call it “insignificant”.

You have it backwards. …

My suggestion benefits people who need gear for any reason, really.
You can still target specific gear if everyone can roll “need” on it. You can target all gear, as a matter of fact. It’s a win-win.



Update:
So it's perfectly fine to ask other people to greed/pass in the current scheme, but it's not in the one I propose?

If you think your chances of geting some piece are too low, then I guess the "Poor you. Run the dungeon again." mentality expressed by some here fits your case very well. (Ask ppl who farm for ponies/chickens about it).

I only have 1 suggestion, bardaboo, and I am asked to explain over and over that it is fair to everyone.

[Altena]

It allows the exact same targeting of loot to players that need it for any/all reasons. This is exactly what “non-specific” is.

How can you even remotely claim that "loot targetting" and "non specific" is the same thing? Uh what?
Targetting means that you're aiming for a particular thing. That tank body. Those healer pants. Those BRD gloves.
Non-specific means you're not targetting anything specific at all.

When you're throwing darts at a target.. Are you just throwing darts at the wall? Or are you aiming for the bullseye?
Non-specific is just throwing darts at the wall and hoping it will land. You even hit things you don't want to - like the dude standing next to the dart board.
Targetted lotting is like aiming for the actual thing you want - the bullseye.

Or in blatent terms.. Non-specific is "everything", targetted is "specific".

They are literally polar opposites........

Not when the maximum is 20%. A 4% difference makes for 20% of that range. I wouldn’t call it “insignificant”.

However you aren't taking into account that "everyone being able to NEED on everything" drops your 20% down to 5%.... Like how is that not getting through your head?
If you play tank, you have that full 20% chance of obtaining that Fending choker. It's not shared.
By your system, you suddenly drop that 20% (or whatever) chance of obtaining that Fending choker down to 5%.

My suggestion benefits people who need gear for any reason, really.
You can still target specific gear if everyone can roll “need” on it. You can target all gear, as a matter of fact. It’s a win-win.

BUT IT DOESN'T!

It only benefits one audience. Those that want gear for a class that they aren't playing.

It is NOT a win-win.

That BRD that ran off with your Fending Choker that you really wanted, actually wanted an Aiming Choker that you were able to lot on.
You end up with a piece of accessory that you don't care about and toss it in for seals, and they do the same to your precious Fending choker.

You both get seals, sure - however you both wanted loot for gear. Neither got it.

[Cordie]

…
Non-specific means you're not targetting anything specific at all.
…

You may as well be – it’s not excluded.
“Everything” includes “specific”.

By your system, you suddenly drop that 20% (or whatever) chance of obtaining that Fending choker down to 5%.

(Updated my previous post for that)

It only benefits one audience. Those that want gear for a class that they aren't playing. …

My suggestion benefits (i) those that want gear for a class they aren’t playing to the same extent it benefits
(ii) those who want gear for the class they are playing,
(iii) those who want gear for glamours for a class they aren’t playing,
(iv) those who want gear for glamours for the class they are playing,
(v) those who want gear for desynths,
(vi) those who want the gear for seals.
It is exactly the same for everyone.

If you don’t want a piece pass on it. If you want a specific piece communicate this to your party (same thing as now).

You can ask. But under your idea you are at the mercy of three people (or seven) not just one person.

I see no problem with that. It's the same as when a piece doesn't correspond to anyone's class/job in the current system.

[Altena]

You may as well be – it’s not excluded.
“Everything” includes “specific”.

Everything is not specific. They are polar opposites. Lol.

You are going around in circles and your "points" are rebuttled with the same arguments by numerous people that you are unable to return.
However just because I am bored, I will repeat myself, and the many others who have said this...

(Updated my previous post for that)

And your point is daft as hell so I didn't even bother to respond to it.

My suggestion benefits
(i) those that want gear for a class they aren’t playing to the same extent it benefits

If they want gear for a specific class, they have the option of:-
1. choosing to play said class in that dungeon and getting priority.
2. asking politely in the dungeon if people are willing to give them specific pieces. If not, then they should have chosen option 1.

(ii) those who want gear for the class they are playing,

It is a DISADVANTAGE to those who want gear for the class they are playing.
How does a decrease to 25% chance of getting that piece of gear (if it dropped) from 100% (or 50% on the off chance it's shared) BENEFIT these players?
Reduced chance of getting a piece of gear is not a benefit... I think you have your definitions mixed around..

(iii) those who want gear for glamours for a class they aren’t playing,
(iv) those who want gear for glamours for the class they are playing,

Those that want gear for glamour have the option of playing that dungeon as the class they want glamour for, and acquire loot priority.
Again, you are removing that option for people to choose a class based on potential drops.

Same story with gear.

(v) those who want gear for desynths,

Desynths can also be targetted by choosing a class that is associated with the crafting class.
eg. Play Tank if you want to level ARM desynth.

Do this, and you will get a bucket load more ARM desynth than you would if everything was free for all.
The ONLY potential desynth class that "possibly" benefits from a free-for-all lotting system is GSM.
Even still, they can NEED lot on their entire right side for the class they are playing and be gaurenteed those pieces.

(vi) those who want the gear for seals.

Again, the only potential case where it is a benefit for "free for all" lotting rules. In which case, you can already priority lot on the stuff that is on the class you're on as well... So you're not at a disadvantage to the others.

Any piece of gear will suffice for seals, which is the only instance where your "non-specific" argument applies. 1 out of 6 points? Not looking too crash hot.

It is exactly the same for everyone.

Yes. Everyone gets rubbish sub-5% drop rates on stuff they specifically NEED and have no way to improve that chance, over and above asking people in the party to pass in good faith.
I would rather stick to my 15-20% rate, and choose a class specific to the gear I need. Not sure about you..

If you don’t want a piece pass on it. If you want a specific piece communicate this to your party (same thing as now).

And you expect people to just pass in good faith? Sorry but I don't trust the community on this one, and it amazes me that you would.

[Bourne_Endeavor]

I see no problem with that. It's the same as when a piece doesn't correspond to anyone's class/job in the current system.

You do realize this statement completely contradicts your insistence everyone benefits from your purposed changes, yes? If new players are at the mercy of their party to acquire dungeon drops, the entire point of the system breaks. The only reason dungeons even drop gear is so newer players can upgrade without depending on Tomestones. The rest of us typically won't care since we'll be using Shire or Alexander pieces. Your system only benefits greed rolls. Say a friend of mine comes back and she needs to level her healing gear. By going on White Mage, she is guaranteed any healer pieces. With your system she only has a 1/4 chance unless the party happens to be nice when/if she asks or she runs with friends. That's not a good system.

[Cordie]

[…] giving class/roles priority on gear designed for their use is a legitimate allocation of potential rewards. You are arguing to remove that reward. That's clearly not "satisfying both parties," that's redressing the OP with slight variation.

Except “designed” use is inconsequential to its effective use (which is as designed in only 1 out of 6 cases) and the latter is what dictates whether an item is “needed” or not. As mentioned by others in the thread, their needs weigh the same as the OP’s or anyone else’s. Therefore, basing a system (as it is currently set up) on a biased preference for a “designed use” is only leading to an imbalanced valuation of everyone’s needs, by limiting choice in this case.
A “potential reward” is not a reward. It’s an incentive, at most. Combining this with the limitations on choice gives you a compromise : you lose options (as in what class you can go in with) to get something potentially. And guess what! In my suggestion, you can still get something potentially, without the limitations.
The OP’s proposal to remove the need option from a specific group in one particular case is highly conditional and involves only the contrasts for 1 reason to need an item. My suggestion addresses all cases, with no conditions.

Skewed implies heavily imbalanced. 2% is not even close.

Skewness
Light party – left-side gear : -0.342
Light party – accessories : -0.106
Full party (1 tank) – left side gear : 0.571
Full party (1 tank) – accessories : 1.207

When I say skewed it means skewed.

Hell, if we want to use your math for probability of acquiring gear, under your suggestion, you would reduce all party members down to a 3% chance of acquiring the gear they want for left side in light party, and 1.6% in full party. Don't believe me? Take that 14.2% chance of a drop occurring, multiply by 0.25 or 0.125 based on party size, and you have the odds of getting your piece. Each party member may have a 25% or 12.5% chance on each piece that drops, but for specific drops it plummets. Bouncing between specific and general applications is less than honest if you want your argument to hold weight.

For one item type, it’s a 1/7 for left-side gear and a 1/5 for accessories. Subtract the values you see on the table to get the probability of all other members obtaining the item. Add the 2 probabilities, divide by 4 (for light party) or 8 (for full party), and tell me how my suggestion is magically affecting all party members’ chance to acquire it.

My suggestion is a general solution: Unlock need button for every item and everyone, irrespective of role/job/class.
I am not addressing things on a case-by-case basis, so I am not sure where you see the “bouncing”. Perhaps you are implicitly merging my suggestion with the OP’s. This would result in a different suggestion “bouncing” between a general and specific cases if you cared to formulate it and falsely attribute it to me, and since you didn’t you have no grounds for your claim.

Everything is not specific. They are polar opposites. Lol.

Everything includes specific. “Specific” is a case or subset of everything. You can’t compare them in any other fashion much less declare them opposites!

And your point is daft as hell so I didn't even bother to respond to it.

If this is the (current) attitude towards people not getting loot why should you expect it to change with any system?

If they want gear for … Not looking too crash hot.

I hope you see you are defending a system with an arbitrary and imbalanced evaluation of needs. It shows in how you must add more conditions and case-specific limitations (“targeting”) to address each of the cases for every need I am treating equally.

It is a DISADVANTAGE to those who want gear for the class they are playing.
How does a decrease to 25% chance of getting that piece of gear (if it dropped) from 100% (or 50% on the off chance it's shared) BENEFIT these players?
Reduced chance of getting a piece of gear is not a benefit... I think you have your definitions mixed around..

If you claim it is a disadvantage and want a benefit at others’ expense you need some good reason to attribute greater value to this need than all others, which goes against what you and others have attested in needing items “just as much”. The requirement for being on the job/class/role is only a side-effect of the current system, and is eliminated in my suggestion.

Yes. Everyone gets rubbish sub-5% drop rates on stuff they specifically NEED and have no way to improve that chance, over and above asking people in the party to pass in good faith.
I would rather stick to my 15-20% rate, and choose a class specific to the gear I need. Not sure about you..

Rubbish sub-5% is what everyone gets currently too: for every person that can roll need and get an item there are 3 or 7 ppl who don’t get it. Except now it’s also skewed, favouring specific classes/jobs at the expense of others, pushing ppl in the class/job they should be playing if they want more loot (not just specific items). It’s only an illusion of choice; the choice itself is rigged.

And you expect people to just pass in good faith? Sorry but I don't trust the community on this one, and it amazes me that you would.

If anything, I wouldn’t expect “asking politely in the dungeon if people are willing to give them specific pieces” to become more of a burden compared to what it is now, especially if it was expected.

I see no problem with that. It's the same as when a piece doesn't correspond to anyone's class/job in the current system.

You do realize this statement completely contradicts your insistence everyone benefits from your purposed changes, yes?

And this would be the case if:
(a) I had not written that it benefits everyone to the same extent :

My suggestion benefits (i) those that want gear for a class they aren’t playing to the same extent it benefits
(ii) those who want gear for the class they are playing,
(iii) those who want gear for glamours for a class they aren’t playing,
(iv) those who want gear for glamours for the class they are playing,
(v) those who want gear for desynths,
(vi) those who want the gear for seals.
It is exactly the same for everyone.

See the “to the same extent” part there in bold? It’s on the first line. See the “It is exactly the same for everyone.”? It’s on the last line.
AND
(b) This statement (“I see no problem with that. It's the same as when a piece doesn't correspond to anyone's class/job in the current system.”) indicates a need-case specific predilect outcome of asking the party to roll greed/pass. And it so happens that the aforementioned statement does not influence whether others will roll greed/pass when requested.
Sorry to inform you that there is no contradiction there.

If new players are at the mercy of their party to acquire dungeon drops, the entire point of the system breaks.

No, they are at the mercy of RNG, and communication with the party may reduce RNG’s contribution.

The only reason dungeons even drop gear is so newer players can upgrade without depending on Tomestones. The rest of us typically won't care since we'll be using Shire or Alexander pieces.

If this is the only reason dungeons drop gear, seeing it is not enforced (i.e. the items can be obtained by rolling “Need” not to be equipped but to be desynthesized or traded-in for GC seals), the current system may be already broken.

Your system only benefits greed rolls. […] That's not a good system.

Needing loot is legitimate for all its uses (gearing classes/jobs, glamours, desynth, seals) and is valued the same for every case (there are quite a few references to this by others just in this thread). You can’t preferentially treat some as greed. And my suggestion treats all equally.