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

[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.

[Felis]

The requirement for being on the job/class/role is only a side-effect of the current system, and is eliminated in my suggestion.

It is not really a side-effect. It is the core effect.

[Cordie]

It is not really a side-effect. It is the core effect.

Works too.

[Bloody]

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.

Um, this is an MMO with random number generation drop chances. All gear rewards are incentives, because enough effort will eventually yield the desired item. Are semantics the only fuel you have left?

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.

Look at your table, now back at these numbers. Now look back at that table. First off, there is at most a 2.1% difference in left side gear, which does not equate to a 34% skew. I think you need to make sure you aren't trying to over-complicate your formulas there.

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.

Yes, it's magic that chances of obtaining certain gear plummet when you take away the one method used to ensure a decent probability.Also, I imply nothing. You clearly stated yourself in a single claim:

Probability of getting an item after rolling "Need" in a light party and full party (1tank-2healers-5dps) with any composition:



Table of specific chances, factoring the chance of drop before ability to need.

(fixed a typo in my first formula too - don't expect any miracles though)
[EDIT: just double-checked in Python, 9.5% for NIN/BRD/MCH accessories in the full-party case is actually 9.3%, and I can't find what's wrong with Excel there huh...]

Compare: greed-only rule gives a flat 25% for light party, 12.5% for full.
General percentage of acquiring any piece of loot, not factoring drop chances for a specific piece.

You were saying? I'm not mixing statements (pretty sure the OP's long gone from the feedback they received), I'm just giving you a healthy dose of differing opinion using your own provided data.

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.

Not even close, look at your own math, or are you saying your table is a sham? You reach the 3% range on specific pieces of gear only when you take away the priority given to a class/role for specific gear pieces. If those other 3-7 people see their class/role gear drop, they have nigh equivalent chances as you do if yours drops. Or are you going to try and add more variables to convolute your formula to try and justify your point?

[Altena]

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!

Specific is exactly that. Specific. It's targetted.
Everything is not targetted and is by no means specific.

I mean do you really need me to get a dictionary out for you?.....

Everything -
every single thing or every particular of an aggregate or total; all.
Specific -
specified, precise, or particular

There is only one audience that benefits from a "Need everything" system. That audience is already skewed in favour of loot with the current Need/Greed system.
While the chances of the needs of those who "need everything" or better put - "anything" are increased by a whopping 1%, the chances of the needs of those who need specific are reduced by over 10%.

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.

I see that clear as day. However the weight on the uses of each item vary considerably in terms of what each "Need" is used for..
Someone who needs items for seals just needs to turn in an item. Doesn't matter what item it is, therefore they can roll Need on their class items, and Greed on every item they cannot currently Need on. That's perfectly fine.
Someone who needs gear for their Tank has no other alternative to their Needs - and can only use Tank gear for those slots - they don't have any other option.

Allowing NEED on everything simply opens the GC seal pool to "NEED" anything, which does not have any degree of equality in terms of rewards.

Newbies that need a specific piece of gear only have 1/7th of the total pool that fit their purpose.
Players that need GC seals have 100% of the pool.

Unlocking that pool to GC seal hunters means that they have 25% chance of obtaining a piece of gear for every item that they need for seals, while that newbie who needs tank gear drops to sub-5% chance of obtaining a piece of gear they "need".

Your system is not "fair" by any means.

If you really want to use that apparent math brain of yours (which I am beginning to see through), the chance of obtaining an item that a GC seal hunter currently needs, already far outweights that an item a newbie who is levelling a Tank needs.
--

Using left side only for time and simplicity sake -
There are currently 7 types of gear. Fending, Healing, Striking, Maiming, Aiming, Scouting, Casting.

Let's say for example I need gear for a tank.
Currently there is roughly 14% (or 1/7th) chance that a piece of gear will drop (left side) for the class I am on. I get 100% of that 14% chance. So my chance of obtaining something I actually need for my desired purpose is 14%.

Now let's say I need GC seals, but I queue on a tank.
I already have 14% chance (as we discovered from the previous note) to get a left side piece.
In addition to that, there is a worst case scenario of 4 potential gear sets to be claimed by people in the dungeon (including myself). This leaves me with 3/7 ADDITIONAL pieces that I have 25% chance at getting.
This means that I have an ADDITIONAL 25% chance at obtaining 42% of the extra loot that no one can NEED on. Which for your information, is roughly 10% chance of obtaining additional loot that I can potentially win.

Current system-
So guy that needs tank gear - 14% chance of getting what they need.
Guy that needs seals - 14% + 10% = 24% chance of getting what they need.
(Very rough/quick math that doesn't require a fancy equation).
---

Now let's remove the entire priority system (like you are "suggesting")...

Guy needs Tank gear and queues on tank.
Everyone can Need, meaning this guy has 25% chance of 14% (as Tanks can't run around in healing gear or anything...) of what he actually NEEDS for his purpose. The whole purpose he is doing the dungeon.
That is 3.5% chance that he will get something he actually needs.

Guy is hunting for seals and queues on tank.
As his needs aren't specific, he has 25% chance at getting 100% of getting something that he needs, and is the whole purpose of doing the dungeon.
That is 25% chance that he will get something he needs.

So under your "suggestion" -
Guy needs tank gear - 3.5% chance of getting what they need.
Guy that needs seals - 25% chance of getting what they need

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.

There is already a benefit to those that don't need that gear for a particular slot, as I have already shown you multiple times, with super simple math and no fancy equation necessary..

In addition to this - they already have just as much freedom to roll NEED on an item that gives them priority, just like the others in the party can do for their class..

I need GC seals however the loot table already benenefits this, as these options are far greater than those of a specific class. I am quite happy, just like everyone else who laughs at your "suggestion" to have a gaurentee at 1/7th of the loot table (with NEED for the class I am playing) in addition to 25% chance of the 3/7ths (worst case) of the gear that is not NEED claimed by classes that aren't in the dungeon..

GC seals hunters already have the advantage. No need to give them a bigger lead.

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.

Again, see above. *Yawn*
Your "math" is really failing your point.

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.

As has been said time and time again - you are then forced to be at the mercy of the other players in your party, and cannot do anything to increase your priority on the certain pieces you want.

You once again, are going round in a gigantic circle with absolutely no tangible way of rebuttling this argument.

You can ask, but that doesn't mean that guy that wants to be an a-hole/loot whore and lot on everything anyway. The current system at least allows you to prevent that, by prioritizing gear that is can only be equipped by a certain class - to that very class that can equip it.

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

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.

It is NOT the same. It is already skewed in favour of someone who doesn't need specific pieces of gear. Just becacuse they have 25% chance on everything, does not mean that their chance of fulfilling their needs are equal. All you are suggesting is to dramatically skew it in favour of people who do not need specific items, which is literally only the people who are turning in items for GC seals.

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.

This only further harms your point.

The people who PASS on items primarily benefit people who are seeking non-specific items. Those of which are already have a skewed favour for obtaining loot for their needed purpose.

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

They are already at the mercy of RNG, in the case that a piece of gear that they need for their current role drops. You're just double dipping RNG here, and adding a further layer to the loot system with the "good of the community" and the kindness of strangers. Which again, I am not willing to trust the community on this one.

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.

Yes it is, however the ability to use the gear is limited based on role, and the only person that benefits from unrestriction of loot priority are those that hunt for seals.
- Jobs can only equip specific gear (for glamour or stats).
- Crafts can only desynth certain gear.

GC seals? Yeah that can be anything...

Normally I love discussions with people but maybe it would be better to just ignore her? I mean I read through the argument and I just cant understand how this system would benefit anyone..yet even though many people already posted counter arguments, its still a never ending story. Better to just not answer I think?

But it is so fun and entertaining !

[SendohJin]

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,
(v) those who want gear for desynths,

(ii) is a lie.

those who want gear for the class they are playing has lower odds to get gear under your new system than the existing one, that's not a benefit.

your suggestion is a detriment to group (ii) it's also a detriment to people who desynthesis because their odds decrease when they can't control what types of gear they can need on. i don't need to increase my chances to lot on weaver gear when i do desynthesis for armorer, i play tank/drg so i have better odds at those.

you can't flatten out uneven odds for everyone and claim it's beneficial for everyone. the ones that have higher odds in the existing system are negatively impacted.