Sorry Yoshi, but if you award the best weapon in the game by winning the lottery...

[Welsper59]

If someone were reckless enough to fly a helicopter over a crowd and dump bags full of $100 bills, letting it rain over people, it would be a riot. People would do horrible things to one another to get that money. And you better believe the people that dumped the money would be held at least partially responsible. Same principle here. SE's inclusion of RNG uber-weapons has had a terrible and very easily predictable outcome. You add weapons better then anything else in the game, rendering the raid and anima weapons people busted their asses on second-best, then act shocked when people do horrible things to one another about them?

The fact you can't separate the two actions is disturbing. I had detailed in the earlier response why it's important to do that (and why it'd be illogical to lump the two together). As I said, you're right at a base level, but it's an irrelevant and nonsensical point to be made here. Even in your example about money raining, you would be literally pointing the finger solely at the person that did it, and not at the idiots who would do those horrible things to others.

For the sake of argument, on one hand, you have someone who went out of their way to do what they thought was a good thing. A subjective action and intent by an idiot. This person would be charged under allegations of starting chaos. On the other, you have someone that committed a crime (let's say they murdered people around them to get the money). An objective action that was intentionally committed by another idiot. This person would be charged with multiple counts of murder. You can't claim they're similar when one act is based on a subjective result and another was an objective response. It doesn't work like that because they are two separate issues. The killer would not be able to use "it was the guy who threw the money's fault that I killed those people" as a valid defense.

The only link between them is simply that one caused a response from the other, which is literally a fact of life. Are you going to blame anyone who uses words for a kid being teased at school? The fact language exists is partially responsible for the fact that a kid was teased by the words they said. If you made someone angry on FFXIV because you won a roll on something they wanted, should you be held responsible for them going out and shooting up a mall in their rage? Or should your action there be treated separately from the actions of the individual? Likewise, should SE be held responsible for having created the game/content in the first place? It's pretty obvious that people will be upset by not getting what they want, and it's, as you put it, a "very easily predictable outcome". Your argument is essentially walking that perspective line of "video games cause violence" criticism.

To be honest, this is simply a matter of people who wanted to end the expansion with the best gear being upset by this newly introduced thing. If you're new to MMORPGs, particularly recent ones, then I can understand the surprise and disappointment you'd feel. You wouldn't know any better. You wouldn't know that it's common for these types of things to happen. WoW tended to do that with most of their expansions. Hell, Legion is probably the prime example of it.

Now, I'm not saying Diadem is anywhere near as enjoyable as a closing event for an expansion, but this is the MMORPG life. Setting yourself up for failure, like having a goal of BiS to mean something for a long period of time, is no ones fault but your own. The more you get used to this genre, the more you'll realize that to be true. You can have that goal, but expecting the goal to last (that being the objective of obtaining BiS, not applying to real use), is evidence of a lack of understanding. It'd be adorable if it weren't for the fact that I'm fairly certain most players aren't 5.

The argument on meaningful equips however, i.e. longevity of caring for and using your gear as intended, is something to definitely be discussed... just not with referencing introduced content that is very soon to be replaced by a new expansion. That is just nonsense in that context.