Can We Get Rid Of The "Unique" Status On Gear?

[Sekkei]

What is annoying about it is unsynched solo play. For example, Sohm Al is a leather desynth leveling gold mine with everything but weapons and accessories being leather type. The catch is you have to remember to desynth drops as you get them because, obviously, the unique label makes it fall to the floor. In this case it really shouldn't apply since there's only one person in there to make unique for competitive purposes moot.

[Altena]

I can get on board with this but under one condition..

You can only roll on something that isn't in your inventory/armory/retainers.
That means if you wanted 2x pieces of Genji armor, you can trade in pages to get that 2nd copy, but you cannot roll on it if you have one already.

The exception to this is normal dungeon drops because there aren't any token-like items that you can use to purchase additional copies. Perhaps if you have one somewhere on your character/retainer you can only Greed?

[SigmaOZ]

I could make use of multiple copies of the same gear piece, for glamour purposes in most cases, the only exception to that would be the ability to wear two rings of the same kind, but I don't see it happening easily, there won't be need for a change anyway if they rework the whole glamour system!...

A workaround for this would be to create or buy as many crafted gear sets as possible, if only it wasn't so hard to make or so expensive to buy!...

[Zfz]

Because it's so people who might actually have nothing can have the first chance to Need on it over someone who already has it. Is that not very fair? That way for a dungeon or raid, if someone does have a nice piece (s)he can only Greed that to give the other 7 people in the raid a chance. It would essentially be the same. Just allowing the player to greed on a duplicate if no one else wants it. And it also wouldn't effect dungeons either.

Greed is fair.

I disagree. But before getting to the reasoning, let me just note that I'm also fed up with the Unique business, I'm also one who plays multiple jobs of the same type and I want different glamours and different melding for my jobs that share tomestone gear, too. But I do not see the one-need rule as a fair one.

Now that's out of the way, how is it fair that for people who all contributed in the same encounter, someone who had it from a previous run must defer to someone who doesn't have it? The piece I already have is a reward for my efforts in a different run, why is it justified or fair that I do not qualify for NEED, when I actually do need it to gear myself, just like the other people who's NEEDing it to gear their jobs?

Greed is fair when nobody have a legitimate reason to NEED, but in this particular case we are discussing, I do have a legitimate reason.

If the goal was to let people have multiple of the same piece for different melding (and glamour), then the second piece is just as legitimate as the first piece, both equally qualifying as NEED.

I can understand it if people straight-out say that the one-need rule is there to distribute gear more uniformly. But I disagree that it is "fair". It may be good for the community as a whole, and call it a necessary evil if you don't agree with the rule at all, and I can support it if it gets rid of the Unique attribute, but I disagree that it is fair.

[Joe777]

I disagree. But before getting to the reasoning, let me just note that I'm also fed up with the Unique business, I'm also one who plays multiple jobs of the same type and I want different glamours and different melding for my jobs that share tomestone gear, too. But I do not see the one-need rule as a fair one.

Now that's out of the way, how is it fair that for people who all contributed in the same encounter, someone who had it from a previous run must defer to someone who doesn't have it? The piece I already have is a reward for my efforts in a different run, why is it justified or fair that I do not qualify for NEED, when I actually do need it to gear myself, just like the other people who's NEEDing it to gear their jobs?

Greed is fair when nobody have a legitimate reason to NEED, but in this particular case we are discussing, I do have a legitimate reason.

If the goal was to let people have multiple of the same piece for different melding (and glamour), then the second piece is just as legitimate as the first piece, both equally qualifying as NEED.

I can understand it if people straight-out say that the one-need rule is there to distribute gear more uniformly. But I disagree that it is "fair". It may be good for the community as a whole, and call it a necessary evil if you don't agree with the rule at all, and I can support it if it gets rid of the Unique attribute, but I disagree that it is fair.

Would it be fair to people that don't have it if others that do kept rolling higher Needs and taking extra of something they need too and therefore cannot get? Even if you need extras for glamour and materia customization, you still have one period. They, on the other hand, do not. The fairness is that everyone has a chance to get at least one before seconds or more are taken. Wanting a second or more after all is indeed Greed, regardless of the reason.

[Zfz]

Would it be fair to people that don't have it if others that do kept rolling higher Needs and taking extra of something they need too and therefore cannot get?

It is fair, because that's exactly what the loot system is: we all depend on luck. If I keep rolling single digits, it's still fair because one day I may roll a 99. The determining factor, in my opinion, shouldn't be whether someone already has it, but whether the need is genuine. In this case, it is genuine, hence loot must be distrubted fairly, i.e. by the dice roll.

I mean that's exactly what the system is right now. I go into World of Darkness countless times and lose my roll to different people every time, it is still fair. We all contributed to this particular run and that gives us equal legitimacy in NEEDing the gear we are able to equip. Whether or not you've already got 100 of this piece and turned them all in to the Grand Company, has no relevance whatsoever.

Wanting a second or more after all is indeed Greed, regardless of the reason.

If loot was given first-come-first-serve, then it is fair to let everyone get their piece before anyone can get seconds. But that isn't the case here.

Taking into account the fact that I already have one, is the same argument as saying people wearing 310 gear should not be able to NEED a 120 piece because they already have something better. I don't agree with that.

[Joe777]

It is fair, because that's exactly what the loot system is: we all depend on luck. If I keep rolling single digits, it's still fair because one day I may roll a 99. The determining factor, in my opinion, shouldn't be whether someone already has it, but whether the need is genuine. In this case, it is genuine, hence loot must be distrubted fairly, i.e. by the dice roll.

I mean that's exactly what the system is right now. I go into World of Darkness countless times and lose my roll to different people every time, it is still fair. We all contributed to this particular run and that gives us equal legitimacy in NEEDing the gear we are able to equip. Whether or not you've already got 100 of this piece and turned them all in to the Grand Company, has no relevance whatsoever.



If loot was given first-come-first-serve, then it is fair to let everyone get their piece before anyone can get seconds. But that isn't the case here.

Taking into account the fact that I already have one, is the same argument as saying people wearing 310 gear should not be able to NEED a 120 piece because they already have something better. I don't agree with that.

The whole reason Need exists is so someone that actually needs the item can bypass the rng involved. Yes it only applies if you are a job that can wear the gear but that is usually not an issue. As for the comment about not being able to need gear lower level than you have, that is a bogus statement as glamour is a thing. If someone already owns the 120 piece then yeah they shouldn't be able to need it, only greed it. That way anyone that truly needs it has a chance. That said, it would probably be beneficial if any job could need any item if they don't have it yet.

Your argument about having just as much claim on an item as anyone else just because you contributed does have merit, but it is also saying you are entitled to anything you want just because you are there. Entitlement should not come before anyone else's true needs, for that truly is greed.

[Magic-Mal]

.

What you are explaining is kinda the definition of Greed. You get a piece for one job. Then you *want* another piece for the other job. You don't *need* another piece for your other class because you have one already and can simply make do. You just *want* that other piece for your gear. That is actually pretty much the definition of greed. To take more than what you need yourself to "sustain". Greed = Want basically.

That's why people are disagreeing with you. Because you should only be allowed to be greedy after everyone gets what they need. Then you can be free to take more. How about an example...

You have 4 people. You're Cassie, and your friends are Kim, John, and Joe. You order a pizza that has 8 slices, you all split the pay.

Unlimited Need:
Cassie: You win "need" on 5 slices. By chance
Kim: Does not win any
John: Wins 3
Joe: Does not win any
-You have an instance where you all have a part but because you can take anything you want, you end up with 5/8 of the pizza. And John with 3/8. 2 of the friends don't get anything at all. Because 2 people got theirs and more before they got any at all. Did you two really *need* that pizza? Could you not be satisfied with the one and until everyone gets theirs?

Need, Greed:
Cassie: Win 1 -> Greeds 3
Kim: Win 1 -> Greeds 0
John: Win 1 -> Greeds 1
Joe: Win 1 -> Greeds 0
-Here everyone gets a slice. Everyone gets a piece of something for the effort. Then once everyone got what they *Needed*, now everyone is free to get the extras they may *Want*. What do you typically call people who get seconds or thirds? Greedy. Because they *Want* more.

See where I'm getting at?

[Khalithar]

I don't have an issue with the unique tag on gear except for two very specific examples.

1. Treasure maps should not be unique. We should be able to stack ones we haven't deciphered yet.

2. I don't think rings should be unique equipped or at the very least they need to make a final decision on what rules they want. You can't have more than one dungeon/tomestone ring, but you can have two crafting/gathering ones and two from the vendors on white gear. At the very least the rules should be consistent.

[Bahd_Monkey]

I'd like SE to do away with the unique tag. I main BLM and my 3 retainers are all BLMs. Gearing them up and moving gear between them is a needles PITA if I have the same gear equipped or in my armoury chest.