Quote Originally Posted by Magic-Mal View Post
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.