Been running Ridorana Lighthouse the whole week and...

[Penthea]

I do not think I ever said makes a noticeable difference to me, as in if it does not make my job easier and smoother their upgrade does not matter. More so meant that if the upgrade does not make the overall current run for everyone that much smoother why should a group of PuG's care that said upgrade will allow one player to be slightly stronger in content they may or may not participate in or with the person that got said upgrade?

Well I eventually solved the mystery as to why you prefer greed only, despite your contradictory claims of wanting a fair system.

You're a pug who hasn't got it in them to care about the greater ramifications of having a greed only system. You can only see the immediate gain, which is how the gear affects your experience at the present moment. You think merely participating in content entitles you to have equal priority on all gear even though the game already awards participation with tomestones. You like greed only because participation is enough, you don't have to do the potentially daunting task of playing a new role in an alliance raid environment because you can roll on whatever you want.

For the record I do not feel participation is enough

God knows why you quoted this post I wrote here in an earlier post of yours but whatever.

You do feel participation is enough. You have said several times in this thread that it's not fair to have need rolls because the boss is dead due to everyone's efforts, so no one should have priority on loot regardless of role. That is literally the definition of participation being enough to have equal priority on all loot.

[MrSmiley]

Well I eventually solved the mystery as to why you prefer greed only, despite your contradictory claims of wanting a fair system.

You're a pug who hasn't got it in them to care about the greater ramifications of having a greed only system. You can only see the immediate gain, which is how the gear affects your experience at the present moment. You think merely participating in content entitles you to have equal priority on all gear even though the game already awards participation with tomestones. You like greed only because participation is enough, you don't have to do the potentially daunting task of playing a new role in an alliance raid environment because you can roll on whatever you want.

Not sure, his response to me was he preferred equal over fair (?)

You are right fairness and equality are the not the same, and that is why I said to me personally seems unfair. Though outside of that I have said overall the change puts everyone on a equal playing field which overall in my view is better then granting priority to roles / jobs. I rather have everyone overall be on equal footing then have some players have what I feel is an unfair priority. SE tried something new, and I personally like the new direction, though as I said before I doubt i t will stay in place for long since most people seem to dislike the change. As I said before to me having a equal system trumps having a so called fair one.

[Penthea]

Not sure, his response to me was he preferred equal over fair (?)

At this point it hardly matters because his reasoning is neither. It's because he wants to have equal priority on absolutely everything merely because he participated, and he thinks this is okay because pugs won't care if the loot is useful elsewhere, and that he doesn't want anyone to have priority on gear because he can't see a difference when someone else gets it so obviously they don't need it...which somehow justifies greed only.

In short, this guy just wants to be able to roll on everything and doesn't care how the system affects anything he's not involved in.

[Alleo]

In short, this guy just wants to be able to roll on everything and doesn't care how the system affects anything he's not involved in.

Honestly I do get the feeling that some (not all!) of those few people that are for this change are only liking it, because they got either lucky or want gear that they normally would not get because they dont play the job. Would be interesting to see if those same few people would be for this change if they got bad luck and lost their roll that they needed to someone that does not in any way need it.

This view feels quite egoistical. Because in the end, this change will hurt those that need to gear up their main job the most and its like " I dont care because I got the gear you need for a job I barely play."

(Again I get this feeling from some not all who are for this! )

[Awha]

This view feels quite egoistical. Because in the end, this change will hurt those that need to gear up their main job the most and its like " I dont care because I got the gear you need for a job I barely play."

To me it seems slightly self-centered to think simply because the item that dropped matches ones current role / job that it means they should get priority over another. This is the main reason why I have always preferred a token based system. I do understand the notion behind wanting it is be role based, and I get the feelings behind it. The current system does remove options from players which admittedly does suck. I do not get the how some feel the group should respect another person potential contributions in other content to give them a priority roll while the rest of the members potential contributions in other content are not taken into account because they are not currently actively playing said role / job. I guess where I differ from most cases I do not feel ones "need" is greater then another. If that makes sense.

[BillyKaplan]

I guess where I differ from most is that in a PuG setting I do not feel ones "need" is greater then another. If that makes sense.

It's the first thing you said in a while that made sense - it's just very selfish and short sighted. Just say you don't want strangers in pugs to be able to keep you from rolling on gear you want, at least then we would know where you are coming form.
I don't see how you think it's self centered for a healer to get their drop on the very first chest and equipping it immediately so they perform better for the rest of the run. It's direct contribution to the party you're in at the time. But hey, you want to take that away from them, have fun with that min ilvl healer I guess.

[Awha]

It's the first thing you said in a while that made sense - it's just very selfish and short sighted. Just say you don't want strangers in pugs to be able to keep you from rolling on gear you want, at least then we would know where you are coming form.
I don't see how you think it's self centered for a healer to get their drop on the very first chest and equipping it immediately so they perform better for the rest of the run. It's direct contribution to the party you're in at the time. But hey, you want to take that away from them, having fun with that min ilvl healer I guess.

I should have said in most cases, since if I am being honest at times I feel the same way within my static at times. It is not that i do not want strangers to roll on gear that I want per-se. More so without an objective measure how can we as the group determine the worth or contributions of a player that gives each player within the group equal consideration? If as a group we cannot objectively measure that the piece of gear is going to the person that can make the most use of it in a group setting why not just let everyone have a equal shot at what has dropped? Does that make sense? The base requirement behind role based system does your current class meet the role / job requirement. If you meet those markers then you are free to roll on the item. Meaning it still has the potential to go a player that did not do much of anything. Though FFXIV and personal accountable touchy subjects.

It's the first thing you said in a while that made sense - it's just very selfish and short sighted. Just say you don't want strangers in pugs to be able to keep you from rolling on gear you want, at least then we would know where you are coming form.
I don't see how you think it's self centered for a healer to get their drop on the very first chest and equipping it immediately so they perform better for the rest of the run. It's direct contribution to the party you're in at the time. But hey, you want to take that away from them, have fun with that min ilvl healer I guess.

Honest question cause I do not know the answer. Would the upgrade from the item they just won on the first chest really make the current run all that much smoother? I will not deny that their effectiveness will go up, but can we objectively measure if that boost is enough to warrant priority. Personally I do not think so, but I could be wrong.

[Penthea]

To me it seems slightly self-centered to think simply because the item that dropped matches ones current role / job that it means they should get priority over another.

I do not get the how some feel the group should respect another person potential contributions in other content to give them a priority roll while the rest of the members potential contributions in other content are not taken into account because they are not currently actively playing said role / job.

And it's not self centered to think you should be entitled to equal priority on all loot for the simple fact that you participated in a fight?

You think it's bad when a player says "I played a tank in this fight, if the tank gear drops it should go to me instead of a person who didn't play a tank" but it's okay to say "Let me roll on everything including gear my class doesn't use and classes I don't have unlocked because I pressed buttons too."

I don't know what to say other than call you impressively short-sighted and selfish.

[Alleo]

To me it seems slightly self-centered to think simply because the item that dropped matches ones current role / job that it means they should get priority over another..

For me this is not self-centered because not every role in a fight will have the same part to play as another. See the 24 man raid. Out of 24 man 3 are tanks that have a lot of pressure on their shoulders because if they are not good, it gets near impossible to win a fight. The same with the healers. DDs do have their part to play but if you go into this as a DD you have 14 other people that could pick up your bad play and someone that for example only does 1k in the raid will still be carriered through. In my view the healers and tanks do deserve the need role simply because they have a harder job with more responsibility in this.

I had a very bad healer and one medicore one in Shinryu normal. We simply could not beat it. While you can still pull through with 1-2 bad DDs. (If there is not a harsh DPS check) So for me it makes sense that those jobs should be awarded.

Also its not like only them have the need option. In the end everyone will have the chance to get a loot per need when it drops...the only bad thing would be the RNG..(also I do have nothing against tokens. Those would be imo way better than the old or current system)

This picture explains it quite good imo:


With the current all greed role we have the left side situation where its equal (bad) for everyone and some people might get something out of it but its not fair.

[Awha]

For me this is not self-centered because not every role in a fight will have the same part to play as another. See the 24 man raid. Out of 24 man 3 are tanks that have a lot of pressure on their shoulders because if they are not good, it gets near impossible to win a fight. The same with the healers. DDs do have their part to play but if you go into this as a DD you have 14 other people that could pick up your bad play and someone that for example only does 1k in the raid will still be carriered through. In my view the healers and tanks do deserve the need role simply because they have a harder job with more responsibility in this.

I had a very bad healer and one medicore one in Shinryu normal. We simply could not beat it. While you can still pull through with 1-2 bad DDs. (If there is not a harsh DPS check) So for me it makes sense that those jobs should be awarded.

Also its not like only them have the need option. In the end everyone will have the chance to get a loot per need when it drops...the only bad thing would be the RNG..(also I do have nothing against tokens. Those would be imo way better than the old or current system)

This picture explains it quite good imo:


With the current all greed role we have the left side situation where its equal (bad) for everyone and some people might get something out of it but its not fair.

Can we really say the old system was fair and impartial? I do not like either system and would much rather they do a revamp of their current look system, and if a revamp not possible I have admitted it probably would be better to go back to the older system simply because it follow the status quo. If you have more then one job you play this current system evens it out making it more like the right side, depending on your perspective if you are going into to gear up a certain job then yes it turns out to be the left side. Does it make sense? What I have been trying to say is both systems depending on which side you stand on can either leave players on the left or right side. I have said that fair does not mean equal, but what I am trying say how can reasonable choose which set of players to give the short end of the stick, when we might be able to come up with a solution that ends up being the fair and impartial. I do not know if tokens are the answer, in another thread many have pointed out issues regarding tokens in the form main longevity, currency bloat. Not sure how I else I can say since I think I have been saying this from the start I do not think the greed all system is perfect overall better then our old system. Personally greed all is better for me, just as personally need/pass/greed is better for someone else. That is what I have been trying to convey that both systems have theirs flaws and realistic speaking neither is fair nor impartial. So I do not see how we can say one if overall fairer then the other since that just depends on what you use the 24's for I guess.

Another issue I am having trying to covey is that I cannot say if those that use 24's to gear up a lot of classes have any more right to gear over someone who only wants to gear up one. That is why I do not like either system since each system grants favor to one style of play over the other. I hope this makes more sense. The major flaw in both systems that I have been trying to convey is that if equity is meant to benefit all how can we support either system that clearly benefited one side over the other depending on where you fall, since depending on your intentions for running 24's you can find yourself in the same spot as the kid in the blue shirt in either right or left side. Wouldn't it make more sense to figure out a system that benefits everyone and meets the needs of everyone. So those that want to gear up character, and those that would like to gear up more then one character. Adding a token on top the current loot structure might do that but I do not know.

You're going to have a hard time convincing me at this point that you're not trolling. Don't your arms hurt from all this stretching and reaching? Because that's not how logic works.

Maybe I am misunderstanding, but if equity is means of meeting the needs of everyone, how does either system really do that? Since depending on where you stand you can end up in the minority. Neither system does a great job at meeting the needs of everyone equally. Hope that makes sense, also I do not appreciate being called a troll or the slight jabs you have been taking at me this entire time. I am simply trying to covey my thoughts on the matter. You do not have to agree and you can dismiss everything I say as bullshit, but please let us remain being civil since I do think I have paid everyone in the thread that I have been addressing the same courtesy. Do you feel need/greed/pass is a fair and impartial system that equally meets the needs of everyone? Or does it more so the lesser of two evils? To an extent I do agree that greed all does have greater potential to screw over more players. that is why I do not like greed all either. Thing Need/greed/pass falls for the same issues in eyes that ends up screwing over players I will admit properly less people then the all greed does. Yes I do have a personal preference to greed all since it does offer me greater benefit then the old system, that was my intent to show that both systems are selfish and sway towards a certain bias and depending on that bias one system might be more favorable then the other. If that is the case can we really say either system offers equity? Since as it stands either system puts one set of players above the other not raising one up to match the others.

Yes I have said that I prefer greed all personally since it benefits me more so then need/pass/greed and I stand by that but I overall do not support the system just as I am not in favor of the old system. Maybe a better way of trying to covey my point. If Greed all leads to everyone being given one box (which is also not true since the system still offers favor over those that have more then one class leveled), and those that "need" the gear end up being the little kid. Need/greed/pass ends up favoring being that the little kid above everyone system puts role above all else which is also not equity. Since I am using kid in the blue shirt to represents those that need the gear. As mentioned I will admit that Need/greed/pass properly impacts fewer players negatively but still does not change the fact that it still negatively impacts players. Meaning that neither system can be seen as offering equity. I hope that better coveys what I am trying and say and makes more sense. Also Thank you Alleo for the image.