Been running Ridorana Lighthouse the whole week and...

[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.

[BillyKaplan]

at times I feel the same way within my static at times.

Do I hope they're reading this right now.

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?

We do have an objective measure - the job they're on. It's the only measurement that's objective. Will they desynth it? Will they sell it for seals? Do they want it for glamour only? We don't know. We can't know. But we do know that WHM has a higher chance of using it over that DRG who has no healers at all.
You think they didn't contribute enough to roll on items? Hopefully the rest of your party agrees and you'll kick them before they can roll on items. But you have no right to tell other players who is and isn't deserving of items, least of all when you can't say for certain you're more deserving than they are.
Suggestion - stop trying to justify your approach, you're only coming off as entitled. Selfish I can understand, it's how you're trying to justify your approach that really does it.

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.

You can't see how "person immediately equips upgrade gear" is better than "DRG won healer gear, gear rots away in inventory". Really.

[Awha]

Do I hope they're reading this right now.



We do have an objective measure - the job they're on. It's the only measurement that's objective. Will they desynth it? Will they sell it for seals? Do they want it for glamour only? We don't know. We can't know. But we do know that WHM has a higher chance of using it over that DRG who has no healers at all.
You think they didn't contribute enough to roll on items? Hopefully the rest of your party agrees and you'll kick them before they can roll on items. But you have no right to tell other players who is and isn't deserving of items, least of all when you can't say for certain you're more deserving than they are.
Suggestion - stop trying to justify your approach, you're only coming off as entitled. Selfish I can understand, it's how you're trying to justify your approach that really does it.

So a players effectiveness does not matter, just role. That seems entitled to me, this is my role so I deserve priority. Does that not seem entitled, maybe I am just misunderstanding your point. Also when I was speaking about objectively measure more so was talking about their contribution to the party and the kill at hand. I do not think role in itself is enough to give a player priority, could be a factor but I do not think it should be the end all be all. That is my point I do not know if my deserving, and I will not say that I am. It seems basing everything off of role and ignoring all the factors that we cannot measure why not just look at it in a vacuum. Everyone in the party took part in the kill, so everyone should get equal shot.

[BillyKaplan]

So a players effectiveness does not matter, just role.

If you could measure player effectiveness, we could be having this conversation. Alas.

That seems entitled to me, this is my role so I deserve priority. Does that not seem entitled or am I just blind?

You are, willingly so. I'm not even mad, I'm amused.

[Awha]

If you could measure player effectiveness, we could be having this conversation. Alas.

You are, willingly so. I'm not even mad, I'm amused.

I am glad you are amused, I am here trying to understand what is going on, the little passive aggressive jabs are cute though. You are right we cannot measure player effectiveness, so SE picked an objective measure role / job and these markers are used to determine if a person gets priority over the rest of the group. Said role was just one factor though that lead to the defeat of the boss, and being that was just one factor of many that lead to the defeat shouldn't the collective equal chance to roll on the loot since looking at it in a vacuum they all had a equal part is killing the boss.

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.

Yes because in a vacuum as Billy said we cannot really look at any other factor since the only objective factors are defeating boss and role/job. In a vacuum everyone in the party contributed to the end of goal of defeating the boss so if everyone played an equal role in defeating the boss shouldn't they get equal chance at the rewards that came from it's defeat? How is that notion selfish?

[BillyKaplan]

How is that notion selfish?

There's literally two dozen posts in this thread that explained it to you

[Penthea]

so if everyone played an equal role in defeating the boss shouldn't they get equal chance at the rewards that came from it's defeat? How is that notion selfish?

Right you know nothing about the game if you assume everyone played an equal role in killing a boss. Or you have miraculously managed to not be in a single group in which someone spent most of the fight dead or did so little that they may as well be afk. I doubt the latter is the case.

We're advocating loot be distributed based on role because the idea is you tried to play the role, so here's a little extra luck as a reward for trying that will help in winning loot for your class. GG for trying to play it.

You're advocating being able to roll on everything even if you don't have the related classes unlocked for the simple fact that you know how to queue for an instance. GG for knowing how to use the DF tool.