Been running Ridorana Lighthouse the whole week and...

[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

[Awha]

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

From what I can tell they brought up other factors like contribution, potential value in future content and since we both agree that is kind of hard to objectively measure other aspect concepts. Role / job and if the group was able to the defeat the boss are the only factors that can be taken into account when earning a chance at a reward. With those two points in mind, how is it selfish / entitled that based around those two factors more or less everyone contributed equally to lead to boss being killed, so if everyone contributed equally why shouldn't everyone get an equal chance? If anything the old system was more selfish, both systems are not all that great tbh.

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.

More so advocating for equal chance across the board, that is why I prefer token based system where everyone roles and they trade it said token for the piece of gear that they want. As Billy mentioned we are not in any position to tell someone in PuG (unless rules were agreed upon joining ) they are not deserving of something. That is going into how I wish FFXIV had more personal accountable / learning tools, that is not the topic at hand. Looking at it through that simple lens how can we really tell if someone had a larger impact over another? Unless you feel certain roles inherently hold more value which also does not fit within the vacuum since the game uses a holy trinity so ideally everyone works of one another, and also seems highly entitled.

1. this is where you injected a false assumption into my example and why it breaks. Not everyone would contribute equally. That's more or less impossible in the content we're talking about. So the vacuum is by definition free of this assumption as well.
2. You not only inserted this fallacy into my example, you used it to push the only yes objective element out - the role. Even if everyone contributed equally, they still play different roles and have different needs. Therefore, a DRG who contributed equally as a healer does not, in fact, have equal rights to roll as them on healer gear. They will have their own Need roll rights on DRG gear, which they likely need more.

Equality is meaningless if everyone has different needs.

You did say that the job is the only objective measure if that is the case we have two choices factor it as an equal or ignore it. If we ignore it then it really does not matter which system we use really. We really cannot measure contribution based off solely off role. Granted this is one denominational, but going based off how can we objectively measure ones contribution since within the trinity each role leads to the defeat of the boss. Now if you want to base roll priority off of contribution I would be a 100% down for that if we could figure out a way to objective measure it. The game works around a trinity and my view of a trinity is based how each aspect works off the other, thus they have different roles but equal contribution in a vacuum of coarse.

When you have different needs and people attribute value differently how is it less entitled to think ones "need" holds more value over another? Even if we leave contribution out and put the entire weight on role nothing else matters could said role have done the fight without everyone else in the group? Is a system that is based around giving everyone an equal chance at loot more selfish then what we had before? I mean they are better means to go about this all together and the greed all version is the worst one of all of them.

It's not an equal chance. If I have 8 max level characters and you have 1, I have a much greater chance at a reward and you have a miniscule one.

You're basically arguing that simply having more max level characters than other players (despite both players contributing on just 1 class in the raid) should entitle you to a wider range of loot, then arguing that's not selfish.

What I am saying since we cannot determine benefit, or use of an item I say we should leave it out the equation. Role in itself does not determine if someone is going to use the item that in itself is an assumption, if we value that why not other assumptions. Either way this whole thing would have made more sense if they just went based off a token based system and let people turn it in for the item they want. Though maybe that would impact longevity of the content.

I do have a feeling a lot of what I am saying is getting lost due to my poor explanations but I am trying. :P

[BillyKaplan]

so if everyone contributed equally why shouldn't everyone get an equal chance?

1. this is where you injected a false assumption into my example and why it breaks. Not everyone would contribute equally. That's more or less impossible in the content we're talking about. So the vacuum is by definition free of this assumption as well.
2. You not only inserted this fallacy into my example, you used it to push the only yes objective element out - the role. Even if everyone contributed equally, they still play different roles and have different needs. Therefore, a DRG who contributed equally as a healer does not, in fact, have equal rights to roll as them on healer gear. They will have their own Need roll rights on DRG gear, which they likely need more.

Equality is meaningless if everyone has different needs.

[Liam_Harper]

With those two points in mind, how is it selfish / entitled that based around those two factors more or less everyone contributed equally to lead to boss being killed, so if everyone contributed equally why shouldn't everyone get an equal chance? If anything the old system was more selfish, both systems are not all that great tbh.

It's not an equal chance. If I have 8 max level characters and you have 1, I have a much greater chance at a reward and you have a miniscule one.

You're basically arguing that simply having more max level characters than other players (despite both players contributing on just 1 class in the raid) should entitle you to a wider range of loot, then arguing that's not selfish.

[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.