Been running Ridorana Lighthouse the whole week and...

[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