Been running Ridorana Lighthouse the whole week and...

[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.

[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.

[Kohdo]

It's actually completely fair as it gives everyone an equal chance of obtaining the item. Of course, Need was there specifically because rolling for gear should not be egalitarian. Bards need bard gear. Healers need healer gear. It doesn't make sense to put everyone at an equal disadvantage when rolling for gear. This is a classic case of devs meddling with something that was working fine before.

[Awha]

It's actually completely fair as it gives everyone an equal chance of obtaining the item. Of course, Need was there specifically because rolling for gear should not be egalitarian. Bards need bard gear. Healers need healer gear. It doesn't make sense to put everyone at an equal disadvantage when rolling for gear. This is a classic case of devs meddling with something that was working fine before.

The begin part does cover what I have been trying to say. End of the day where I differ from mostly everyone is that I do not feel that my role as a tank should inherently grants me priority over another, even if that person does not have the class unlocked without getting into murky territory of using tools to judge contribution (which to a degree I do support) how can really say with a straight face my persevered need since I am actively playing that role means I should be granted priority. In the end I am also one of those players that does not think a tank is the end all be all when it comes to pace, when I first started to around the tail end of HW if a group wanted larger / quicker pace and I could not handle it I would say thanks and take my leave. I know it is a little off topic I simply do not think role in itself grants another more value over another.

Greed all leaving everything at the door gives everyone in the group an equal chance, now if they will put it to use or not that is another story but at that point we are making assumptions and if we accept assumptions on certain fronts shouldn't we do the same for the rest. Since I am sure most people could come up with a reason why they deserve something over another. Really wish they would just switch to a token loot system everyone rolls on the token and they hand it in for what they want, foolish me though maybe the greed all was a means of them tinkering with that idea. For the life of me I do not see how giving same percentage at winning something / anything is selfish, to be granting priority simply because of role ignoring all other factors is silly as many have pointed out, but that is what the other system just did. The old system treated everyone as an equal contributing factor, while not offering the same consideration when it came to rolling on the rewards that dropped.

Really wish I could covey what I am saying better since as I mentioned before I do think a lot has been misunderstood due to my poor explanation.

There is a huge difference between having equal chance for loot and equal chance for useful loot.

If I want to get the most out of greed only, I need to roll on as much as I can to ensure I actually get my weekly loot. However I don't have every role at 70 which means there is a smaller pool of loot that is useful to me.

I have the three healers and rdm at 70. If the other healer in my alliance has everything at 70 then that means their chances of getting useful loot is far higher than mine...even though we are currently playing the same role and should theoretically be competing for the same gear.

The fact is with the greed only system the less roles you have at 70, the worse your odds are at winning useful gear. This is not equality.

With need rolls, everyone who rolls need to compete for a piece of gear all have the same odds of winning. By taking need rolls away you're left with a system that favours people who play several roles over those who do not.

Need rolls allow us to only play the classes we enjoy without reducing our odds of getting gear when competing with those who are also playing the same role. You can't increase your chance of need rolls giving you useful gear by lvling up other roles. You can do that with greed only. That system too strongly favours players who have every role at 70.

How do we determine if the loot will be useful without making assumption? Might be accurate to assume if a person is currently playing that role they will find use in the item. We are still making an assumption though, and if we accept that assumption shouldn't be accept other assumptions? While I try not to make assumptions as to what a person will do what an item, I do fail at it. I will admit that the current system has a bias towards people with more then one job leveled, the other system had a bias towards people actively playing the role / job. Both have a bias, how can we reasonably choose which bias to favor? This really boils down to which side feels their bias has more worth, but since we cannot determine that just switch everything over to a token based system and make it need all or whatever. So everyone rolls on the token, and whoever wins the token uses said token to get the piece of gear they want.

I do not think the current system is perfect, I think it is just as flawed as the previous system. Though if I had to pick between the two I would give every player within the group an equal chance for loot.

Tldr: Both systems have a bias, and I do not think it is possible to determine which bias we should favor just switch over to a token based system and let everyone roll on the token and use the token to buy the piece of gear that they want.

Isn't it obvious to you? The bias that doesn't punish players for wanting to play only some classes or players who have not yet had the chance to level up more classes.

Again you're quoting my latest post in a post of yours that came before it. Why? Trying to make yourself look good by adding more of your so-called stance on equality by editing a post two people liked?

It is still a bias, and favoring one over the other is pure entitlement since that comes down to saying I think my bias is better. Which is why I do not like system, but if I had to choose I would pick the bias that favors me just like anyone else would. I am also trying to civil here, I am saving post count since SE places a limit on how many posts one can make a day, I did not want to go over again so at the start I forgot but has very little to do with the like count. The main thing I have been trying to say is that both systems suck, both have their flaws, and depending on ones views each can be viewed as selfish. I only fair system is a token system, and in my position if a token based system is not a thing I rather give every member an equal chance on loot across the table. Do not think I have ever said your view is wrong, I have said that I do not understand you view since I do not but I respect your view.

I'm just waiting for that thread: "Thank you SE, 'all greed' solved my problem with 24-man loot system"

At the core I do think All greed is a terrible system, just as I feel need / greed based off role was a crap shoot of a system. 5.0 token based loot system! We can dream.

Bias for what, exactly? If we're to be real here. Alliance raids have been defined as "catch-up" content. The ilvl for them has been no higher than 10 lvls of the same 8 man raid cycle. The sole purpose for those having a "need" option is for those who actually need that gear, regardless of substats, they're aiming for ilvl gains.

Outside of that, its all glamour purposes, hence why my personal view is that they removed the need option so everyone can gun for the Vaan outfit. They should've just released tokens to exchange for it as a lvl 1 all version, like the rest of the Main hero outfits from the past; or a veteran reward/achievement exchange. Removing "need" makes eureka gear or 8 main raid gear easier to obtain with much less RNG and any feasibility that Alliance raids had was thrown out the window. So, putting the bias card on the table is not only narrow-sighted, it exacerbates the problem.

24's are at their core are catch up tools which in a way supports the greed all option since it allows for those with multiple alts to gear them up easier, even then greed all is still does a poor job. If catch up is main purpose behind 24's allowing a player to use a token to get the piece of gear they "need" bypasses the need for multiple with a token system one simply need to pass one RNG check, realistically two since you need to kill the boss. The other systems had a bias / favor towards certain factors. Old system was role, need system is those with more then level leveled job. Not sure how making it everyone has to pass a set number of RNG checks at an equal chance to get the item that one may "need" either it be for glam or catch up. Though having two tokens drop one to be traded in for at level gear and the other for glam would be interesting.

[Penthea]

Greed all leaving everything at the door gives everyone in the group an equal chance

There is a huge difference between having equal chance for loot and equal chance for useful loot.

If I want to get the most out of greed only, I need to roll on as much as I can to ensure I actually get my weekly loot. However I don't have every role at 70 which means there is a smaller pool of loot that is useful to me.

I have the three healers and rdm at 70. If the other healer in my alliance has everything at 70 then that means their chances of getting useful loot is far higher than mine...even though we are currently playing the same role and should theoretically be competing for the same gear.

The fact is with the greed only system the less roles you have at 70, the worse your odds are at winning useful gear. This is not equality.

With need rolls, everyone who rolls need to compete for a piece of gear all have the same odds of winning. By taking need rolls away you're left with a system that favours people who play several roles over those who do not.

Need rolls allow us to only play the classes we enjoy without reducing our odds of getting gear when competing with those who are also playing the same role. You can't increase your chance of need rolls giving you useful gear by lvling up other roles. You can do that with greed only. That system too strongly favours players who have every role at 70.

[Penthea]

I will admit that the current system has a bias towards people with more then one job leveled, the other system had a bias towards people actively playing the role / job. Both have a bias, how can we reasonably choose which bias to favor?

Isn't it obvious to you? The bias that doesn't punish players for wanting to play only some classes or players who have not yet had the chance to level up more classes is the better one. The greed only system favours a form of veteranship, which is a far cry from the "equality" you claim to stand for.

Again you're quoting my latest post in a post of yours that came before it. Why? Trying to make yourself look good by adding more of your so-called stance on equality by editing a post two people liked?

[whiskeybravo]

I'm just waiting for that thread: "Thank you SE, 'all greed' solved my problem with 24-man loot system"

[Mahrze]

Tldr: Both systems have a bias, and I do not think it is possible to determine which bias we should favor just switch over to a token based system and let everyone roll on the token and use the token to buy the piece of gear that they want.

Bias for what, exactly? If we're to be real here. Alliance raids have been defined as "catch-up" content. The ilvl for them has been no higher than 10 lvls of the same 8 man raid cycle. The sole purpose for those having a "need" option is for those who actually need that gear, regardless of substats, they're aiming for ilvl gains.

Outside of that, its all glamour purposes, hence why my personal view is that they removed the need option so everyone can gun for the Vaan outfit. They should've just released tokens to exchange for it as a lvl 1 all version, like the rest of the Main hero outfits from the past; or a veteran reward/achievement exchange. Removing "need" makes eureka gear or 8 main raid gear easier to obtain with much less RNG and any feasibility that Alliance raids had was thrown out the window. So, putting the bias card on the table is not only narrow-sighted, it exacerbates the problem.

24's are at their core are catch up tools which in a way supports the greed all option since it allows for those with multiple alts to gear them up easier, even then greed all is still does a poor job. If catch up is main purpose behind 24's allowing a player to use a token to get the piece of gear they "need" bypasses the need for multiple with a token system one simply need to pass one RNG check, realistically two since you need to kill the boss. The other systems had a bias / favor towards certain factors. Old system was role, need system is those with more then level leveled job. Not sure how making it everyone has to pass a set number of RNG checks at an equal chance to get the item that one may "need" either it be for glam or catch up. Though having two tokens drop one to be traded in for at level gear and the other for glam would be interesting.

Now you're mainly advocating for a solution that was never needed. A better fix? Add the 24 roll items like minions to the achievement NPC, I'm sitting on around 200 points I don't use. Add the gear to seals or tomes or something, a different venue than simply running it, specially if you ran it every week for the 16 weeks it was "relevant".

The point of needing something for a role is because that player, playing that role needs the item.
The point for that person having the option to "need" it was set up so they can get the gear to, you know, gear up with better items.
The point of that person running on whichever job they main or play and get all the loot for if RNG is kind is because... they need it.
The point you're trying to make doesn't have nuance nor substance. Nobody has ever complained for "needing" items in any content, until now. Because SE.