Been running Ridorana Lighthouse the whole week and...

[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.