Been running Ridorana Lighthouse the whole week and...

[Penthea]

I mean don't you think it is little odd to dislike one system because it favors certain players, but blindly go back to the previous one that still favored certain players?

Have you not thought that WHY a system favours certain players also matters?

The greed only system favours people who have had more time or more inclination to level up more roles, because the more roles you have at 70 the higher the chance of potentially useful loot dropping. Yes everyone can roll on anything but only players who can equip everything get the best use of the system.

Need favours those who are playing the role the loot matches. Your odds at winning useful loot are identical to anyone else who is currently playing the same role as you.

For all your enthusiasm for debating this it seems you haven't really thought about it deeply enough. You seem to put both systems in the same basket simply because they both favour certain circumstances even if they don't favour the same ones.

[Awha]

Have you not thought that WHY a system favours certain players also matters?

The greed only system favours people who have had more time or more inclination to level up more roles, because the more roles you have at 70 the higher the chance of potentially useful loot dropping. Yes everyone can roll on anything but only players who can equip everything get the best use of the system.

Need favours those who are playing the role the loot matches. Your odds at winning useful loot are identical to anyone else who is currently playing the same role as you.

For all your enthusiasm for debating this it seems you haven't really thought about it deeply enough. You seem to put both systems in the same basket simply because they both favour certain circumstances even if they don't favour the same ones.

The point I have been trying to make is both systems are flawed, and outside of my own personal preference I never understood the logic behind SE moving from one flawed system to another. The same basket I am putting them in is how they are both inherently flawed. I mean of course they do not favor the same circumstances, they are different systems so they would have different benefits. I am not defending greed all as the perfect system, am I trying to show that why should we as a community accept either system without at the very least having SE attempt to find a solution that at the very least offers improves for every type of players that runs the content instead favoring a certain play style. I do not disagree with the notion that greed all is a busted system, but all I have been trying to covey is that Need/greed/pass still alienates certain players just as Greed all does. Sure greed all alienates more, and if a loot rework is not possible then SE best call would be to go back to the status quo. I just do not understand why things must come down to they should stay same since others did not think it was broken.

My main issue is I do not think a system should inherently favor one over another if it is possible to find a solution that does not, sure it can raise them up to match their needs, but that should never put them above another person overall. Which is the issue of the old system, and the new system, if you are not part of the system it favors overall you run greater risk of losing out. If that concept is selfish or entitled fair enough I will accept that I am being selfish or entitled. I do not know if such a system is possible, but I do hope SE tinkers with the idea before going with the gut reaction of going back to the old system which carried it's own flaws. I am not trying to have a debate per-se since I do agree the greed all system was a messed up solution to a problem that only effected a handful of people, but since they made a change maybe it is time SE looks into reworking their loot system. That has more or less been my point this entire time. The part I guess I you could say is a debate is the concept behind why as a group should care why a system favors certain players, though so more so has to do with the fact that I never liked the mindset behind certain players gaining a larger benefit simply for fitting requirement. I mean I am not even a fan of tank and healers getting bonuses for simply queuing for content, and I main a tank.

The amount of backpedaling is giving me whiplash.



The only people who'd be alienated by the old system are people who want to roll things they can't be bothered to bring to the raid. And even then the Greed system existed so it's not like they were without options. There's a reason why people keep saying 'if it's not broken, don't fix it'.
The biggest flaw with the old system was RNG to have the item you wanted show up at all, but it's not like the new system addressed it.



It's called "democracy". And a bit of "common sense". You're basically complaining things should change despite absolutely no one agreeing with you.
You'd have a much better case if you were campaigning for a token system without defending this new system which you suddenly aren't in favor of.

I have said from the start that greed all is a busted system, sure I do like it more personally then need/greed/pass but it is a busted system just as I feel need/greed/pass is. I have also said I do not like the RNG aspect, and that is why I lean more towards a token system that allows players to choose what they want as a reward. I prefer greed all because it does give everyone the same chance to win something at the end of the raid, and I have said this many times. I have also said that I do not see how either system is more selfish then the other, each are just selfish for different reasons. Yes I do not agree that because someone can wear the item inherently means they have less right to roll need on a piece of gear then someone because they have are currently that role. Pretty much from the start, maybe it was due to my poor explanation I have stated that I am not much of a fan of either system, I just happen to have my own preference like everyone else.

@Awha:

I have explained why I find the old system fair (everyone has their chance to roll need if their gear drops and other jobs like healers and tanks have much more pressure thus should get their gear instead of losing it to a DD that barely helped.) I am not going to answer more because it seems that both sides have their opinion on it and no matter what people posted it feels like you just repeat your points again.

I understand why others feel the old system is fair, and I have agreed with depending what side your fall on you will find the old system more favorable (thus more fair) just as I think the current system offers more favorable option for players in my position (thus in my eyes more fair) what I am trying get across why is the community up in arms about a change in a loot system that simply changed who it favored instead of rallying together for a rework instead of going with the status quo? Does that make sense? I have never denied another view as to why they feel a system is fair, while I do not agree with notion that one one is inherently more selfish then other. I mean at a whole I can disagree with why someone feels something is fair, I have always viewed fairness as a opinion based thing, so am really trying to convey that maybe we can find a system that is impartial, yet raises certain players needs to meet their needs while not placing them above another. If that makes sense, I just do not understand why that is wrong, not saying you feel it is wrong.

[BillyKaplan]

I do not disagree with the notion that greed all is a busted system

The amount of backpedaling is giving me whiplash.

I have been trying to covey is that Need/greed/pass still alienates certain players just as Greed all does.

The only people who'd be alienated by the old system are people who want to roll things they can't be bothered to bring to the raid. And even then the Greed system existed so it's not like they were without options. There's a reason why people keep saying 'if it's not broken, don't fix it'.
The biggest flaw with the old system was RNG to have the item you wanted show up at all, but it's not like the new system addressed it.

I just do not understand why things must come down to they should stay same since others did not think it was broken.

It's called "democracy". And a bit of "common sense". You're basically complaining things should change despite absolutely no one agreeing with you.
You'd have a much better case if you were campaigning for a token system without defending this new system which you suddenly aren't in favor of.

[Alleo]

@Awha:

I have explained why I find the old system fair (everyone has their chance to roll need if their gear drops and other jobs like healers and tanks have much more pressure thus should get their gear instead of losing it to a DD that barely helped.) I am not going to answer more because it seems that both sides have their opinion on it and no matter what people posted it feels like you just repeat your points again.

I really think the whole argument of being "forced" to play a certain class under the old system is just silly. It's not like the Greed option went away if you came on your main under the old system. I was able to gear my bard side up just fine while running the 24 mans as my white mage. Did I sometimes lose out on ranged gear to the actual ranged in the party? Of course, as it should be. I didn't come on that class. They had the opportunity to Need and took it. It may not have been a perfect system, but it was a lot better than this Greed free for all.

I agree which is why I dont understand the argument that you can now just go into it with the job you want...I mean I also got healer gear when I was a DD with the old rule and could be sure that getting it with greed means that the healer did not need it. Now everyone needs to greed, so nobody truly knows if the job kinda needs it and you roll on something that they could use and on top of that it has not increase your chance much because you still have 7 possible other people that might win it..

[Fhaerron]

Make a party with friends.

Problem solved.

[WhyAmIHere]

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.

Read as: I wish I was better at convincing people my way of thinking is right and their way of thinking is wrong because it's my thoughts that are right and not theirs.

[Awha]

I spoke with some friends and they helped me understand the situation better. So more or less what everyone is saying that being as 24's primary intent is to act as a catch up mechanic, and system that does not favor those that need to gear fails to meet the intention of the content? It was never meant to be impartial just practical, and since the game cannot confirm if someone will use the item, they just give first dips to those that can use the item. With that being said a token system would also not work since that would not meet the needs of those that need the gear as a means of catch up, since the only way to meet those needs if to give them initial priority.

Is that more or less what everyone is saying? I still do not agree with it, but that makes a tad more sense to me.

Read as: I wish I was better at convincing people my way of thinking is right and their way of thinking is wrong because it's my thoughts that are right and not theirs.

I do not think I have ever said another persons view was wrong, I have said I do not agree or understand but I do not think I ever said someone was wrong or my view was better. If I did not come off as civil or if I implied someone was wrong I am sorry was not my intent. It is hard for me to personally understand why people should get preferential treatment, and never like when I was given preferential treatment due to certain factors I am given preferential treatment. Think of it as you will, but please do not say I ever thought someone was wrong, since I rarely ever feel someones opinion is wrong. I still stand by if I was better was conveying what I was trying to say it would not seemed like I support the change in the system outside my own personal bias. I had a hard time conveying I prefer one system over the other does not mean I am blind to the flaws of the system. Since some seem to feel that I think greed all is the better of the two system, which I do feel from personal aspect I prefer greed all, but overall I do not think it is the better option.

To be fair, I was reading into what you were typing out, so like any form of non-personal, non-verbal communication, miscommunication abounds. On that, mea culpa, I wasn't trying to intend you did feel that way, but after reading the whole exchange between the people in this thread: that was my takeaway from your posts.

This whole thing was just, and still is, a giant mess. That's really the biggest issue I feel. Both sides have merits, both sides have valid points and arguments to make, and both sides can be seen as "right." There is no "right" answer, however, other than this: "why take away a feature that wasn't needed to be taken away?" The elemental stuff outside of eureka? Sure, that no longer served a purpose in gameplay. Was that the slippery slope? Is that just overreacting? Who knows, but hindsight is 20/20.

Fair enough, just goes to show that how I was conveying my point gave the wrong idea to some which is understandable, my command on the langue is lacking, and due to certain things my basic understand into social interactions are not well developed. I have tired to say that I do not think either side is right or wrong, and depending on where you state you can fall into a certain category. Though when you are told that your perception is wrong one cannot help but feel maybe if I explained it better they would understand where I am coming from. Someone even mentioned I was backpedaling which was not my intent, but that is clearly what other saw.

[WhyAmIHere]

To actually contribute to this talk: everything has been said. Both sides, for and against this change, have their merits. "It allows everyone the opportunity to get gear for any class while playing on a class they enjoy," -v- "If you want the gear you should run as the class."

Personal bias: I enjoy(ed) running 24 mans, for the content and the glam. Both are/were important for me. Since this change, I've been disinclined from running any of the raids as a part of why I wanted to even run them was "taken" from me. (Sure not really, but, having an option taken from you that you used to have is never a good feeling, ya know?)

This change solved nothing, was not needed, and punished players who had the time to play as more than one class. Simultaneously, this change addressed the divide between those who have time aplenty to play, and those who simply do not. Now everyone can have a level field in obtaining gear. This change has caused a rift in the community, which is just bad form for any company.
That SE still feels that it needs "more time and feedback to make a determination based on a relatively small amount of community feedback" is nonsense.

EDIT::

I do not think I have ever said another persons view was wrong, I have said I do not agree or understand but I do not think I ever said someone was wrong or my view was better. If I did not come off as civil or if I implied someone was wrong I am sorry was not my intent. It is hard for me to personally understand why people should get preferential treatment, and never like when I was given preferential treatment due to certain factors I am given preferential treatment. Think of it as you will, but please do not say I ever thought someone was wrong, since I rarely ever feel someones opinion is wrong.

To be fair, I was reading into what you were typing out, so like any form of non-personal, non-verbal communication, miscommunication abounds. On that, mea culpa, I wasn't trying to intend you did feel that way, but after reading the whole exchange between the people in this thread: that was my takeaway from your posts.

This whole thing was just, and still is, a giant mess. That's really the biggest issue I feel. Both sides have merits, both sides have valid points and arguments to make, and both sides can be seen as "right." There is no "right" answer, however, other than this: "why take away a feature that wasn't needed to be taken away?" The elemental stuff outside of eureka? Sure, that no longer served a purpose in gameplay. Was that the slippery slope? Is that just overreacting? Who knows, but hindsight is 20/20.

[RayneBoemir]

I also agree that the greed only rule is supremely ill-conceived. Before I would run the place several times on my secondary jobs for an upgrade, but now I just run it on my main and roll on anything that drops that any of my 70s can use even if I don’t play them much. And that’s like one - two runs max I don’t see where SE is going with this all this does is make players run the instance less. I thought they wanted to keep us occupied.

[RayneBoemir]

I also agree that the greed only rule is supremely ill-conceived. Before I would run the place several times on my secondary jobs for an upgrade, but now I just run it on my main and roll on anything that drops that any of my 70s can use even if I don’t play them much. And that’s like one - two runs max I don’t see where SE is going with this all this does is make players run the instance less. I thought they wanted to keep us occupied.