Loot lockouts should be based on Job

[Velhart]

Your comment is bad, and ignored.

You don't help your argument by just simply saying their comment against yours is bad. If you can't make a proper counter-argument, I would probably just leave it alone.

My stance on lockout per job. I would only be okay with this if they made the requirements or lockouts more severe than they actually are. I like the system the way it is. However, I wouldn't particularly mind a system like this, but having multiple jobs geared equally on the same patch diminishes the value of the Armory System to me. If they did something like this, they would have to make it right and balanced so the value of the system isn't lowered by it.

[Traek]

You don't help your argument by just simply saying their comment against yours is bad. If you can't make a proper counter-argument, I would probably just leave it alone.

There is no need for a counter argument when a statement is that blatantly bad. I'd just be acknowledging it as an actual argument if that were the case.

My stance on lockout per job. I would only be okay with this if they made the requirements or lockouts more severe than they actually are. I like the system the way it is. However, I wouldn't particularly mind a system like this, but having multiple jobs geared equally on the same patch diminishes the value of the Armory System to me. If they did something like this, they would have to make it right and balanced so the value of the system isn't lowered by it.

Not really sure the point you are trying to make. Why would you want the lockouts more severe then they are? A "right and balanced" system has already been discussed. Where is your issue with whats been discussed, and why? Isn't having multiple jobs geared equally increasing the value of the Armory system? How is it diminishing the armory system? Having multiple gimp characters makes the armory system valuable? You haven't really said anything except *it'd have to work, based upon stuff*.

[Slowburn]

Just out of curiousity...what would happen if no one rolls at all on an item? It would then drop to a random person. Would that person be loot locked for a week?

I would think it probably wouldn't happen on a rare/useful item but once people discover the loot table they will start to hold out for certain items.

[Dhex]

Just out of curiousity...what would happen if no one rolls at all on an item? It would then drop to a random person. Would that person be loot locked for a week?

I would think it probably wouldn't happen on a rare/useful item but once people discover the loot table they will start to hold out for certain items.

What happens when you have a full party (8/8) of people that already got their 1 loot per week?

These things; we must discover the answers.

[Slowburn]

Right??? I hope you dont have to go into the loot list and pass it each time. I could dc and still have my character logged in while the item drops.

If an item does drop to a person at random and doesnt count towards the lockout then it would be possible to obtain multiple items. Although it would be difficult with 3 separate parties...it would be possible to collude and collect infinite random items from CT.

It seems like the only effective way to do it would be for the item to be deleted if no one RNG. But then...will S.E. realize this? that is the question....

[Traek]

Right??? I hope you dont have to go into the loot list and pass it each time. I could dc and still have my character logged in while the item drops.

It seems like the only effective way to do it would be for the item to be deleted if no one RNG.

Ya, they'd have to make it so everyone passes if they didn't do a roll. I hope they would have thought of this before hand.. but its good to bring up, so it doesn't become an *oversight*.