Master Loot System

[ariaandkia]

Snip

Except when I join a party as a Healer then get forced to DPS or Tank. Then healer gear drops and I have no chance at it since even if the healers pass, the others will probably greed. And they generally won't gree, much less pass just because I joined as a Healer and only switched because we needed the other role more.

Or when I join as a BLM but then our Healer or tank ditches and I have to leave, switch, and rejoin so that the party can keep going (and we passed) and then the BLM gear drops which should have been mine now goes to some bard.

This has happened multiple times.

Personally, I'd like to see a few modifications. Like the party can vote on a few alternative roll methods and if EVERYONE agrees, then it changes to that method.

Master Loot System
No Need (Greed only)
MVP System (MVP gets priority) (including buffs and secondary 'damage/heals/mitigations' but not including overkill values (ie. mantra could count for heals))
(No idea about the proper names of the below)
Weakest has priority. Example: Healer 1 has i70. Healer 2 has i90. An i80/i90 healer gear drops. Healer 1 then gets priority on the loot because they need it more. An i100 healer gear drops. Healer 1 gets a bonus to their roll (say +15) and victory if a tie because they need it more. An i60 item drops. Nobody gets any bonuses because nobody needs it on their current class-and no "need" button either.
Roll Block System. For every 'tier' of rarity, the player can't roll for that many times. So if say a green item drops, the player wouldn't be able to roll 2 times after if they roll. For a blue item, it would be 3 times. The reason for it being based on roll is so that people have to choose when to use their rolls. Obviously, if everyone rolls, then there is no penalty.
Round Robin System. Each player takes a turn receiving loot of a certain rarity or higher.

These would be additional systems
Shared Loot System (All players have a copy of the loot so they can choose to take it or not). This is generally for loot that is meant to be very common or loot that rarely shows up with only a very few select games having it as their main loot system). As an example: I get 8 diremite webs as a drop. That could've been split to 2 per player.
Need Want Greed system (Similar to what we have now, but with an extra tier (First is NEED the item, then Want the item (generally to use), then just being greedy (generally selling the item).
In-dungeon trading system (Essentially a system where any loot found in the dungeon can be traded between players while in the dungeon as long as it isn't 'bound' yet (example: equipping the item and using it in battle would make it bound)).
Participation system (If you didn't participate in the battle leading up to the loot, you don't get to roll)
Roll change system (In other words, change from need to greed to pass at will until the item is rolled (You'd keep the same roll except in the case of pass))

==

The Master Loot System is useful because instead of risking a mistake (I've made mistakes before where I rolled Need when I MEANT to pass or greed or vice versa), you assign someone to do the job who can take their time and make sure they made the right decision. I will say though that any party with a non-preformed player should not be able to choose the master loot system because the system should really only be used by people who know each other.)

Currently, we have found a workaround for the passing after a roll, but it isn't a perfect workaround because the party needs to have realized that the mistake was made and act accordingly.

This "issue" is completely overblown. Statics don't have this problem as they can easily pre-determine who gets what. 95% of the "I got ninja'ed" claims come from someone whining about losing some loot they never had a right to in the first place. This would get abused way too much. Need/greed isn't abused, either it is your class or it isn't. I always love that guy who doesn't get the roll for his job, then after the fight is over "Hey, I play that class too, plz greed"

The system isn't broke, high level groups can already implement this. If you can't trust the whole group, what makes you so sure you can trust the "leader"?

If, for example, the leader is someone everyone in the party knows to be a very just player, they could delegate that player as the loot sorter.

Now, I don't mind the Need/Greed system too much except... Example: I'm looking for the healer boots for glamouring, someone else mentions that they need it to raise their healer's iLV. So I pass on them after having everyone agree to pass except for the one person. Then someone else greeds on the item.

I'd rather of have had some alternative system where we could've made sure that the person got the item. Like in-dungeon trading of the items. Then I could've rolled Need, the other healer could've rolled or passed, and then whoever got it could've given it to the person. Obviously this could work even with items that have the 1 week limit by making it so that the person can't accept the item if it would break their limit.

Master Loot system would've worked also.

[Clavaat]

-snip-

Well said, 100% agree.

[KingOfAbyss]

Except when I join a party as a Healer then get forced to DPS or Tank.

Since you took the time to read me and answer, I'll do the same.

For now you lost me at: Being Forced to.

No one is forcing you to play a role. It's either you want to help, or not.

an FC which would force people to get into specific roles is as bad as this masterloot idea.

brb in a few after reading further.

Ok, if you don't take into account only the damage done, but all skills included, your idea of

MVP System (MVP gets priority) _ I would agree for the rare drops like Nightmare and such. Not on the standard loot.

Need Want Greed system (Similar to what we have now, but with an extra tier (First is NEED the item, then Want the item (generally to use), then just being greedy (generally selling the item).

This one will always make me laugh. Everyone will say they Need it (true or not) those that want it, might be well to sell or get GC credits.

Once you are done with the gear in this game, after one month its about overdue you get higher gear. so until they place the option to give it to another player that might need it... heck now with Desynth people need everything in the game.

Se could easily check our gear while going into an instance, and then activate the NEED button only if it's an upgrade on our current character. Else Greed for everyone.

[SendohJin]

For now you lost me at: Being Forced to.

No one is forcing you to play a role. It's either you want to help, or not.

people can't want to win and want to be compensated for their time?

[KingOfAbyss]

people can't want to win and want to be compensated for their time?

Of course they can o.O seems you don't get my point.

If you only have one job, that is your choice. Tell me why should I be penalized for it and not playing the job I want and that I have to switch?

If it's really so, you better agree if the drop that I was looking for gets in, that you will pass and let me have a roll at it.

It all comes down to communication, and FC, LS PF resolve this issue.

Can't say about DF, the which you might never see that person again, although you can report him/her.

So I still stand first by: you get in as the Job you want to loot Need.

Should I cry since I've unlocked all classes, that a piece for BLM would be there and I can't need it bec I tank? Nope, it's fair enough, the drop 'might' have been for the job I'm playing, I just wasn't lucky this time.

If the game was like you can only play one class per character, no one would complain because you go into the instance exactly as the job you want to play. So when gear drops that you cannot use currently, people wouldn't whine.

you should feel lucky to have the red flag pop up early in the run rather than be vote kicked right before the chest is looted.

That is very bad behavior T_T - sad but I guess it happens, what a virtual world we live in..

I know SE has a knack for implementing features and ignorantly leaving loopholes open for abuse.

100% agreed.