Suggestion: Greed, Need and "I'll take it if no one else wants it..."

[Buff_Archer]

Good point on letting timer expire, though there is one key difference with the way I was envisioning the 'Want' option to work... so if I'm running as Bard for example and a bow drops, and me and two others (who are running as non-Bard) all have Bard at lvl 50, if either of them is going to Greed the bow to turn in for seals or desynth, it might as well be me that gets it to use for that purpose. The only reason I'd want to pass it would be for the sake of that fourth player who doesn't have the class up to that level yet and can actually use it. If I wait out the timer and another person rolled (which I have no way to know) then I'm guaranteed to not get it. But if this option was available that made it work as a Greed roll or a Pass based on whether a party member had an alt class eligible to use the item below that items level and Greeded for it- essentially this would give us a higher chance at sharing loot with those who could use it vs screwing ourselves out of it more frequently trying to help others. Not everyone would use this option but plenty would, which would make for a healthier community IMO than where things are headed with desynth.

[Souljacker]

No other game has had to put anything like this in place. Then again, in every other game you can pass if you accidentally lotted something incorrectly - including XI.

Need\Greed works fine. Need if you need it and can use it, Greed if you can't but still want it, and add the ability to change to Pass for people who want to be nice to another player. In addition, I'm also for being allowed to trade gear to people who were in the same instance for a period of time after the instance ends.

[giantslayer]

While that idea has its merits, never underestimate the capacity of players to demonstrate extremely bad taste. For every one of us who is the type of player who would rather see nice gear we don't need ourselves go to someone who can and would use it vs. break it down into a Fate's worth of GC seals (I had others who passed to thank for all my alt classes having great gear ready to equip at various higher levels after all)- there would be plenty more people who lost a roll and would spend the rest of the dungeon going "Come on gimme gimme gimme I NEED that more and... blah blah blah whine whine whine rage rage rage...". I think the only way for this not to happen is for loot to be locked once it lands in someone's inventory.

However I do wish there were an option to add a fourth tier of roll to have it be like below, which is self-explanatory:

Need Greed Want Pass

I agree. Our community has too many bad apples for the trade thing to not blow up.

I also think the 4th button is the best way to go, although I would do it differently. Simple and intuitive is the best approach here.

I would put Want between Need and Greed, so the hierarchy would be:

Need > Want > Greed > Pass

I would make one more change: classify Want and Need as "priority bids" and break ties for priority bids first based on the number of items already obtained with priority bids, and use RNG only if that does not resolve the tie.

Greeds would still be pure RNG as before and not affect priority bids. This would be the "I'll take it if no one really needs it."

Pass would never receive the item, and items could still go to waste if everyone passed.

Example:
1. Players A and B roll Want on Item 1. Player C rolls Greed. A and B roll for item. Player A wins by RNG.
2. Players A, B, and C roll Want on Item 2. Player A has received 1 item by priority bid. B and C have received 0. B and C roll on item. B wins by RNG.
3. Player A rolls Want on Item 3. B and C roll Need. B has received 1 item by priority bid. C has received 0. C wins item.
4. Players A, B, and C roll Want on Item 4. All 3 players have received 1 item by priority bid. All 3 roll RNG.

This is IMHO a very fair system. It also will cause players to self-regulate their own use of priority bids because spamming Want on early items can cause you to lose bids to players who didn't on later items.

[Souljacker]

Leave it to the XI\XIV playerbase to try to reinvent the wheel and make things more complicated than they need to be. We don't need 4 buttons.

We need tried and true systems that work, not things that are partway implemented because in Japan people are actually respectful to one another and discuss things beforehand. Recognize the rest of the world is not Japan.

there would be plenty more people who lost a roll and would spend the rest of the dungeon going "Come on gimme gimme gimme I NEED that more and... blah blah blah whine whine whine rage rage rage...". I think the only way for this not to happen is for loot to be locked once it lands in someone's inventory.

You don't go to BG forums at all, do you? This happens anyway. There is a guy, and I won't mention his character name here but if you are interested go check out their Player Warning thread, that literally raged on twitch about losing a roll to someone. Loot is locked, the other person also rolled greed, and he proceeded to harass her in game, in PARTY FINDER, over his twitch channel, and he even reported HER for harassment, and she had NO IDEA he even wanted the piece. Some players are insane, but that is no reason why we shouldn't get nice things like the ability to trade gear.

It doesn't cause the level of troll you think it does. This isn't the first mmo on the planet, you know.

[Buff_Archer]

Since untradeable loot is locked when it hits someone inventory, and because we can't trade anything in a dungeon anyway, I would think that speaks for itself as to why there isn't an issue with people asking for stuff after the fact- because it can't be done. So my point there was if we were to add loot tradeability in per someone's suggestion, it would lead to a new type of undesirable behavior. I don't expect people to rant like crazy to the point it's abuse and harassment, but I have no doubt it would become commonplace for people to be put on the spot being asked by someone if they can have the drop they just got. It wouldn't always be outright hostility, but there would be plenty of "Can I PLEASE have those Battlemage boots, I've been trying for them for months, I'll be your best friend...." kinda stuff. In other words asking/begging for loot that's dropped doesn't happen now because there's no point to it, and that's not a dynamic I would think we'd want to see added. There might not be a lot of trolling, but there would be begging, whining, ingratiating etc if the door is open to changing the result of a lost roll. But the Player Warning thread sounds like it might be a fun read I'll have to check that one out.

I don't want to reinvent the wheel, but I would like to see it improve for a less bumpy ride. Those cars like in the Flintstones with the stone wheels attached look kind of uncomfortable.

[givemeraptors]

I honestly think the system is fine as it is. If you feel so much anxiety about Greeding something someone else might get more use out of, simply ask your party if they want it. If you don't have a keyboard or are extremely lazy, you can input the phrase once at the beginning of the dungeon while everyone is being buffed, and then the chat log saves it so all you have to do on a controller is go to the box and press the up button once or twice until it shows up. It takes less than a minute of effort, which is way less than reprogramming the whole drop system to some 4-way multi-step priority system.

[Buff_Archer]

Lol it's actually not that big of a deal to me, someone had asked the question about how to improve it and I gave my answer. A bit complex at the surface but if no one ever discussed ideas to improve things there would be no progress. Do I think SE should overhaul the way this works to accommodate the ideas I had today? Of course not, there are probably aspects to it that would be problematic I haven't thought of yet and any change, even a minor one, to how looting works would need a lot of diligence to ensure there were no unintended adverse consequences.

That said, what I was suggesting as a way to improve things isn't as complex as it might seem- it's not a change to how Need rolling works, and not even a change to how Greed rolling works... we already have a system in place that gives priority to one type of roll over another, and the system is already able to distinguish what items pertain to which classes (in determining when Need should be present). So my suggestion would just be a third tier of roll that falls between Greed and Pass, with the main aspect that's different from what we have now being variable priority that factors in a) the item type and level and b) whether other party members who roll Greed have a class cooresponding to that type unlocked at or below that item level. So a player could choose the new lower tier which would still have Greed priority against rolls from someone not in both a) and b) above, and would count as Pass only against the rolls of those who are. For anyone who simply rolled Need or Greed like before, this wouldn't change their personal outcome based on what they rolled in any way, except for increasing their odds of success in certain scenarios. And less loot would hit the floor unclaimed (no more 'Damn I shouldn't have passed after all').

But it's not like I'm going to lose any sleep over something like this happening or not, this would count as an enhancement IMO and I'd rather see SE focus on addressing current *problems* (Withdraw spamming, the Hunt clusterf*, et. al.).

[Thaliss]

Why do people think that their definition of "use" of an Item it the right one above another player?
On raid / locked content yes you must be careful in looting. A master loot for FCs I can understand. But for content than can be farm no need.

A check on alts then would screw new and players that for some reasons don't play that class.
If you have a high level in desynthesis you should have as much rights to roll over with people with alts.
So for mats we should check if people have a DoH with a recipe that can use that mat to be allowed to need.

Give more to the people that have more!

[JonBigwood]

I think it's fine as it is.

In raids with a weekly limit, if you can need and other player can also need, either you agree something (preferably with no drama) or let the luck decide. Gear is too difficult to obtain in these instances to ask somebody to wait n weeks for another opportunity that may never come. If the content is repeatable with no limit, the item is not as difficult to obtain, so it's not such a big deal if somebody needs it and gets it instead of you.

In weekly loot instances, like now Syrcus Tower (and before CT), if you obtain the item you can't roll for the rest of the week, so this means a player won't roll for things he doesn't want quite much if there are ones he really wants (and there is time left before the end of the week), and also means there will be no people who get a lot of loot every week while others with less luck get nothing. Of course lucky people get things sooner, lol. But we all are sometimes lucky sometimes not.

Trading doesn't seem that good option for me, it may help if somebody rolled by mistake, but it may mean more pression on the one who got the loot. And it can also be unfair if there are other people who also rolled and didn't win but are not pressing to get the loot given to them, or have no friends in the group to press for him. It seems to create more problems than the ones it solves.

[hdepaula]

lol the fact that there are loots in dungeons is funny because we enter as a group but only a few will leave with something, but its not quite like that though because a dungeon with 4 ppl in it might even have more than 4 loot treasure chests, but because of the Luck system that we have a single player might get almost everything. I as with a player in the Labyrinth of the Ancients who got almost everything, my friend that was in the dungeon with me was like "wth? he's getting everything" but then one time I entered the Labyrinth and (I didn’t even know what being a bard was like, Lv0 ) I got almost EVERYTHING that was for a bard cuz I was just greeding and it was just giving it to me LOL. Sometimes a dungeon will drop something for a single class (which pisses me of) and on that day I had basically the whole (iLv80) gear of a bard without having a single Lv on it so I was forced to join the guild and do the class hahaha