Say NO to the New Possession (Claiming) Structure Being Developed!!!

[Physic]

I wonder why is it, that many people think that intrinsicly, the person who hits it first deserves the best reward? If we had to decide which person or team is most instrumental in defeating a large scale NM, why would it be the person who hit it first? If your talking about like normal monsters i guess i can see how such a system wouldnt be that bad, but if you are talking about a monster strong enough that no single player, or even single party of people could defeat it fast enough, then what does being there first proove?

If you have a monster that takes 30 people to defeat it, why does the person who hit it first have more value than the other 29 who were required to kill it? First to claim = best prize is not really the best system for all situations. I think they should abandon the idea that the first to hit something should get the best prize automaticaly. If they set up a merit situation (not just dmg done, because honestly that is only one contribution to a fight) or basically give everyone their own roll at drops say each person who helps has the same chance to roll 3-5 drops. I think it would be a better answer.

[MeowyWowie]

I wonder why is it, that many people think that intrinsicly, the person who hits it first deserves the best reward?

Yoshida on 2nd Poll results:

I'm kicking myself for not having put in a third option combining the other two: Skill and experience going to all parties, and loot going to only the first party to deal damage to an enemy.

I personally think that this mixed option (skill/experience to all involved parties, loot to only the claiming party) makes sense.

Matsui in Famitsu article:

This means others not in party can attack the same monster and RMT like players can try to take over so making it the party with the first attacker can only get the loot.

Yoshida in most recent Letter from the Producer:

Changes to enemy display name color to reflect your entitlement to battle rewards (based on adjustments to the way enemies are claimed)

Add those 3 up together and it's quite obvious.

Regarding alliance based content:

I'm fairly sure these principals will still apply here as well, except that while in an alliance, the loot will be evenly distributed amongst all parties in the alliance.

Edit: And just to clarify, most of us don't think this is the way it should be handled. However, all the info we have received up till today points in this direction. Yet some people in this thread still refuse to face the facts and base their arguments on systems that are purely driven by speculation.

[Coglin]

I wonder why is it, that many people think that intrinsicly, the person who hits it first deserves the best reward? If we had to decide which person or team is most instrumental in defeating a large scale NM, why would it be the person who hit it first? If your talking about like normal monsters i guess i can see how such a system wouldnt be that bad, but if you are talking about a monster strong enough that no single player, or even single party of people could defeat it fast enough, then what does being there first proove?

If you have a monster that takes 30 people to defeat it, why does the person who hit it first have more value than the other 29 who were required to kill it? First to claim = best prize is not really the best system for all situations. I think they should abandon the idea that the first to hit something should get the best prize automaticaly. If they set up a merit situation (not just dmg done, because honestly that is only one contribution to a fight) or basically give everyone their own roll at drops say each person who helps has the same chance to roll 3-5 drops. I think it would be a better answer.

Because that is the standard in most systems of this basis in other MMOS and it works. Why shouldn't the main tanks pull group who will control the mob untill its death, pull the mob, and take the pounding, not have right?

I am in 2 LS with wel over 100 players a piece. So many people here appearently think we should be disallowed to raid togeter by restricting use to 8 man or les raid only, while other MMOs let players take as many people to a raid as they wish. If I want to go on a raid with 127 of my Linkshell members, then I should have that right. In some instances its real fun to have the NEED of more then 8. Allowing healthy compitition for LS in raids that need more then 8 worth of just heals and damage. Making premature pulling of unprepared groups lethel.

Again, this works. Its not like the devs are asking if it works, they are informing us that they had they know it does, as do most MMO players.........why the illogical stubborness is so strong here is anybodies guess.

[Haji]

I am in 2 LS with wel over 100 players a piece. So many people here appearently think we should be disallowed to raid togeter by restricting use to 8 man or les raid only, while other MMOs let players take as many people to a raid as they wish. If I want to go on a raid with 127 of my Linkshell members, then I should have that right. In some instances its real fun to have the NEED of more then 8. Allowing healthy compitition for LS in raids that need more then 8 worth of just heals and damage. Making premature pulling of unprepared groups lethel.

I'm not sure I'd want content requiring 100 members. Not only would this be somewhat difficult to organize, but for the time being there aren't that many people playing FFXIV anyway. At the same time I definitely want content requiring several groups, those are always fun, althought I'd prefer group size of 16-32 people (2-4 8man groups). In fact, I belive they'll start with 16 man content just so see how this work, and then maybe they'll expand.