Whats with all the crappy terms ; ; ANYWAYS this thread isnt about whats better. Its about /random and the people who want it back!
Whats with all the crappy terms ; ; ANYWAYS this thread isnt about whats better. Its about /random and the people who want it back!
And that's fine too. I'm all for choice. I just don't think anyone should reject an idea just cuz it's from WoW, or any other game. If the idea has merit, then there is merit in exploring it. If its a bad fit, then toss it out. I'm all for XI's system. And WoW's.
I'm for this, chance is a good tool to solve many situations without being unfair.
Last edited by Reliquia; 10-24-2011 at 05:35 AM.
Yes, here is what your missing.Maybe I'm not understanding this correctly... If I'm in a dungeon and I'm a healer and a piece of gear drops with mind + piety on it and it's clearly for CNJ (cuz it says so of course), and it's definitely an upgrade for me, I'll hit need. Anyone who's NOT a CNJ should have their "need" button greyed out and unclickable.
Same scenario, except I'm a lancer, and there's another DoW in the group, and the piece of gear has stats for DPS and it's definitely an upgrade for both of us, and we both hit need, while everyone else has the button grey'd out cuz the gear's class restrictions doesn't let them roll on it. The game does the /random for both of us behind the scenes and gives it to whoever wins.
Am I missing something?
I say I am a main healer, its what i prefere to play, I consider it my main class. I happen to have 50 MRD also. No one else has a tank class and we can't find someone to tank. SO, I tank, even though I prefere not to, as a matter od neccessity.
By your standards here, I, by changing classes as a manner of assisting the group, I am now not permitted to advance my main class with gear upgrades. The other option is that we can't do the raid because we have no tank. In either case, I would get no gear toward my main.
I agree that /random as an EMOTE ONLY should be implemented, however it should in no way be tied to the current loot system. The loot system works just as it should as a complete, behind the scenes, randomizer. The addition of a "Master Looter" option would be fine for parties who want everything set by one person, but there is no reason to add or change the loot system beyond that, as it is functional as is. I would however, like to be able to give something to someone else who is not in the immediate vicinity in my party, just as I would like to browse bazaars while running lol.
"Worrying is like a rocking chair. It gives you something to do, but it doesn't get you anywhere."
I'd also like to add it'd be neat to have an animation for a '/random' emote too.
I agree all we really need is a Master Looter, and a /random emote. If your group can't handle that, then you should just let drops fall randomly anyways because you have such a lack of trust any "need before greed" or whatever system will not solve your problems (it will just make for annoying pop ups, and disputes over what "need" means).I agree that /random as an EMOTE ONLY should be implemented, however it should in no way be tied to the current loot system. The loot system works just as it should as a complete, behind the scenes, randomizer. The addition of a "Master Looter" option would be fine for parties who want everything set by one person, but there is no reason to add or change the loot system beyond that, as it is functional as is. I would however, like to be able to give something to someone else who is not in the immediate vicinity in my party, just as I would like to browse bazaars while running lol.
I'm fine with the current loot distribution system with /random added. Should be able to distribute loot from your pool to party members regardless of range though.
If a master loot pool is added instead, then why not have several distribution options? A quartermaster option, a random lotting option and a need/greed option? I personally think a need/greed system is silly for a game where you can change classes, but apparently other people like it.
The First Law of Roegadynics: "A Roegadyn may not injure a Lalafell or, through inaction, allow a Lalafell to come to harm."
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
Cookie Policy
This website uses cookies. If you do not wish us to set cookies on your device, please do not use the website. Please read the Square Enix cookies policy for more information. Your use of the website is also subject to the terms in the Square Enix website terms of use and privacy policy and by using the website you are accepting those terms. The Square Enix terms of use, privacy policy and cookies policy can also be found through links at the bottom of the page.