Can We Get Rid Of The "Unique" Status On Gear?

[Magic-Mal]

I've been wondering this for ages. What's the point of the Unique status on gear? What does it do? All I've seen it do so far is cause problems and restrictions. There are so many good things that can come out of getting rid of this lock..

Unique Glamours for gear(even though that's more of a band-aid), more customization for individual jobs, easier desynths, easier GC turn-ins and more..

If I had the ability to buy more than one of the same castimg Creator piece I could.. create the best gear combo for each job or make glamours for each job! You can buy multiple gathering pieces or any other gear and make a bunch of combinations with those so why not tome/raid/dungeon gear?

Honestly I think for the sake of dungeon drops the Unique status should be reworked where you no longer have the power to Need on the piece you already have that drops and only allow Greed. That sounds fair.

For some jobs you might want Critical Hit on the piece for that class but Spell Speed for this class but you can't do it because you can't buy duplicates. Want to wear a BLM glamour and a RDM one? Can't because you can't buy duplicates. Now, obviously it would require extra slots, but it only makes that way.

So can this be changed?

[Zfz]

But how do you justify being able to NEED only once on something that you might want to meld differently for different jobs? You legitimately NEED two of them. Isn't the one-need rule just as arbitrary as the Unique attribute in reducing loot competition?

[Zojha]

But how do you justify being able to NEED only once on something that you might want to meld differently for different jobs?

How do you justify being unable to need on gear you want to sell to the vendor?
You NEED that gil for a house!

You can spin that into IRL, too. How do you justify being disallowed from stealing from your neighbor when you're hungry? You need food to survive!

Rules are all arbitrary. Behind them lies the desire to protect a claim deemed legitimate from another party. In the RL case, it's the property rights of your neighbor. In the loot case, it's the person who hasn't gotten the piece yet - "Let everyone take a slice before you go and get your second."

And depending on the general moral code of society, those rules will change. "Cull the Weak" societies are downright a trope in fiction.

Moreover, all "Need" only exists together with a "Want". You don't need to sustain your body if you don't want to live. You don't need better gear if you don't want to play content that requires it. You don't need an airplane if you don't want to fly. You don't need a mount if you don't want to go faster. Need and Greed are essentially the same thing in the first place, they're Wants, desires to have something.

Separating the two is arbitrary - It's an attempt to distinguish "Higher Wants" and "Lesser Wants", both as deemed by the underlying moral code. And ultimately, this is also what the unique tag tries to achieve. In addition, it historically was also used to prevent players from making overpowered characters by equipping/slotting multiple extremely powerful items, though that function isn't exactly applicable in this game.
What baffles me is that it's also pasted onto token and vendor armors - best I can think of is a protection against buying the same piece you already had by accident. It can't really serve a different purpose there. But for all I know, they just pasted it there because other MMOs do it and they never really thought about it. /huh.

[Magic-Mal]

But how do you justify being able to NEED only once on something that you might want to meld differently for different jobs? You legitimately NEED two of them. Isn't the one-need rule just as arbitrary as the Unique attribute in reducing loot competition?

Because it's so people who might actually have nothing can have the first chance to Need on it over someone who already has it. Is that not very fair? That way for a dungeon or raid, if someone does have a nice piece (s)he can only Greed that to give the other 7 people in the raid a chance. It would essentially be the same. Just allowing the player to greed on a duplicate if no one else wants it. And it also wouldn't effect dungeons either.

Greed is fair.

[Zfz]

Because it's so people who might actually have nothing can have the first chance to Need on it over someone who already has it. Is that not very fair? That way for a dungeon or raid, if someone does have a nice piece (s)he can only Greed that to give the other 7 people in the raid a chance. It would essentially be the same. Just allowing the player to greed on a duplicate if no one else wants it. And it also wouldn't effect dungeons either.

Greed is fair.

I disagree. But before getting to the reasoning, let me just note that I'm also fed up with the Unique business, I'm also one who plays multiple jobs of the same type and I want different glamours and different melding for my jobs that share tomestone gear, too. But I do not see the one-need rule as a fair one.

Now that's out of the way, how is it fair that for people who all contributed in the same encounter, someone who had it from a previous run must defer to someone who doesn't have it? The piece I already have is a reward for my efforts in a different run, why is it justified or fair that I do not qualify for NEED, when I actually do need it to gear myself, just like the other people who's NEEDing it to gear their jobs?

Greed is fair when nobody have a legitimate reason to NEED, but in this particular case we are discussing, I do have a legitimate reason.

If the goal was to let people have multiple of the same piece for different melding (and glamour), then the second piece is just as legitimate as the first piece, both equally qualifying as NEED.

I can understand it if people straight-out say that the one-need rule is there to distribute gear more uniformly. But I disagree that it is "fair". It may be good for the community as a whole, and call it a necessary evil if you don't agree with the rule at all, and I can support it if it gets rid of the Unique attribute, but I disagree that it is fair.

[Joe777]

I disagree. But before getting to the reasoning, let me just note that I'm also fed up with the Unique business, I'm also one who plays multiple jobs of the same type and I want different glamours and different melding for my jobs that share tomestone gear, too. But I do not see the one-need rule as a fair one.

Now that's out of the way, how is it fair that for people who all contributed in the same encounter, someone who had it from a previous run must defer to someone who doesn't have it? The piece I already have is a reward for my efforts in a different run, why is it justified or fair that I do not qualify for NEED, when I actually do need it to gear myself, just like the other people who's NEEDing it to gear their jobs?

Greed is fair when nobody have a legitimate reason to NEED, but in this particular case we are discussing, I do have a legitimate reason.

If the goal was to let people have multiple of the same piece for different melding (and glamour), then the second piece is just as legitimate as the first piece, both equally qualifying as NEED.

I can understand it if people straight-out say that the one-need rule is there to distribute gear more uniformly. But I disagree that it is "fair". It may be good for the community as a whole, and call it a necessary evil if you don't agree with the rule at all, and I can support it if it gets rid of the Unique attribute, but I disagree that it is fair.

Would it be fair to people that don't have it if others that do kept rolling higher Needs and taking extra of something they need too and therefore cannot get? Even if you need extras for glamour and materia customization, you still have one period. They, on the other hand, do not. The fairness is that everyone has a chance to get at least one before seconds or more are taken. Wanting a second or more after all is indeed Greed, regardless of the reason.

[Zfz]

Would it be fair to people that don't have it if others that do kept rolling higher Needs and taking extra of something they need too and therefore cannot get?

It is fair, because that's exactly what the loot system is: we all depend on luck. If I keep rolling single digits, it's still fair because one day I may roll a 99. The determining factor, in my opinion, shouldn't be whether someone already has it, but whether the need is genuine. In this case, it is genuine, hence loot must be distrubted fairly, i.e. by the dice roll.

I mean that's exactly what the system is right now. I go into World of Darkness countless times and lose my roll to different people every time, it is still fair. We all contributed to this particular run and that gives us equal legitimacy in NEEDing the gear we are able to equip. Whether or not you've already got 100 of this piece and turned them all in to the Grand Company, has no relevance whatsoever.

Wanting a second or more after all is indeed Greed, regardless of the reason.

If loot was given first-come-first-serve, then it is fair to let everyone get their piece before anyone can get seconds. But that isn't the case here.

Taking into account the fact that I already have one, is the same argument as saying people wearing 310 gear should not be able to NEED a 120 piece because they already have something better. I don't agree with that.

[Magic-Mal]

.

What you are explaining is kinda the definition of Greed. You get a piece for one job. Then you *want* another piece for the other job. You don't *need* another piece for your other class because you have one already and can simply make do. You just *want* that other piece for your gear. That is actually pretty much the definition of greed. To take more than what you need yourself to "sustain". Greed = Want basically.

That's why people are disagreeing with you. Because you should only be allowed to be greedy after everyone gets what they need. Then you can be free to take more. How about an example...

You have 4 people. You're Cassie, and your friends are Kim, John, and Joe. You order a pizza that has 8 slices, you all split the pay.

Unlimited Need:
Cassie: You win "need" on 5 slices. By chance
Kim: Does not win any
John: Wins 3
Joe: Does not win any
-You have an instance where you all have a part but because you can take anything you want, you end up with 5/8 of the pizza. And John with 3/8. 2 of the friends don't get anything at all. Because 2 people got theirs and more before they got any at all. Did you two really *need* that pizza? Could you not be satisfied with the one and until everyone gets theirs?

Need, Greed:
Cassie: Win 1 -> Greeds 3
Kim: Win 1 -> Greeds 0
John: Win 1 -> Greeds 1
Joe: Win 1 -> Greeds 0
-Here everyone gets a slice. Everyone gets a piece of something for the effort. Then once everyone got what they *Needed*, now everyone is free to get the extras they may *Want*. What do you typically call people who get seconds or thirds? Greedy. Because they *Want* more.

See where I'm getting at?

[Rakiria]

I'm pretty sure it's made so thing aren't as simple. Same with the weekly token cap.

[Felis]

I'm pretty sure it's made so thing aren't as simple. Same with the weekly token cap.

Unique exist since 1.0
It exist so you can't farm specific gears twice (if you have it already in the inventory) and give someone else in the party the chance to get it if you can't roll on it.

example: 2 tank raid sets, while the other tank don't have a single piece yet.

Instead of removing unique, they should just rework the glamour system. Like a own glamour gearslots, where you can add the glamour to the gearset (will still cost prisma) and don't need to put it on the gear.

Or bring out 2-3 sets of same ilevels, so every job who share gear with other jobs can have their own set.