Talk:Union

Drops by Enemy Group and Zone
Though this table is currently not used, I will provide an example: Example

Please fill this in as you like -- I'm doing bits and pieces as I can. While we still attempt to sort out what belongs where, please add all drops into the zone's section and identify which NM(s) were present. However, feel free to make obvious guesses (for example, Shadowhand dropping a Ladybug Wing in East Ronfaure... did that come from the NM group or zone? :o) Suggestions are also always appreciated. Click [show] on the right side to expand. 23:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Quadav Shieldwarriors Yagudo Theomilitary Orcish Hosts Dark Kindred Merged:
 * Adder 22:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Bison 22:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Coyote 22:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Dhole 22:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Eland 22:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * [Below]

UPDATED 21:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC) - Changing the order from Mob->Zone to Zone->Mob, it works so much better this way. ^^;

Lotting Qualifications
"To be eligible to lot for Union treasure, a player's contributions to the battle must be evaluated at a certain level or higher. Further testing may be needed, but it appears that about 500 XP is sufficient. " - Just did North Gustaberg (S) with only 332 exp earned, was eligible to lot on the drops. --Xenomaru 07:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I did North Gustaberg (S) with less than 200 exp earned, but I was at level 43. Is it possible the contributing XP needed is determined before the level modifier lowers it? I also noted that the chat log told me I earned spoils from all five unions (the grey text when the chests are opened). I was signed up for E union. I know I did because E union was the last chest opened and I had a treasure pool before it was opened. There were, at least, a dozen players in each union and the fight ran for two waves: Quadavs followed by Kindred, and I was healing majority of the time. Maybe assisting another union earns points for it, too? --Jonci 14:22, 22 July 2009
 * No, assisting another union does not grant you rights to lot on it. Every member of any union gets all the messages, what you should be looking out for is actually "Your valor in battle has earned you a claim to xx Union's spoils!", or something that goes by that wording. If you did not earn the rights, it should tell you something along "You did not achieve enough points..." --Foxfire, Siren
 * I did receive that message. However, I also had union lot items in my treasure pool before my union's chest was opened. --Jonci

Did a campaign battle just now and did not qualify for spoils after earning 280 exp. My union had 9 members including myself. --Zythas 21:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd wager it's some sort of percent of the Union's total XP earned? Maybe like 5%? If everyone else in Zynthas's 9-person Union earned 1000 xp, that's 280/8280, which is only <3.5%. Just a guess, though. 21:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the % of total Union's XP theory to some extend. For example if the entire battle was just "wall bashing" you earn very little exp, probably around 50exp and still appear up with "Your valor in battle has earned you a claim to __ Union's spoils!" Although there will be no treasure chest to claim, it still appears up with that message. As to how much Union's exp needs to obtain 1 or more items in treasure pool I can venture a guess that it needs to be more than 2000 at least in total. --Lord0din69 23:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Treasure by zone, or mobs?
I set up each individual union's page to sort by mob group (and naturally by Union, just in case SE's "Union-specific" was intended that way - merging them later is MUCH easier than sorting them later.) So far the drops seem to make sense by mobs also (e.g. BLM Yagudo have dropped Tornado, Samurai Yagudo have given me Icarus Wings, etc.) Possibly we should note all of the above until we figure it out. And we also need to figure out a place for these charts, because as of now there are the charts below as well as charts on each individual Union's page. Naturally the problem with sorting by group vs. zone is that multiple groups frequently attack at the same time. 02:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Ordelle Bronzepiece seems to drop for any Sandy Regions, as for the other loot I wasn't keeping a keen eye on it. (Oh, and granted with that logic you can guess Tukuku Whiteshell for windy areas and 1 Byne Bill for Bastok areas) --Lord0din69 11:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Union specific charts for drops will make it much easier to sort/merge the results later. The table below is intended as an overview of drops you can expect from Campaign Unions. As I do a lot of campaigning, I will continue to update the table (the very least it can provide is a cross-reference to see which drops are missing on the Union pages), but I would encourage everyone else to help updating the Union pages instead. --Rumo 12:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

So far, things are falling into place mob-based, still. However, it's important to remember that they still could be zone-based because many beastmen groups are "assigned" to certain, and the only thing that truly suggest mob-based is that Gho'bu (Red Mages) gave away some En-spell II's, without the zone's mobs even present (the zone "belonging to" white mages). 20:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The NMs appear to add some specific treasure that is not common for that area/region. Gho'bu is a good example, a RDM adding a RDM spell to the pool, another would be Dirtyhanded Gochakzuk, a BLM, adding a Flare scroll. So it's probably a mix of area/region-specific items with some bonus drops determined by whichever NM was attacking. --Rumo 22:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Updated the above charts, they should now accommodate the zone-and-mob-based idea which appears to be correct. The number of people in the Union and cumulative EXP of the union would also be nice, if possible, but both of those are somewhat difficult to come by. 22:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible treasure by area
--Rumo 10:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ordelle Bronzepiece seems to drop for any Sandy Regions, as for the other loot I wasn't keeping a keen eye on it. (Oh, and granted with that logic you can guess Tukuku Whiteshell for windy areas and 1 Byne Bill for Bastok areas) --Lord0din69 11:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

One Hundred Byne Bill dropped in Rolanberry Fields (S) today... our Coyote Union got the killshot on Di'Dha Adamantfist, and both One Hundred Byne Bill and One Byne Bill were obtained from the coffer. --Kravler 10:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

KO'd Tally and No Treasure Box

 * Possible that if your entire Union is KO'd during end of Campaign Battle, then there will be no treasure chest regardless if how much effort was placed into the battle.

I was playing with my friend in a relatively empty battle. We were in the same union, and it was just us two in the union. Near the end of the battle we were KO'd right before they started giving out EXP and AN. We didn't see in the chat log that our chest as appeared. However, when we were raised we were given the notice that we had chance to claim the loot. Obviously since there were no chest, we weren't about to claim any loot.

--Lord0din69 11:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Is it possible that you missed the chance to open the chest because you waited too long while you were KO'd and the chest despawned?-- 13:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It was less than 2 minutes before I got back up to check. I've had people run back that took longer to open their chest.


 * The chat log literally did not appear up for our chest such as: "A coffer of spoils for _X_ Union has appeared!" did not show up.
 * After we got up we had the "Your valor in battle has earned you a claim to _X_ Union's spoils!" --Lord0din69 13:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there maybe some kind of minimum members or combined Union EXP required to have your chest pop at the end? I had a similar issue when I was alone in a Union but I was never KO'd during the battle. I received 900EXP at the end of the fight, if it matters. Suncedude 21:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no minimum requirement, as far as I know. I was the only member of the Eland in Campaign the other day, and one of three members in the battle alltogether. (It's possible that several other people joined and never left the C.A., I guess, but I obtained the items upon opening the coffer rather than them pooling.) However, I also died at the end of a similar scenario (the only one in my union) and got the message that I earned a claim while there were no coffers at all. EDIT: Ack, forgot to sign my post the other day. --Nuilvian 17:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I can attest to not needing more than 1 person in the Union to obtain items, as I was the only one in Bison Union and obtained the items as I opened the coffer at the end of the battle. --Vyvin 06:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Something similar happened to me. I also noticed that I still had my sword icon after the battle was over. I waited a few moments, thinking I was lagging, but it was down to just me and 1 other person and my send/receive was still fine. Possible glitch? Wysperfauna 00:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Now that you mention it, I also had the sword icon after the battle had ended when it happened to me. You may be right about it being a glitch. Suncedude 05:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've gotten the "You have resigned from  Union." And from what it looks like, when it says that, you do not get a chest if your union did not hit a specific combined xp (I just did one where I got 600xp, and no chest pop), or you did not meet the xp cap. Zauath 18:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * EDIT: It does say "...resigned from  Union" anyways, but I still think there must be a xp cap to break to get the chest to pop.
 * I got 2500 experience from the battle without coffers, and I've seen a chest pop with no mobs where 4 people obtained <100 xp each. {Nuilvian 17:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)}


 * About Treasure coffers appearing after battle. I think it is required that the Union has at least defeated one enemy for the coffer to spawn. Fighting in La Valule I got 1350xp/836AN but was unable to finish the Orc before the battle ended. A member of another Union successfully killed an Imp and only that Union coffer appeared. --Raydeus 17:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Amount of Treasure / XP Needed
I think we can agree that the maximum treasures you can obtain from 1 union chest would be 10 items. However, what determines how much treasure you get? --Lord0din69 15:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 5 Person Union, I managed to get lot options by just earning 340exp; Reward 3 items.
 * 4 Person Union, 2000+ exp; Reward 4 items.


 * 4 Person Union, 415 exp. Reward 2 items and ability to lot. 350 as the minimum for lotting rights appears to be valid. Currently undergoing more testing to prove. --Tifaia 16:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just got out of a fight with 315 xp, 5 person Union. The 350 cap may be lower then expected. Here's the picture to prove the xp/lot. Picture or it didn't happen. XD


 * The minimum you need to earn to get lotting rights is a different discussion. You can see this effect by just wall bashing only campaign battles, which you would earn 60exp or less and still get rights to lot for a treasure that does not exist. --Lord0din69 22:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 2 Person Union, total (combined) of 1500exp 1 item.
 * we were the only people in the area the entire time. --Lord0din69 08:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Are Separate Union Pages Necessary?
Frankly, I am not convinced that each Union will drop different lists of items. I think the drop list will vary by zone, and will not vary at all by the particular Union. The separate Unions are most likely an attempt to limit the number of people who will be lotting on particular items, to make the process more fair. --Ctownwoody 17:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, the pages were made too hastily and with no evidence that different unions drop different items. There several things that may effect drops, and should probably be recorded: area, area ownership, attacking/defending battle, attacking/defending forces, number of waves, union (just in case), number of members in union, battle outcome, accumulated EXP/AN of members. Most of these probably have no impact at all, but can't be completely ruled out without data.-- 10:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I pretty much agree as well, but I do think the separate pages are nice to have at least for a while from now on. After some time when the patterns become more clear, merge them in one page in some way or something I guess. --Sore wa sore, kore wa kore... 12:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I also just noticed that the CA NPCs say: "the choicest rewards will be reserved for those unions which make the greatest contributions in combat". This could imply one of two things: (1) that there's a single pool for the battle that is divided between unions based on contributions; or (2) that rewards are simply propotional to a union's contributions (and not dependent on other unions).-- 12:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That theory makes sense at first but is doesn't apply in all cases. Consider "wall bashing" only campaign battles, no one gets anything at all. Therefore, there can't possibly be a pre-set treasure pool. The amount in the treasure pool must be determined by how much "contributions" the unions make by passing some threshold. "Contributions" is usually related to the amount of exp earned at the end of battle since it is rather similar. --00:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read the other discussions.. As was and is currently being discussed above, there was no evidence (at the time of these pages' creation) for anything, as the union system was released barely hours before.It is also stated above (as well as by Dragoy), it is much easier to merge these lists together if they are not union-specific than it is to try to sort them out later if they are. I'm in the process of creating a combined list as I write this. Thanks~ 22:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I liked it the way it was, I like to know which group of waves (e.g. Shadowhorn / Shadowhorn Stormers) are associated with which unions and what rewards each wave can give. That is the point of the tables. -- 23:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That works too. The general consensus is that Union doesn't matter at all. The giant table at the top (I used NavFrames so it wouldn't take up the whole page) does sort by beastmen, but not Unions. Are the aforementioned giant charts okay to use on each Union's page? Once you get all of the enemy groups in there, it's huge. (Expand all of the frames and try to scroll down.) 23:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Edit: Using those charts in their current form is a bad idea because it appears Wikilinks automatically style links (so that you must change EACH individual link's color inside the link) Possibly we should still use a recolored version so that the Unions' pages aren't several yards long? 09:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the original change you made is rather LOUD, and the wording of the template (e.g. "we") is condescending and doesn't belong on article pages. The point is to have content on each union's page without making a big huge list/table. Also, I'm not sure who is doing it, but only sign your posts with 4 tildes, 5 tildes omits your username and only leaves a timestamp. -- 15:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That was me, I figured "Edit:" would give it away, and just put a timestamp on it. And the way these drops appear to work, each zone has its own drops (17 sections) and each mob group (~30-40 more) which is around 45~55 sections, and since Union doesn't matter it seems to make more sense to have one gigantic chart on Category:Unions than 5, identical, gigantic charts on each union's page. I actually asked Gahoo if it would be alright to put a box like that on every page -- possibly "we" was a bad choice, but you could have just changed Template:Union Treasure if that was the problem. 21:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "The point is to have content on each union's page without making a big huge list/table." -Charitwo Take a look at Bison Union How is this not a huge list/table. It is even more confusing that the one we have here in the discussion with the color coded tables. I don't even want to show you the other separate Union pages because they even make less sense as they do repeating mobs on different rows with different drops. --Lord0din69 04:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey 0din.. just wondering, what could we do to make that color-coded chart less confusing? I thought about it quite a bit, but it's a complicated system to sort out. I decided that I may as well put the zone-specific mobs as a subsection of each zone, rather than clog the bottom with all of the beastmen groups. The good news is, if data keeps pouring in, we can have this sorted in no time and then decide the simplest way to sort it. The bad news is, we have seven different places into which information is pouring (Five union pages, the color-coded chart, and people still continue to use the older chart in the middle of this page.) I took the time to re-type all of these once (into the color coded chart) and added the box (see below for example) to each page so we would not run into this problem. Unfortunately this was apparently too 'bold' and required IMMEDIATE reversion despite the clear evidence and pressing need - I say pressing need because at the time it took several hours to compile that table, while searching for repeat items (anything from 2+ groups in the same zone was added to the top, unlabeled section, while ALL others were kept in the zone's section though sorted by mob merely until we can prove that they are or aren't from the zone.) At this point, it'll take more than several hours and I will be at band camp all of next week so even if I had the motivation to redo this I couldn't for weeks. If anyone wants to divide the workload I'll help!
 * As a final note, I don't understand how this is 'condescending.' Actually, I can stretch it to see how you could arrive at that description, but is there no need for professionalism on FFXIclopedia? If I saw a section that said "Hey guys, don't use this anymore. We've found some more stuff about it and thought it would be way cooler if you used this page instead! Kthx!" I would feel inclined to revert that. But it's not condescending, at least. ^-^ And even if this truly is innappropriate, there are these magical things that the MediaWiki gods created called Templates. Using these powerful relics (:P), one may put an identical section on multiple pages which can be updated at the same time! With merely one edit, the condescending tone could have been fixed, while remaining effective in that we would now have a single, successful chart rather than seven. This single chart would, at this point, be near providing mostly accurate data all from one single place, rather than our current number: seven! That was the point of the table.
 * 03:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Only thing I can think of is to make it as easy as possible for people just to dump information. Such as just say what loot there was, who attacked, and where they were playing at. Those 3 critical information is needed. If they want they can also add what union they joined, although it seems like we believe it doesn't matter which union it is. Then with the raw information we can have people sort it out later. I kept on thinking of ways to make an easy to understand chart, but it is impossible with wiki formating. The other problem with just a chart is what happens if two or more factions attack the same place at once? Then you can't figure out who actually dropped what, which then you need to note everyone that is attacking. You can look at my userpages to see what I've done with the color coded chart. It branched off the one existing here. --Lord0din69 22:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Only thing I can think of is to make it as easy as possible for people just to dump information. Such as just say what loot there was, who attacked, and where they were playing at. Those 3 critical information is needed. If they want they can also add what union they joined, although it seems like we believe it doesn't matter which union it is. Then with the raw information we can have people sort it out later. I kept on thinking of ways to make an easy to understand chart, but it is impossible with wiki formating. The other problem with just a chart is what happens if two or more factions attack the same place at once? Then you can't figure out who actually dropped what, which then you need to note everyone that is attacking. You can look at my userpages to see what I've done with the color coded chart. It branched off the one existing here. --Lord0din69 22:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Zone and Mob relationship to Drops
I'm a bit doubtful that it has any difference as to what mob attacks the zone. I finished a several North Gustaberg (S) fights and they dropped relatively the same items but with different mobs attacking.

For example
 * Shadoweye
 * Steel Bullet Pouch
 * Gold Ore
 * Silver Ore
 * Shadowhand
 * Burst
 * Beetle Blood
 * Feyweald Log
 * Kopparnickel Ore
 * Heavy Quadav backplate
 * Fool's Gold Ore
 * 1 Byne Bill
 * Gold Ore
 * Steel Bullet Pouch
 * Do'Bho Venomtail
 * Silver Ore
 * Gold ore
 * Cor. Bullet Pouch
 * 1 Byne Bill
 * Fool's Gold Ore
 * Goblin Mess Tin

As you could see they all have some repeating items, although not enough data can be given to show all repeating items.
 * 1 Byne Bill
 * Steel Bullet Pouch
 * Gold Ore
 * Silver Ore
 * Fool's Gold Ore

If you cross compare it to the older Possible treasure by area list above you get even more repeats.
 * Goblin Mess Tin
 * Heavy Quadav backplate

Which leads me to believe that it can't be mob related drops. If so then you would be able to get 1 Byne Bill when Shadowhand attacks sandy or windy areas, which wouldn't make sense. --Lord0din69 03:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * While zones probably do matter, certain mob groups are set to certain areas. Now, this probably doesn't mean much, but I think that what you are referring to is the underlying items withing a zone/region. I do think that instead of recording as many places a person can go, but to follow a specific mob group and see it's pattern as well. Just an idea. --Zauath 04:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

For one example to disprove your point, En-spell IIs only come with What'ever Crimsonarmor. Plus, Tornado has dropped from Yaa Haqa, Flare from Gochakzuk, and you yourself just said Burst from Shadowhand. Seeing repeats? The generally accepted idea at this point is that each zone has its group of drops, and each group of mobs adds certain things to that. 07:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is at least some items that could be mob only related drops, but it doesn't stand out as much as the repeating items. For example you just said En-spell II's only from Crimsonarmos, but I got it from Go'Dha's Elite Raider at Crawler's Nest too. It's going to be really hard to say without a large data set. Wouldn't it make more sense to just list all the items you can get in an area first before grouping them like in unknown BCNM groupings drops. This way at least people can attempt to sort it out later. Additionally with multiple waves its hard to determine who dropped what. With low intel on my server, it is hard to track down the movement of certain groups to confirm drops such as Shadowhand for Burst.
 * Gho'Da is also a Red Mage group. They use Enfeebling magic and Chainspell, although Jademaiden can use Ancient Magic and Sleepga II while using Chainspell. Also, it makes more sense to record all available information now, look for patterns, and then remove the unnecessary information than it does to list only one possibility (i.e. Zone or Mobs) and have to go back and re-sort everything later, especially because some of the items may be so few and far between that we won't see another to verify it for a year. 21:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Union Coffer Locations
Although most of them are fairly obvious being around the fortifications, the dungeons ones are not as obvious. Maybe there should be a note of it somewhere. For example Crawlers' Nest (S) is at I-10. And The Eldieme Necropolis (S) one is near the are you zone in from and so forth. --Lord0din69 08:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Redundancy Notice~!
Why are there two sections - "Spoils of War" and "Item distribution - which serve the same purpose? This new section states as fact things that are still being discussed/argued over on this page, and also some things which are (to the best of my knowledge) incorrect or misleading, such as "What can drop overall is dependent on the forc(es) being fought during the time of the campaign battle. Each batallion has its own specific potential drops. Drops may or may not be dependent on the area they are being fought in." The statements are both true. The drops in a campaign battle are pooled from possible spoils from an area, which are added to by the enemy battalions. However, no one added this to the main page because there was not really a consensus. "This threshold is quite low and unless the battle is really short (such as when only sabotage units fight) or you are alone in your union and fail to gather enough action, this will not occur." is not really a fact. I have been alone in my union many times and have yet to not get a coffer (except for a few battles in which I was KO'd.) And for statements like "It is as of yet unknown if unions compete with eachother for a piece of a single big loot pool, or if each union has its own loot pool calculated based on its performance," is it not better to merely say nothing about the topic rather than specify that it's unknown? I'm not going to change this because people seem to be unhappy with edits I'm making... either way I would ask that people look over their changes before they hit the save button... 03:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I added those parts because I thaught they were neccesary. The part about not getting a coffer is from my own personal experience in campaign battles involving sabotage forces. The two sections you mentioned are NOT redudant. Spoils of War talks about how items get into the pool, Item Distribution talks about how to actually acces the pool once campaign ends. While I'll admit there are parts that have "maybe" and "might" in it, I do point out that that part references to the talk page. It's no use discussing for ages on the talk page, leaving other players without any info whatsoever for a long time. Even "maybe" and "probably" information is very useful because it points players into a certain direction on how it all works. Most players honestly never look at the talk page, I can assure you of that. And no it is much better to say something than to say nothing. Saying nothing gives the impression that a certain part is not even a possible variable in the whole thing, saying it might have an influence points to a possible involvement. If it is later proven wrong, so be it, but that's how theories are born and corrected. I put some of the proposed theories, along with my own findings, on the front page. If you don't like it, edit it, but don't delete it. At most a verification tag or a better reference to the talk page is needed.DarkJack 16:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible Loot related to Allied Forces?
I was just thinking is it also possible for loot to be related to which allied forces is attacking/defending? Cause maybe it is possible that the allied army will reward some possible drops too such as currency. I don't have any data yet to support this since I'll have to go back to dig it up. However, it seems a bit odd that beastmen would carry non-beastmen currency. --Lord0din69 21:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)