Yes, %chance to get an item = % damage dealt is not a good solution for the players who cant deal much damage to these golems. I think you also mean that the effort spent by the players who are at both ends of the dps is pretty much the same, otherwise it means that the least effort is equal to the most effort spent, which is wrong in so many ways.
However, the issue we're discussing is not restricted to players who deal the highest damage, it is valid for all players who spend the most effort regardless of their template or suit: As a player with a basic suit, you spend an hour to kill a golem. All of a sudden, a player with a good suit comes, spends 2 minutes to give enough damage to loot the golem and gets the item.
My question is, do you agree that the above situation is an example of using this looting system in a selfish and unfair way?
Technically, the first guy with basic gear should be able to do enough damage in an hour to guarantee looting rights. As long as he has looting rights, he has a chance to have the special item drop in his instance. If he has done more damage than the 2 min uber suited guy, he would still have a better chance.
An analogy would be like buying the weekly lottery. Guy 1 spends 10 bucks a day queuing up to buy tickets. That 10 bucks a day is his daily limit. He has the potential to spend more as time passes. He has done this for the past 7 days.
Guy 2 only managed to get into the action on the last day. But he puts in 70 bucks in that 1 day.
Guy 3 also caught wind of the lottery on the 7th day. But he is poor and has only 10 bucks to buy the tickets.
Each person has a chance to win the jackpot. Guy 1 and guy 2 has the same chance. Guy 3 has the least chance. But there's still a chance. And it's as fair as the situation allows.
What seems to be the problem now is that, if any of the other 2 won the lottery, guy 1 is unhappy. He calls it unfair because he has spent the most time queuing up to buying tickets. But these 2 jokers rushed in at the last minute and snatched the prize from him. Guy 1 feels that he has been wronged and the authorities must fix it.
Now, guy 2, he feels that he spent 70 bucks, just like the the first guy. He feels he should get the same chance at the jackpot. The first guy having started buying 7 days ago should not have any bearing on the chances of getting the jackpot. Even more important, being there first should not give guy 1 a monopoly on the jackpot, and should not block out other people from winning the jackpot.
Now guy 3, he spent the least, and have the least chance on getting the jackpot. But he still has a chance. The lottery jackpot doesn't "belong" to who was there first. Nor does it belong to the person who spends the most money.
I hope you are beginning to understand now. There is actually no unfairness. Guy 1 only perceived it that way because he spent the most time and seemingly worked the hardest. However, the system itself is as fair as it can get in this situation.
I know it's frustrating to be robbed of the jackpot by some punk that just came into town, but without a doom arty point system, this is as fair as it goes. Plus, at other times, you could very well be that punk that just rolled into town. How would you like to be told, "we're sorry, because you are new, no matter how much you spend, we won't give you a chance at the jackpot, we've reserved it for the first person that bought a ticket".