0.10.3c Patch Notes

I understand how this is better for public randoms but for co-op with friends removing the names is detrimental.

Many have suggested that giving party leader the power to set the loot rules is a good way to go. I would agree with this.
Perhaps there can be a loot penalty for setting "friendlier" conditions and/or a buff for more cut throat settings as an incentive to engage in total FFA parties.

Have to say i really like the removal of names on loot. Now when timer is of its a FFA drop, no whine.

I'd still like to see the mapdrops always goes to the creator of the map with unlimited timer and everything else FFA no timers.

Atleast the first part, that way public groups could run something other then 66 maps and it would be easier to fill up spots in 75-77 maps with people you don't know.

"

TremorAcePV wrote:

"

Snipers wrote:

We use(d) a FFA system for them. We don't want to play a full FFA system for all loot. We like to respect that the game divvys up the loot for us to an extent. We play with a mix of melee and ranged, so it would be unfair for the range to always lose out on drops, and there's really no way to split the loot up equitably after a run most times.

So... you don't like FFA... but you like FFA.

... How about this, you alternate. Start with group leader and work down the list as a party. If something good drops, the party leader gets it first. Then the next good drop goes to the 2nd on the list and so on.

If you're friends and play together all the time, that should suffice.

This seems reasonable on the surface, except for two items. One, we play with a group larger then 6. So there will be times we don't have all the same people. Two, there will be times we can only play a few maps in a row. Using your system, we would have to keep track, which, let's be honest, is way too much work for a video game. It's much simpler to just put names back on loot.

Might I ask, why are you so against it? You've followed me throughout this issue, so, why are you so against putting the names back on loot? Especially in co-op games only, give the leader some sort of control. I don't mind not having names in public games, I personally enjoy FFA loot and don't go on public parties that are "no ninja" type parties. But when I play with my friends, I like to keep it casual. Is that so bad?

Looks like I'll take a break from this game for a long while, hard to enjoy both public and private games now. It's a mess every party I'm in.

"

DeF46 wrote:

In every day life a similar situation would be greatyl frowned upon, for example racing to the cashier with your cart full of goods when you see someone going for it at a slower pace. then you turn around and you brandish your forearm first clenched, and you go HUMPFFFF!! YEAHHHH! I beat you to it!

It's really the same. But hey GGG probably thinks "this is just a game", "why so serious?" ... indeed why? Right? Video games after all are made for 12 year olds, it's not a mature art form, and it's not meant to be played by people conscious about other's feelings...

If you want the game to imitate real life and not offer an escape from real life, then please, just open your door and go outside. Lots of realistic stuff to do there and apparently everyone involved with Real Life plays fairly!

It's fine as it is, better then what it was even. If you want fairness, go play blandwars where everything is instanced... I mean play single player and everyone else that feels the same way can play single player and none of you can ever hurt each others feelings anymore.

Alternatively find a game that suits you instead of trying to force games to suit you.

If you play with friends, just split loot at the end of the night, roughly evenly. Give people items if they need them. It's not hard.

Relying on RNG is not a very "friendly" system anyway.

"

Snipers wrote:

Might I ask, why are you so against it? You've followed me throughout this issue, so, why are you so against putting the names back on loot?

Anything that will teach the masses entitlement is bad. So bad that just about anything that replaces it is a good improvement.

As for your concerns on my suggestion, better idea:

Only pick up what's good for your current build. Anything else, leave on the ground. If no one picks it up, FFA. Maps go to map opener (assuming you are in a map), otherwise, choose a leader and allocate it yourself along with currency.

That, and I just don't like hand holding.

"

TremorAcePV wrote:

"

Snipers wrote:

Might I ask, why are you so against it? You've followed me throughout this issue, so, why are you so against putting the names back on loot?

Anything that will teach the masses entitlement is bad. So bad that just about anything that replaces it is a good improvement.

As for your concerns on my suggestion, better idea:

Only pick up what's good for your current build. Anything else, leave on the ground. If no one picks it up, FFA. Maps go to map opener (assuming you are in a map), otherwise, choose a leader and allocate it yourself along with currency.

That, and I just don't like hand holding.

That's right! Teach those young whippersnappers that life is rough! If you want your loot, you gotta earn it the hard way!

You're making no sense at all. Either the system is instanced, in which case loot is divided roughly evenly and the division is enforced, or the loot is FFA, with timers or whatever , in which case the loot is yours if you get to it in time and not yours if you don't.

Where do you get entitlement or hand holding out of this? Quit the false stereotyping already!

I play games to have fun. Fighting over loot is not fun for me. Hence GGG loses my business and potentially a lot of other players, all because they are too stubborn to give us the option to configure the loot system in our games.

Just chiming in regarding how unnamed loot obfuscates things when playing in a party with friends. With 2 player parties, it's still somewhat alright to split up the loot according to what lights up on your screen. Any more players than that, it would be a potential headache to keep track especially in the midst of battle where players actually focus on killing instead of looting.

I'd go even as far as to say to leave the nametags on permanently even long after loot has turned FFA.

Of course, this is only speaking from the perspective of a friends-only party player. Best thing is still have user-defined looting options for public groups and private groups.

Dear GGG,

Please just stop fucking around trying to make loot work the way you think it should work. Please just give us options to either enjoy the "thrill" of having loot ninja'd away or to have full loot assignment with indefinite timers. Seriously...it's time to let the players choose how they want to play instead of forcing us to play "your way". Why is it so hard to just let us choose how we want loot to work in OUR parties? I realize that Chris thinks the excitement of seeing your name on a piece of loot for a second and a half might give someone a thrill but the disappointment at getting that loot snagged before you get there due to desync or dickheads or whatever far outweighs the thrill. Just give us CHOICES and stop forcing YOUR way on us. It's pretty obvious that about half the player base finds YOUR way to be less than ideal.

In fact...take the chance. Give players the choice and see how many parties are formed playing your way vs. the number that want to have loot assignment.

Peace out.

P.S. I still love you guys but this latest attempt to address the 900 page loot post is pretty sad. You keep saying POE is about making tough choices...well, time for you to make one and let us have some more freedom in game at the risk of finding out you were wrong about what's "fun".