0.10.3c Patch Notes

"

MercurialMaven wrote:

Spoiler

I'm pleasantly surprised you asked. It suggests that you recognize this is in fact opinion-based and centered on the loot system, not entitlement.

It's not fun to me because:

1. It interplays poorly with desync and lag, imbalance due to differences in connection quality, body blocking (both from monsters and players), melee vs ranged, tanky vs high dps, the game's poor pathing and other related bugs, and so on.

2. It encourages uncooperative play in what should be a cooperative experience. Look at Kripp'ss latest video for all his ideas on how to troll in public games.

3. I can't rely on gentleman's rules in a public game, because you're playing with anonymous people that suffer no consequences for breaking your agreement.

4. I would rather focus 100% of my attention on killing challenging mobs than have to context switch to grabbing loot as fast as I can when one or more monsters die. I don't think GGG should have to rely on FFA loot to keep the game fast paced and tense. The mobs themselves should be providing the challenge.

5. I don't like the ground being cluttered with a million whites. Instanced loot would solve this very easily.

That's what I came up with off the top of my head. When it comes down to it, though, it's just a matter of fun. Giving us the choice of loot system would allow you to have fun your way and me to have fun my way. I don't understand how anyone comes out a loser in that scenario.

It's completely based on entitlement from my perspective, but I understand that you are against FFA but I don't understand why.

1. Bugs will be fixed, and melee vs ranged + tanky vs high DPS are character choices. They should influence everything, even what loot you get.

2. You obviously don't know where you are. Wraeclast is supposed to be the type of environment where you don't know if you can trust your fellow players and they can betray you in taking loot that would better serve you. This will better manifest itself in Cut Throat leagues but will likely have some presence in all leagues. Encouraging and allowing are two different things. It doesn't encourage, only allows.

3. Then don't play by gentlemen's rules. Pick everything up, then give it to whoever needs it. Build good will with randoms and they will play by the same rules. That's how I do it.

4. You are playing an ARPG, not an MMORPG. Two very different genres.

5. Instanced is not an option. It sucks server resources, and we all know how bad desync is already. Having an option to only highlight certain item types would be good. Like rares/uniques, although I'd prefer they just makes items drop less.

That's because you don't understand what my fun is or how I have it. The same way I don't understand how you can play a game that wasn't made for the fun you want and can ask it to change. I can't describe how or why allowing players to play an easier version of a game alongside players who are playing a harder version devalues the choice to play a harder version, but it does and it's not fun.

I'm for leagues with different loot systems, but anything that affects a league I'm in is unacceptable for me.

"

Snipers wrote:

Spoiler

So, once again, my question for you is why are you the one who should decide how I play the game with my friends? I have said multiple times I don't mind FFA in a public party. I even go so far as to not join Pubs with "Ninja=Kick" type title threads. But when I play with my friends, why can't I have names? Why does this bother you so? It will have 100% zero affect on you.

That's the part about this debate I can't wrap my head around. I don't want to ruin your fun, why are you trying to ruin mine?

I'm just gonna stop talking about this in this thread now. Not the right place for it.

Anyway,

"

Chris wrote:

• Was it easier to read what items drop now that fewer are allocated and the size of the item hovers doesn't change?
• Does the increased allocation duration help enough in terms of being able to grab items in time assuming you react quickly?

Yes. This is great.

Yes. In fact, I'd say the timers are a little high. 2.1 seconds would be lovely, I imagine.

"

TremorAcePV wrote:

1. Bugs will be fixed, and melee vs ranged + tanky vs high DPS are character choices. They should influence everything, even what loot you get.

2. You obviously don't know where you are. Wraeclast is supposed to be the type of environment where you don't know if you can trust your fellow players and they can betray you in taking loot that would better serve you. This will better manifest itself in Cut Throat leagues but will likely have some presence in all leagues. Encouraging and allowing are two different things. It doesn't encourage, only allows.

3. Then don't play by gentlemen's rules. Pick everything up, then give it to whoever needs it. Build good will with randoms and they will play by the same rules. That's how I do it.

4. You are playing an ARPG, not an MMORPG. Two very different genres.

5. Instanced is not an option. It sucks server resources, and we all know how bad desync is already. Having an option to only highlight certain item types would be good. Like rares/uniques, although I'd prefer they just makes items drop less.

I'm just gonna stop talking about this in this thread now. Not the right place for it.

I'm glad you are going to stop talking about it. It means I get the last word in!

1. No, your build should certainly not affect your looting opportunities. We will forever disagree here.

2. FFA loot is appropriate in tabletop DnD. If the party has two swordsmen and exactly one leet sword of awesomeness + 10 drops, then you have the time, personal interaction, and creative freedom to work it out.

Let me tell you where you REALLY are. You are playing online in an ARPG with a bunch of anonymous players you may never see again and with little to no creative freedom to enforce any kind of player-invented loot sharing system. In this type of world, instanced loot is 100% superior.

3. I don't play by gentleman's rules in public games. In fact, I've gotten pretty good at loot swiping. My goodness, you're really good at diverting attention from the real issue, aren't you?

4. I'm pretty sure if you look up ARPG, FFA loot isn't in the definition. No one in D3 complains about instanced loot; they complain about lack of character customization, variety of gear, and end game content.

5. It certainly doesn't suck server resources... at all. I say this as a professional programmer with years of experience and also graduate level studies in networking.

So, to summarize, I said FFA loot isn't fun and you told me that:

1. FFA loot is a mandatory part of the ARPG experience, which is false.
2. FFA loot fits the style of the game, which is subjective at best.
3. I should suck it up or find a new game.

I at least agree with your last point, given that GGG has expressed no intention to fix anything.

"

TremorAcePV wrote:

"

Snipers wrote:

Spoiler

So, once again, my question for you is why are you the one who should decide how I play the game with my friends? I have said multiple times I don't mind FFA in a public party. I even go so far as to not join Pubs with "Ninja=Kick" type title threads. But when I play with my friends, why can't I have names? Why does this bother you so? It will have 100% zero affect on you.

That's the part about this debate I can't wrap my head around. I don't want to ruin your fun, why are you trying to ruin mine?

I'm just gonna stop talking about this in this thread now. Not the right place for it.

That's a super cop out and you know it. You don't have a response that has a leg to stand on.

Chris, the change to Blues was great. Timer is fine. Loot spam was -not- at all taken care of in this patch, as too many items still drop in general and clutter the ground. Getting rid of names is literally going to make myself, and my friends, quit this game. There's your feedback.

"

TremorAcePV wrote:

I like how you said it was time to make a hard choice, then immediately followed that up with telling them what to do when that's conveniently exactly what you want them to do.

You missed the point. They're shoving one way down our throats and the only thing most of the people objecting are asking for is choice. So, GGG can choose to continue with their "our way or the highway" philosophy or they can choose to give the players choices when partying. I think making the choice to give us a choice is a difficult choice. You can choose to understand why someone might think that or you can choose not too.

"

TremorAcePV wrote:

I also like how you said "OUR parties" when those parties are in THEIR game. A free one, I might add.

My opinion is that it is as much OUR game as it is theirs. It wouldn't be much fun (let alone profitable) for GGG to be playing all by themselves, now would it? And I've been a committed supporter ever since I downloaded the game during close beta. I just think they're being a bit obtuse with the loot rules.

"

TremorAcePV wrote:

If they do that, I'll be in one of the parties with pure FFA enabled. And I'll be a nice guy and share with everyone. Because that's how I play the game.

Good for you. I'd be happy to party up with you any time. However, in a game like this, especially a free one, there are likely to be more douche nozzles than "nice guys" so let's keep it real.

Keep in mind I'm not suggesting they change to one system or the other. I believe, and have always believed (and experienced), that choices make for happy players. I think GGG et al are being too rigid in their cutthroat mentality (read some of the early opinions on this matter which Chris posted). It's obviously a big enough issue that it deserves more than one second of attention and that's all they gave it in this patch. That's disappointing.

"

geradon wrote:

"

razzeus wrote:

I'm in the exact same boat as you. My friends and I only play in our own little group. We relied on the named system, giving the item to whom ever it was listed for even after the timer ran out.

you can still keep playing it that way. just don't get items which aren't allocated to you in the first place.
for items where the allocation is over and you don't know for whom it dropped just do it the same way as before as there were also plenty of items which were not assigned anymore and nobody knew whom they belonged to.

"

razzeus wrote:

I like the idea that some have mentioned where the party leader has control over it.

would you pay microtransaction points for the option to have instanced loot or loot names?

Before this change, my friends and I had very little trouble giving items to whom it was dropped for. If we didn't know whose it was or it never had a name we usually just said "I'll take it if no one else wants it" or something to that effect. If it was a desirable item and we didn't see the players name. We went to random.org and whoever got the highest roll out of 100 got the item. We used random.org maybe once every few days at most.

Now with this loot system change the majority of our conversation in ventrilo while playing is "who's item is this?". Its ridiculous and frustrating. It's not fun for friends to play with this style drop system. When something drops and I don't see it at the time it drops. I have no idea if the timer ran out already or if its mine. So I ask "is this mine?". If the rest of my party didn't see it right away either then "I don't know" is their response. This presents problems that rarely occurred before.

We're not the only ones who feel this way either as some of the responses to this thread illustrate. There needs to be a middle ground. There is absolutely no reason why there cant be an option for the party leader to toggle this on or off.

I don't believe many players would agree with or pay for instanced loot options in party. Look at any other game with loot and see if they offer an instance loot option to purchase in their micro stores. Nexon for example is one of the biggest cash cows in the gaming industry and as far as I am aware. Not a single game they have currently running sells this sort of option.

"

Phaeded wrote:

It's obviously a big enough issue that it deserves more than one second of attention and that's all they gave it in this patch. That's disappointing.

That's probably really unfair to say. They started a loot thread that got to over 800+ pages about a year ago. Based on what this patch did, some feedback from that was listened to and utilized.

Based on how small the changes are and the difference in time between when they acknowledged the problem and did it, I'd say they thought about it for a long time before doing anything and are either testing the waters, or trying to find a way to balance what they want with what a (imo small) part of the community wants.

Chris, please just do a poll. Make it IP/Region specific and only accounts over a week can take it (this is to prevent spammers and people who don't have enough experience skewing the results). I'd love to see the numbers on who *really* wants FFA/instanced loot. I don't imagine it could hurt.

"

Snipers wrote:

That's a super cop out and you know it. You don't have a response that has a leg to stand on.

Not really. I'd like to limit GGG's reading so they can spend more time working on the game... or, you know, living a life.

About your instanced comment, explain, briefly, if possible, how 2-6 sets of loot !> 1 set of loot. GGG has already stated that instances do indeed drain server resources, so I would imagine making it so that every single player has an instance (for loot) within an instance would most certainly magnify and multiply the problem.

"

TremorAcePV wrote:

About your instanced comment, explain, briefly, if possible, how 2-6 sets of loot !> 1 set of loot. GGG has already stated that instances do indeed drain server resources, so I would imagine making it so that every single player has an instance (for loot) within an instance would most certainly magnify and multiply the problem.

Why are you repeating your false assumptions? Instancing loot will not have any impact on server performance. There is still exactly one instance and the exact same amount of loot and the exact same amount of calculations that occur on the server. What you are saying here is patently false.

All that changes versus the current system is that the timer for loot becomes infinite. How in the world will that dramatically alter server performance?

Quest items are already instanced anyway. Better make them FFA so the devs can save on server space.

Probably the worst decision you guys have made GGG! Like really a FFA loot system???? Can you at least put names back on. So sick of ppl ninjaing my fucking loot! This needs to be changed ASAP! Or I'm out.

"

MercurialMaven wrote:

"

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.

The problem is there are 2 camps. Those that like PVE to be cooperative and those that want to compete against the others they are killing stuff with. Nothing is going to change this and this argument is never going to end.

The question is will the developers support 1 mode which many including me won't play? This will reduce the time I will play the game since I cannot play half of it since I find it not fun (why I play). What is the fear that most people want to play cooperative PVE? Why not have both modes?

The developer never posted why people playing in a way he does not like is a problem. Is it loot creep? Is it inattentive play? Is it leaching? Those would be valid arguments.

"The developer likes cut throat PVE" is not a valid response unless there are game reasons for his decisions. I posted a few valid ones he might feel. I would like to have a developer post if possible what game decisions would be compromised with a 30 second timer.

David