0.9.10 Information and News

"

Langly wrote:

Frankly I cant remember ever playing a game that didn't gave me that choice

This whole thread is getting out of hand. Diablo 2 was a HUGE success and lasted decades without giving you options of how loot dropped! In fact I can for the love of me not think of a game that does give you options. So yes, I guess if GGG wants to pilot another first that works....... :)

But seriously - Any manufacturer will tell you - LIMIT the options! If your colour range is White, Black and Blue the customer will want Pink! But that won't stop him buying the product.

I played Diablo 2 for many years and there were very seldom fights over loot drops. In fact I don't think I ever experienced the kind of nonsense that happens here in the "LFM Chaos Leech" games. I mean seriously if you don't like the bossy party leader don't join his game. Likewise if the "Leech" is (LOL) stealing your loot - get over it - and boot him from the party - good luck to fill your games after you build up a reputation for being a greedy pig.

"

brgillespie wrote:

GGG could always use Torchlight 2's system of dividing up loot between players:

It doesn't!

Basically, every player gets loot proportionate to if they were playing single-player. However, the player is only able to see the loot that belongs to him/her. To everyone else, it's invisible.

No squabbling, no "I want that unique!"

You can also easily share items between your party members through a quick trade window.

This is what happens in Guild Wars 2 as well, I believe.

I am torn. I live and game by the mantra, 'don't play with dicks' (crass of me, but I'll be honest: it really works), with the footnote 'at least, not twice', and so I like FFA loot because I can leave things to my friends if I want, or they can for me. It's a trust thing.

But I also appreciate the idea of playing 'like it's a single player game' when it comes to loot because I won't feel bad if something drops that the other person might want but isn't going to say. 'Don't play with dicks' usually bounces the other way and ends up being 'play with people too nice to say what they want', after all.

I think this 'timed allocation' thing is worth testing, and clearly so do GGG. Whether it's the best or worst of both worlds remains to be seen.

I think the timed allocation may be a happy medium that will satisfy both groups. Will have to wait and see.

My main complaint against FFA loot (besides it limiting the willingness of people to party - wait till you are in a pug when a mirror drops) is that it forces me to stop and say things like "hey do you need that alc?" and I know they need the alc, but I have to ask the question anyways... like when you're with a group of friends and you have to ask if they want that last slice of pizza, of course they want the last slice of pizza, the question is really "who wants to be the nice guy?"

Groovy

maybe individual loot would make quantity and rarity mods harder to implement?

how about:
in normal there will be a time gap or really single player loot (better with time gap)
or even that all can see but only the killer can take (works best)
but with party the gap is gone if you are in one party lern to play together
this is the most common way i saw in games

btw... if someone thores something all will see what he did and will have a chance to take it

"

Langly wrote:

I could construct dozens of situations where FFA is the worse loot system in response to your example but I'm sure there enough of that in the threat already so I wont bother with that.

There are an equal number of arguments for each side. Neither side is inherently right, since they're all opinions. The only scenario in which I find FFA worse is when someone is intentionally focusing on nothing but loot in an effort to grab every good item. There's already a solution for these people: kick. That's my opinion.

"

Langly wrote:

But this point is really interesting, I know that a single system is never going to satisfy all players but I never saw someone being against having the options that would make the majority happy because he would have to look a little longer for a party ...

It's not just about browsing for parties. It's about streamlining and homogenizing the action portion of the multiplayer experience. Joining parties should be quick and easy.

"

Langly wrote:

Seriously you want the loot system you like and don't want any other because of such a minor inconvenience ? That's pretty selfish :/

Is GGG selfish for only wanting FFA? Are they selfish for not allowing every option people have requested? I don't think so. GGG created this game with full knowledge that many players like individual loot. They chose to use FFA because it embodies the setting of the game, and it's a feature that modern games are lacking. It makes PoE different from all the titles hitting the market these days. PoE is a game designed around the dev team's personal tastes; they're making a game they would want to play. It's targeted at players who are like them. Timed allocation is a compromise against the system they want.

"

Langly wrote:

Frankly I cant remember ever playing a game that didn't gave me that choice, it the most basic in my opinion when joining a party.

I've never played a game with loot options. I've played different games to include nearly every system, but never one that gave options. A singular system isn't anywhere near uncommon in loot-based games.

"

WhiteBoy88 wrote:

GGG created this game with full knowledge that many players like individual loot.

how did they found out about that? at some whiners in the forum who claimed they didn't party because they fear a ripp off with "free for all loot"?
i suggested a forum poll to get the opinion of people who don't post in the forum too but nobody answered on this suggestion.

i wonder how they implemented the loot timer without destroying the dark ingame feeling through technical nonsense. i would imagine a black skull hovering over the item until it's free for everybody to take.

"

WhiteBoy88 wrote:

There are an equal number of arguments for each side. Neither side is inherently right, since they're all opinions. The only scenario in which I find FFA worse is when someone is intentionally focusing on nothing but loot in an effort to grab every good item. There's already a solution for these people: kick. That's my opinion.

Yeah, thats why I didn't want to start recounting them all.

"

WhiteBoy88 wrote:

It's not just about browsing for parties. It's about streamlining and homogenizing the action portion of the multiplayer experience. Joining parties should be quick and easy.

And it would still be, I didn't see the join Party screen but I cant imagine that there would be all that many Informations on a party that you need. Player names, Classes and Lootorder. Depending on how it works the difficulty settings, I do not know how you set them, if you do by logging on you wont need them.

"

WhiteBoy88 wrote:

Is GGG selfish for only wanting FFA? Are they selfish for not allowing every option people have requested? I don't think so. GGG created this game with full knowledge that many players like individual loot. They chose to use FFA because it embodies the setting of the game, and it's a feature that modern games are lacking. It makes PoE different from all the titles hitting the market these days. PoE is a game designed around the dev team's personal tastes; they're making a game they would want to play. It's targeted at players who are like them. Timed allocation is a compromise against the system they want.

I have no idea what they are thinking, I dont know them after all :). They could basically make whatever they wanted but I'm pretty sure that "what they like" isn't the only thing that they should keep in mind. I'm pretty sure they want this game to be a success too. I simply cant understand the stance that they should be only one way and everyone has to use it, you said yourself that it is not the system they wanted so there is more than just what they want. If you could chose at this point everyone can take exactly the system they want. No compromise, everyone gets what they wanted.

"

WhiteBoy88 wrote:

I've never played a game with loot options. I've played different games to include nearly every system, but never one that gave options. A singular system isn't anywhere near uncommon in loot-based games.

Yeah, another mentioned D2, dont really remember it but I think it was FFA. Would explain why I always played solo unless I was doing PVP. Maybe the games I played where more in the direction of with each other instead of permanently against each other. In the end no single system will ever come even close to please everyone. Still I dont get why it absolutely has to be a single system, just doesn't makes sense to me ...

FFA loot discourages group play.