Looting -- The official thread for discussing the loot system. Updated 18th March, 2013.

"

iamstryker wrote:

"

Roenie wrote:

If i was GGG, i would enable two loot systems, to be chosen by the party creator.
With no one system being perfect, and so many opinions it seems that's the only way to go. The most gentle of those options should not be "no one but me can touch or even see my loot" because if that was an option almost everyone would choose it, because they will choose anything that makes sure they will never ever lose a single item to another player. Even if it makes the game more boring. It's that risk aversion thing that humans have.

I see nothing boring about it. But thats just my opinion.

"

Roenie wrote:

"

iamstryker wrote:

"

Roenie wrote:

If i was GGG, i would enable two loot systems, to be chosen by the party creator.
With no one system being perfect, and so many opinions it seems that's the only way to go. The most gentle of those options should not be "no one but me can touch or even see my loot" because if that was an option almost everyone would choose it, because they will choose anything that makes sure they will never ever lose a single item to another player. Even if it makes the game more boring. It's that risk aversion thing that humans have.

I see nothing boring about it. But thats just my opinion.

Boring may not be the best description I could have offered. It does remove that bit of adrenaline. It also individualizes the experience. If all loot is automatically allocated there's no interaction between the players when it comes to the loot. It makes that aspect of the game feel more like a single player experience. It would also make it feel more like a boring grind for gear sooner than it otherwise would have. Competition for gear gives you a subconscious added incentive to want more gear. If all gear is allocated automatically you'll soon start to wonder why on earth you are grinding for gear in the first place.

A loot system that automatically and randomly allocates all non-white/blue loot should at least allow everyone to see who received what. That way at least you don't lose all the interaction.

"

iamstryker wrote:

Did you play D3? There was plenty of player interaction if you wanted to play that way.

"

markshiu wrote:

"

Roenie wrote:

"

iamstryker wrote:

I don't think there can be a loot system that has both loot competition and also doesn't have people getting robbed. They are opposites from another. The only way to have both is if their are options to support both groups.

Disagree, because I believe I have a solution to that.
I'm going to repeat what I said before, because my post was probably so long that most people didn't get far enough to read this. I know it's long, sorry, it's the only way to do it:

No initial, automatic drop allocation, because I want the player to see all the drops, compete for them, know that he is competing for them, and to work for them. The non-white item initially drops without a timer, just like white items do. White and blue items can be picked up immediately, higher rarity items cannot. Anyone can click the higher rarity item to indicate that they want it. The item is not picked up immediately when clicked on. Instead, the item is marked. In front of its name it gets a small circle (gold outline and black fill) with a green "V" checkmark inside it. The circle is no taller than the item name itself. If someone other than you clicked the item, the checkmark is a red "X" instead. The X indicates that in 5 seconds a dice roll will be performed to dertermine who gets the item. The dice roll can optionally be influenced by your previous actions. (More about that later.) Now you have 5 seconds to click the item too, to join in the dice roll before it ends, turning the "X" into a "V" checkmark. After the 5 second period, the item is automatically added to the winner's inventory. Of course we need a decent indicator of the 5 second period. (The "participation window".) More about this further below.

Competition feel to it
Having to click on every item that you want to have, and the items originally not belonging to anyone, adds to the feeling of competition for that item. Especially if that item was first clicked by someone else, and that fact is visible to you on the actual item as a red X. Meaning you have to get over there and click it too, to participate in the dice roll. Cutthroats will like the competitive feel of this.

Because I don't want everyone to click every item right now, there is a 5 second time window to do so. Carebears will like that idea. *And they won't feel robbed because chance ultimately determines who wins every roll, not the other players.

Influencing the dice roll, enhancing competition and teamplay simultaneously
I won't beat around the bush: this is the most difficult part to implement, but it's very powerful. Because we have a dice roll, we can influence its outcome based on player action. That could be anything you want to encourage or discourage. I would suggest using a set of criteria that cleverly and relatively precisely estimate how much a player was contributing to the progression of the party over the last 10 minutes. Divide by 10 to get a figure per minute. Compare that figure to the average figure for the entire party. Use the difference to determine a +% bonus to the chances of winning the dice roll. The "bonus" can also be negative. While this may seem
like a very carebearish thing to do... let's display the number on the UI when in a party, or on the party screen. Suddenly you have people competing with each other to contribute the most to the party's overall progression. (Note: when your odds of winning increase, the other players odds naturally go down, because the total win chance of all partymembers combined is always 100%.)

Participation window timer
Of course we need a decent indicator of the 5 second time period that I mentioned easlier, and that I called the "participation window". We need a good indicator of this because if an item is on its last second of its participation window, you don't want to walk over to it if you are 2 seconds away. The player needs to be aware how much time is remaining.

The way that timers are displayed with the current loot system could be used for this, with a few modifications;

As mentioned,
-The timers clutter up the UI a bit.
-The timers are hard to read because they are numbers rather than a visual clue.
-The timers are hard to read because they are numbers that are changing in realtime.

Therefore:
-Let's use a visual indicator instead of a numerical one, because they are quicker to judge.
That is why monsters in some games have health bars hovering above them, not numbers alone.
-Let's make them a bit smaller (less UI clutter).

I suggest adding a very thin "time bar" below the item name, comprised of 5 horizontal sections, one for each second. It should of course not be green or red in colour, because it comes natural to players to interpret those colours as health bars (when shaped like a bar). I suggest making use of the colour gold. This solution takes up less UI space than a number timer, and it's easier to quickly interpret. A bar is less accurate, which can be a good thing. When just one bar section remains you don't know if that's a full second, half a second, or one fifth of a second. But you can try to click the item anyway, knowing full well that you may not get there in time. If you don't get it, your response would be something along the lines of: "Noooo, I really wanted that rare ring." (Which translates to: I really want to find another one.) If you did get to the item on time, your response would be something like: "Yes! Woohoo, just in time!". I like both those responses, but I like the one where you didn't get to the item in time better than the reaction you'd get from not getting to it while you were shown exactly how many 10ths of a second remained. In that case it would feel like your own stupid fault if you still clicked the item and didn't get there in time.

If you ever read back previous post, please note that I ask for a short description in a sentence or two.

"

Roenie wrote:

"

iamstryker wrote:

Did you play D3? There was plenty of player interaction if you wanted to play that way.

But most people didn't, because they wanted their loot to be theirs and stay theirs (even if they weren't going to use the item) and it's a pain in the butt to link a drop in chat while you're playing.

I don't like the current system either, don't get me wrong.

Recently another thing about the current system came to my attention: I find it weird that drops are allocated even to players who didn't touch that particular monster. The player could be on the other side of the screen from the monster or even slightly off screen, not participating in the fight and an item drops allocated to him, while the player who took the time to kill the monster gets nothing (if unlucky, I've seen it happen).

"

Roenie wrote:

"

iamstryker wrote:

Did you play D3? There was plenty of player interaction if you wanted to play that way.

But most people didn't, because they wanted their loot to be theirs and stay theirs (even if they weren't going to use the item) and it's a pain in the butt to link a drop in chat while you're playing.

I don't like the current system either, don't get me wrong.

Recently another thing about the current system came to my attention: I find it weird that drops are allocated even to players who didn't touch that particular monster. The player could be on the other side of the screen from the monster or even slightly off screen, not participating in the fight and an item drops allocated to him, while the player who took the time to kill the monster gets nothing (if unlucky, I've seen it happen).