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

"

SMRD wrote:

"

Xaxyx wrote:

The *devs themselves* want that system. The devs prefer that system. The devs possess the driving need to play in their own game in a fashion that allows them to be colossal jackasses to their own player base.

This is truly an amazing statement and so unbelievably ignorant it’s beyond any words that could be used to describe it.

I just wrote the devs demanding my account be deleted. I will keep writing them till its gone.

It seems to me to be a paranoid statement, though not an ignorant one. If you had knowledge of what occurred during the heyday of MUDs (ancestors of all multiplayer online rpg'ish games) you wouldn't consider it entirely outside the realm of the possible.

Regardless though, I admit your reaction confuses me. You find yourself in disagreement with a number of people so the response is to commit virtual suicide via account deletion? Wow.

It's interesting, really, re-reading Chris's original post from this entirely new perspective. Here, I'll quote directly, from page 1:

"

Chris wrote:

It's important to us that Path of Exile has a cut-throat feel where players are not only competing against monsters, but also their fellow players.

Let that sink in for a moment, I humbly beseech, just as I did. A "cut-throat" feel. Players COMPETING against their fellow players. THAT is the environment that they designed; THAT is the environment they wish to foster. Set aside the uniqueness of the skill system, the intricacy of the skilldrasl, the robustness of the world they've so lovingly crafted. That's all crap. THIS, here and now, is the heart of the game:

"

a cut-throat feel... competing against... their fellow players.

This is not a PvE game at all. It was never intended to be. The players are not controlling characters who are struggling for survival and defeating enemies. No. The players are instead intended to be in constant conflict WITH OTHER PLAYERS. Competing constantly for resources. Struggling against themselves. Or, that is to say, the abused struggling against their abusers, the bullied struggling against their bullies.

Continuing:

"

We do not feel it is an option to arbitrarily hide items from players who have not been allocated them.

Canceling the double-negative: ALL players should ALWAYS have access to ALL items. Always. Free-for-all, in its most raw, pure, and unadulterated form. A bloody orgy of thievery and greed. No, even thievery isn't the right term. Thievery implies stealing; stealing implies possession, within a framework of rule of law. Here, in this world of endless anarchy, THERE IS NO POSSESSION. There is only survival of the fittest, i.e., the fastest, most lustful, most desirous. The spoils go only to those who are capable of the most base of emotions, the most cruel of heart.

Here, now, are the only criticisms of this system of chaos and insanity that the developers even feel worthy of bothering to note:

"

Several legitimate problems with free-for-all looting were raised:
- Ranged players are unable to get to the items in time.
- Items might just get scooped up by one player with substantially lower latency than the other players.

Mechanics. Not fairness, nor accommodation for player ability to espy and acquire the loot they might arguably deserve. Just raw, dull mechanics. At no time does the author express any compassion or sympathy whatsoever for those whose items are being scooped up. None.

"

Over the past few months we've thought long and hard about this topic, and have come up with a system that we feel captures the cut-throat feel that we're trying to go for, but helps mitigate the valid complaints.

There it is again: VALID complaints. Which is to say: the aforementioned complaints are valid; all others are invalid. This sweeping generalization is in and upon itself the most chilling. Herein, the developers admit their awareness and understanding of all of the other myriad arguments against a free-for-all looting system. Herein, they simultaneously confess: they don't give a flying rat's ass.

"

Players who wanted an allocated looting system will hopefully be happy that this system mitigates item loss due to latency and travel distance.

Here's the only inconsistency I see in the presentation. Surely the developers know that those of us who want an allocated looting system will see this "fix" for what it is: a transparent attempt at mollification. If anything, I find this assertion ignorant at best, and mocking at the worst. As I've now decided that the devs are certainly not ignorant, I lean toward the latter. It fits the larger schema, in any event.

"

Players who wanted a free-for-all looting system will hopefully be pleased - with this system they can take any item they want if the allocated player is not paying attention to the drops.

Celebrations! Stealing, newbie abuse, and general jackassery are all still solidly in place. And the system's seen no changes since, once again consistent with the core message of the post.

"

iamstryker wrote:

"

arzumata wrote:

This is what needs fixing :D

http://imgur.com/vQw8o

+1

+2

also this screenshot is not even that big of a pile of loot, I've seen much bigger

And I've read Chris's discussion with Lethal_Papercut from a couple pages back... I'm a little bit sad :(

"

Thalandor wrote:

And I've read Chris's discussion with Lethal_Papercut from a couple pages back... I'm a little bit sad :(

WOW. I missed that post. It's a perfect reflection of their stance on the matter, as well as a reinforcement of the notion that their attitude has not changed in even the slightest manner in years. Here's some choice quotes:

"

We're pretty happy with how it works at the moment. There is great tension around item drops in multiplayer, but people are still able to grab ones that are allocated to them if they're paying attention.

They sure love that tension. By tension, I of course mean having to be constantly on the watch for abuse by bullies and greedy thieves. But they just mean tension. Hooray! Tension!

"

We're currently at record levels of party engagement in the game, and we're very pleased with how well that's doing considering the game is designed around being played solo.

Heh, heh. Designed for being played solo. The irony is too thick, too thick indeed.

"

Bear in mind that looting isn't actually pure-FFA at the moment (though we often wish it was) - there is an allocation timer that helps smooth out unfairness with lag and distance.

"

we often wish it was

"

WE OFTEN WISH IT WAS

...sigh...

"

Adding more options to games is generally a bad thing. The goal of the game designers is to create a system of restrictions that challenge the players, rather than throw in dozens of options and allow the players to try to find a fun game in there somewhere.

This is the most enlightening statement of all. The *developers themselves* clearly express here that they feel that they lack the ability, talent, or where-with-all to provide us with an entertaining game experience. Thus it's up to us to inflict it upon ourselves.

We having fun yet? Hmmmm?

"

I understand if allocated looting seems like a good idea when it hasn't been tested, but we have done extensive testing and have also seen how badly it hurt other games that implemented it. We feel this is a really important part of PoE to get right.

Anyone know what parallel universe that test occurred in? Anyone deign to try to throw darts at what bizarre collection of games he thinks (a) implemented FFA properly or (b) suffered at the lack of it?

"

We do read that thread and will continue to look at feedback. It could easily change in the future.

Riiight.

"

Xaxyx wrote:

*snip snip*

Yeah, exactly word for word what was going on in my mind too as I read it, especially about the part where instance loot has hurt games...

I'm gonna go hide in a corner and cry now... somehow I thought there was hope for this issue.

I must've missed that post.

Thank god.

Cheers.

My journey to enlightenment continues. Here I quote from the Game Overview page:

"

[Path of Exile] is designed around a strong barter-based online item economy, deep character customisation, competitive PvP and ladder races.

Does anyone read in there "cut-throat environment" or "players compete for equipment" or any such sort of thing? No? Strange, me neither. Instead, it rather explicitly denotes that the economy is barter-based. Not thievery-based, not jackassery-based, but barter-based. How strange.

Yet it's the game described in the Overview to which I donated my money. Perhaps I should ask for a refund?

I hope you find whatever game you're looking for.

Peace

@Xaxyx: I was leaning very heavily towards considering your analysis to be biased by a bit of paranoia compounded with misunderstanding. However the 'options are bad' idea just confounds me to no end. I'm still not ready to make the leap to concluding you are correct, but I can't say you're wrong either.

TANPG (Thar ain't no perfect game) - I know, been looking for.. oh.. thirty some odd years.

I'm more or less just considering PoE to be a single player game that I have to be online to play. From that standpoint, it's pretty good though the circular route through content makes it unlikely I'll ever bother to get to end game unless some changes occur. Wait and see is my attitude.