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

"

Ten_of_Swords wrote:

Options are BAD, dividing the playerbase and leaving a huge advantage for thoes taking the 'easy way' will seriously soften this game.

I'm assuming that if I counter these points, then there are no further issues with "options" ???

Argument #1: Options are bad.

Response: Subjective. I would love to play FFA in public, but I was stuck to whatever loot system GGG had in place for us. I would also like to try instanced looting, but I'm just in general wanting a 'change' of sorts. Playing with the timer for so long has gotten boring. I imagine the reasons are not the same for everyone, so I can only stick for how/why I think options improve the game. If public games become nothing but long-timer-based groups, then it just shows how many people disliked FFA to begin with, I guess?

Argument #2: Dividing the playerbase.

Response: What do you call Default and Hardcore? I can't imagine it would divide the playerbase more than default and hardcore does already, but only time will tell.

Argument #3: Huge advantage to those that pick the "Easy way".

Response: Wasn't it a huge advantage to those players that were 'gods' at picking up loot quickly? All the new players I imagine were infuriated that they lost probably 100s of currency orbs and some really good items that maybe were sold for a few exalts. Okay, so what about HC characters? I'm not sure, but if people were risking their characters lives to go get loot because another guy who was geared to handle damage could take it from them, then I think something is fundamentally wrong. It's really not competition. It's not how I view competition at least.

Note: I will now try to delve into the further arguments that have been presented previously

Argument #4: It will ruin the feel of the game this game was known for.

Response: Maybe so, but I would have to say that it's more important that GGG allow their customers to choose whether or not they wish to use FFA, because it has become apparent that not everyone wishes to have this "loot tension". Many people like Vooodu and myself do not like the timer-based system, therefore it doesn't work either. What could possibly be the compromise of both systems? Answer: To include them both. GGG had a vision to give the players the feel of seclusion or at least the feel that every exile is ruthless, cutthroat, etc. (ie. dog eat dog world) , which to be honest, I have never felt that way. I was never given the ability to backstab players. I was never given the ability to trick them into getting killed, well, except in the bandit quest. Either way, I consider this a non-issue because the feeling of this game has always been "out of whack".

TL;DR. GGG hasn't communicated the cutthroat feel of the game very well, therefore the FFA loot style isn't really a core aspect of the game. I don't feel the need to cut it out of the game entirely though.

Argument #5: Game is designed for the elite, the hardcore, ...

Response: If that were 100% true, then why did the party system make the game easier? Why was the death penalty so... non-existent? Why did your portals not disappear on death? How come the loot system keeps getting changed? Either the game was designed for everyone, or it was designed for the hardcore dedicated aRPG fans.

Argument #6: Game is cutthroat. FFA is needed because...

Response: This has been touched on slightly if you have read the above arguments, however I felt this was an argument itself. If the game is truly cutthroat, then why are we as exiles unable to betray one another? I am allowed to take anything and everything and claim it as my own, but why am I unable to truly "Steal" from a player? Why am I unable to kill another player? Why is there a kick function within parties? So you can kick the people you dislike?

Therefore, this game is NOT cutthroat and it would be somewhat exciting if it was, but it surely isn't.



Now I present my own logical conclusion:

THEREFORE, FFA is just there because the developers enjoy FFA. Nothing more. It is a weak excuse to not include MORE to your customers. GGG could have very well stated they will stand by the FFA loot system for their game, but they didn't. However, this thread was created to get the players input on looting and you should not be mocking anyone here for their opinion.

Thanks.

"

mibuwolf wrote:

Argument #2: Dividing the playerbase.

Response: What do you call Default and Hardcore? I can't imagine it would divide the playerbase more than default and hardcore does already, but only time will tell.

It seems to me that loot options will actually do the exact opposite of dividing the playerbase. Instead of plenty of players simply thinking "FFA loot? Screw it, I'm going solo", we'll now have the majority (hopefully) partying up with their preferred loot style = more sense of community.

If you looked at the noticeboard now you would see:
- (On default only) A bunch of WTS and WTB parties.
- One or two legitimate parties, of which will simply be farming common areas continuously.

You would NOT see the masses of players who disliked FFA loot systems and opted to solo instead, so the noticeboard will look rather empty. From a personal standpoint, there are some times on Hardcore where the noticeboard is completely empty.

I'd expect if you look at the noticeboard after options are introduced, you'll see:
- (On default only) Still a bunch of WTS and WTB parties, unfortunately.
- A lot more legitimate parties, probably consisting of around 80% instanced and 20% FFA. (Pure speculation here)

Tl;dr: Before options: Division between solo players who disliked FFA loot, and FFA looters.
After options: Division between instanced loot parties and FFA loot parties.
Both will have division, but having options will give more of a community feel to the game, and community = longevity in almost every online game.

"

EndOfEnds wrote:

It seems to me that loot options will actually do the exact opposite of dividing the playerbase. Instead of plenty of players simply thinking "FFA loot? Screw it, I'm going solo", we'll now have the majority (hopefully) partying up with their preferred loot style = more sense of community.

I could've made Argument 2 more detailed, but I really don't even consider it valid by any means. Dividing the player-base is hardly a worry in my mind. It's not like it will ACTUALLY divide the players like creating an additional league would.

I like where your head's at, mibuwolf. If you don't mind, I think I'll take the liberty of presenting my own observations in similar fashion.

Argument #1: Options are bad.

Response: The real implication here isn't that the option itself is bad, but that players are too stupid to pick the correct option. This plays toward a lovely little hidden conclusion that lurks just beneath the surface of every contemptuous pro-FFA post:

(Premise) FFA is better; anybody who doesn't agree is a moron.
(Premise) If the option to avoid FFA loot is implemented, 95% of the players will avoid it.
(Conclusion) 95% of players are morons.

This is not surprising, really, since the entire psychological structure of the bully revolves around him telling himself, over and over again, how he is better, more important, *intrinsically* superior to his victims. They DESERVE to be bullied by him, since they're too inept, too hopelessly incompetent to be left to their own designs. This is the key, really: blaming the victim for being inferior enough to actually get bullied. Vulnerability is perceived as weakness; attempts to mitigate this weakness are mocked and ridiculed as babyish defenselessness, only serving to reinforce the bully's perceptions of superiority.

Argument #2: Dividing the playerbase.

Response: The playerbase is already divided. It's been divided since day one. There are countless players all playing solo, right this very minute, because of how ridiculously asinine the current multi-player loot system is. Implementing a feature to allow these players to play together won't change that fact in the slightest. If anything, it will give these soloers a reason to play together -- which in turn can only serve to unite players, rather than divide them.

Not that FFA players give a whit about uniting the playerbase, in any event.

Argument #3: Huge advantage to those that pick the "Easy way".

Response: Changing the loot system doesn't affect game difficulty in the slightest. There is nothing, no feature whatsoever, about the current loot system that affects game difficulty. The mythological supposition is that players will fumble around trying to snatch up loot from one another while the monsters are chewing on their legs. Yet this illusion is readily dispelled when it is demonstrated that cooperative players can and will simply focus on the monsters primarily, loot secondarily. Thus, FFA loot, by design, FAILS TO FULFILL its primary function: to provide additional game tension. All it actually serves to do is discourage players from playing in public games, where the personality and motives of their fellow players is unknown.

Thus, FFA does NOT create difficulty, nor foment tension; but rather, it merely serves to create stress in public games, and mild annoyance in private multi-player games.

Argument #4: It will ruin the feel of the game this game was known for.

Response: FSM, I hope so. Forcing players to fumble over loot is the rotten chair leg of this game. Correcting this grievous blight on the game's design will only serve to propel it to the next level.

Argument #5: Game is designed for the elite, the hardcore, ...

Response: There's nothing "elite" or "hardcore" about stealing exalted orbs from newbies. Nor are the devs eliminating FFA loot in any event; these self-claimed "elite" players can still merrily stick their hands into each other's pockets 'til the cows come home, showing all of us "scrubs" and "noobs" how this game is REALLY played. Rest assured, you elite, hardcore masters of gaming: we're all very impressed, and will be watching your masterful play very intently. From afar. In a private, multi-player, non-FFA loot game. Having fun.

Argument #6: Game is cutthroat. FFA is needed because...

Response: There's nothing at all cutthroat about this game. Players cannot attack each other directly. Players cannot steal items from one another's inventories or stashes. Players cannot loot one another's corpses. Players are never competing for experience points, quest rewards, or progression in any capacity whatsoever. No player can ever destroy what another player has created. Even trading is, at long last, secure.

Conclusion:

FFA is catering to greed, encouraging bullying, enabling anti-social behavior. It provides absolutely no benefit whatsoever to the game quality or experience. Giving players the option to avoid this living idiocy will only serve to catapult this otherwise excellent game to a whole new level of interest and intrigue for the vast majority of its playerbase.

Really, this should have been done a year ago or more. But better late than never.

"

Xaxyx wrote:

I like where your head's at, mibuwolf. If you don't mind, I think I'll take the liberty of presenting my own observations in similar fashion.

I had that in mind when writing my post. I am fully aware that my responses weren't complete. In fact, I missed a lot points that I probably wanted to touch on, but it was a start.

I am not a fan of the loot system at all and I will tell you why..


1. The random selection method is really annoying and unrewarding.. Just playing the other day and my party member got 4 gems and 1 unique.. while I got some awesome wisdom and portal scrolls for my effort. We were working together as a team to clear, but the drops were not evenly spread. Several were drops off of monsters I cleared.. just to have them walk in and take the items... seriously flawed.

2. This system is antiquated and deters public parties... Most games have seen the flaws in this type of loot system and have moved away from it. Back in the day, I remember party members rushing up and ninja'ing an item your character could use badly.. only to say "what you got to trade?" At the peak of the loot problems players ran 3rd party programs such as "grab it" to specifically ninja any good loot.


well,, I guess this will be a good single player game since I will not party with pubbers.. ever.

"

Xaxyx wrote:

FFA is catering to greed, encouraging bullying, enabling anti-social behavior. It provides absolutely no benefit whatsoever to the game quality or experience. Giving players the option to avoid this ...Blah blah blah.. Dance monkey dance.

FFA does not cater to greed, does not encourage bullying and does not enable anti-social behavior. Thats a load of crap.

But if you are a greedy, bitchy, anti-social kind of person it will probably effect you mentally more than normal people.. Hell, like you said. You didn't play D2 public games because you have issues.



Giving players to avoid FFA already exits, its called single player. IF you want help with your issues, see a shrink.

"

Vooodu wrote:

FFA does not cater to greed, does not encourage bullying and does not enable anti-social behavior. Thats a load of crap.

FFA does, in fact, cater to greed, encourage bullying and enable anti-social behavior. That's the simple fact of the matter.

"

But if you are a greedy, bitchy, anti-social kind of person it will probably effect you mentally more than normal people.. Hell, like you said. You didn't play D2 public games because you have issues.

If you didn't possess any of those qualities, you wouldn't care a whit for FFA loot.

"

Giving players to avoid FFA already exits, its called single player. IF you want help with your issues, see a shrink.

As long as you consistently attempt to denigrate those who argue against you with ad hominems, you're doing us all a tremendous favor. Keep it up, my dancing monkey. Keep it up.

I'm not really playing beta much becos of desync and the loot system, but I understand this is still beta.

Please use Diablo 3 looting system, every player gets their own loots.