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

"

Ten_of_Swords wrote:

...I have spent a great deal of time discussing this issue with many people and I'm convinced I'm right. It is truly not an easy thing to understand, but the game IS more fun when you fight and loot at the same time...

:)

Let me take a moment to try to clarify the debate. I'm not trying to put anyone down here; I'm trying as best I can to really capture the essence of both sides of this argument.

Supporters of the current PA and loot options
Core Principle: Party play in PoE should be the same game as solo, but with bigger numbers. Thus the key to balancing party play is finding the appropriate multipliers in an attempt to balance solo and party play.
Supporting Beliefs:

• There is zero loot tension in solo. Multiplying zero by any number yields zero. Thus there should be no loot tension in party play.
• Party play should always make the content easier and/or more rewarding (although not necessarily by much). If not, there is no motivation to party, and the system fails. This is why Diablo 3's one-time 120% monster life bonus per player was a failed idea; you more-than-triple the difficulty for three-player parties, and you expect three-player parties to still exist?

Supporters of the SA and the removal of loot options
Core Principle: Party play in PoE should be a different game than solo, but obviously a very similar one. Thus the key to balancing party play is finding the appropriate additional game features in an attempt to make solo and party play feel fundamentally different.
Supporting Beliefs:

• There is zero loot tension in solo. This means that altering loot tension to give a competitive edge to an otherwise co-op mode presents some very interesting design opportunities.
• Party play should not always make the content easier and/or more rewarding; instead, it should rely on some system, not available in solo, that changes the nature of the game by rewarding certain behaviors more than others. If not, solo and party play feel too similar, and the system fails. This is why Diablo 3's instanced loot was a failed idea; if loot drops exactly the same as it did in solo, how does that make party play feel any different from solo?

If anyone disagrees with any of the above, let me know. I'm trying to be fair here and I'll edit it if a revision is proposed and seconded (within reason).

Now, back to the argument. As evidence for the SA side, watch this if you haven't:
Extra Credits, S06E03: Differences in Scale vs Differences in Kind.
PA lovers, answer me the questions posed in that video, and I'll be impressed.

I don't think the allocated loot supporters feel the game should be easier in multiplayer play. It should be of a very similar difficulty level with very similar rewards. Multiplayer should be either more difficult and more rewarding or equally difficult and equally rewarding. I think everyone can agree on that.

Overall I think you are over-analyzing it. We have loot options, stick to the option that you prefer and enjoy the game. Thankfully now everyone has the option that suits their own personal play style best and they can enjoy the game in a multiplayer setting.

"

thepmrc wrote:

I don't think the allocated loot supporters feel the game should be easier in multiplayer play. It should be of a very similar difficulty level with very similar rewards. Multiplayer should be either more difficult and more rewarding or equally difficult and equally rewarding. I think everyone can agree on that.

Rewards are part of difficulty and must be integrated into it. This actually isn't difficult, it's pretty much just simple division.

Would you support (monster life bonus per player)/(IIQ bonus per player)>1, if those were the only difficulty-increasing and reward-increasing multipliers?

"

thepmrc wrote:

Thankfully now everyone has the option that suits their own personal play style best and they can enjoy the game in a multiplayer setting.

This is tantamount to saying that me, Ten, and others are delusional. Am I putting words in your mouth, or is that your claim?

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

thepmrc wrote:

Thankfully now everyone has the option that suits their own personal play style best and they can enjoy the game in a multiplayer setting.

This is tantamount to saying that me, Ten, and others are delusional. Am I putting words in your mouth, or is that your claim?

If you truthfully believe that other players being able to play with the loot style they prefer is damaging your game experience, then yes, I would say that you are delusional.

The fact that player X can play allocated loot in a party of friends in no way impacts your ability to play FFA or Short Timers in your own party. Play what you enjoy playing and leave others to do the same. It is pretty simple.

I have no problems at all with people's opinions on looting. If you prefer FFA, awesome. If you prefer short timers, awesome. If you want purely allocated, awesome. I like options because I like both FFA and allocated for different reasons, I feel they both have merit, I am not a fan of the timer system at all. That being said, I do not think it should be removed as other people have shown that they enjoy it. People playing short timer allocation parties in no way effects my enjoyment of the game, just as people playing FFA or Allocated in parties does not effect your enjoyment of the game. Its about compromise here, and I am glad that the devs saw some sense.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Now, back to the argument. As evidence for the SA side, watch this if you haven't:
Extra Credits, S06E03: Differences in Scale vs Differences in Kind.
PA lovers, answer me the questions posed in that video, and I'll be impressed.

That is pretty bad evidence for the SA side considering the fact that with loot options you still have SA in the game.

There is no reason to force multiplayer and single player to be different in that way. If the game lacks differences in kind, that have to be solved in ways that improve the single player experience aswell.
Forced FFA loot just messes up the game for all the people who want the single play experience with friends etc.

Here is better list:

Supporters of the current PA and loot options
Core Principle: Party play in PoE should be the same game as solo, but with bigger numbers. Thus the key to balancing party play is finding the appropriate multipliers in an attempt to balance solo and party play.
Supporting Beliefs:

• There is zero loot tension in solo. Multiplying zero by any number yields zero. Thus there should be no loot tension in party play.
• Party play should make the content equally hard and rewarding
• Party play should always make the content easier and/or more rewarding (although not necessarily by much). If not, there is no motivation to party, and the system fails. This is why Diablo 3's one-time 120% monster life bonus per player was a failed idea; you more-than-triple the difficulty for three-player parties, and you expect three-player parties to still exist?
• There is zero loot tension in solo. This means that altering loot tension to give a competitive edge to an otherwise co-op mode presents some very interesting design opportunities.
• Party play should not always make the content easier and/or more rewarding; instead, it should rely on some system, not available in solo, that changes the nature of the game by rewarding certain behaviors more than others. If not, solo and party play feel too similar, and the system fails. This is why Diablo 3's instanced loot was a failed idea; if loot drops exactly the same as it did in solo, how does that make party play feel any different from solo?

Supporters of the SA and the removal of loot options
Core Principle: Party play in PoE should be a different game than solo, but obviously a very similar one. Thus the key to balancing party play is finding the appropriate additional game features in an attempt to make solo and party play feel fundamentally different.
Supporting Beliefs:

• There is zero loot tension in solo. This means that altering loot tension to give a competitive edge to an otherwise co-op mode presents some very interesting design opportunities.
• Party play should not always make the content easier and/or more rewarding; instead, it should rely on some system, not available in solo, that changes the nature of the game by rewarding certain behaviors more than others. If not, solo and party play feel too similar, and the system fails. This is why Diablo 3's instanced loot was a failed idea; if loot drops exactly the same as it did in solo, how does that make party play feel any different from solo?

"

iamstryker wrote:

I'm willing to bet I type faster than you do. That doesn't mean I want to take my hand off of the mouse over and over again just to type some messages that the group would probably ignore anyway.

See what I mean? Of course you can. You just don't want to. Of course people can type, of course they can play SA, of course they can intereact with other players, of course they can pay attention to a silly computer game - they just don't want to if you give them the option of just sitting there and watching the inventory fill up.

And that's the entire problem.

"

exit_zero wrote:

"

iamstryker wrote:

I'm willing to bet I type faster than you do. That doesn't mean I want to take my hand off of the mouse over and over again just to type some messages that the group would probably ignore anyway.

See what I mean? Of course you can. You just don't want to. Of course people can type, of course they can play SA,

You read what you wanted to read there. Its not that I am too lazy to type during combat. Its that its a bad idea. My character stops moving and I am no longer helping to kill things, it makes me look bad and if what I am typing isn't really important then its just holding me back from the game. I like voice chat a lot more, I wish PoE had an integrated voice chat so that its much easier for all players to shoot the breeze while they play the game.

This is a video game, if players aren't having fun then they either have to ask for a change or leave the game. The looting was that big of an issue for players. Luckily single player kept some people around who would have left.

"

exit_zero wrote:

of course they can intereact with other players, of course they can pay attention to a silly computer game - they just don't want to if you give them the option of just sitting there and watching the inventory fill up.

And that's the entire problem.

A lot of what your insinuating here is such a gross misrepresentation of the other side. You think the problem is interacting with other players? You think people don't want to pay attention to the game? You think people who don't like FFA would be fine just doing nothing?

If your convinced of that stuff then theres no point in arguing with you, same as Vooodu. You don't appear to be even trying to listen to what the other side has to say so there is no point in trying to argue with you at all.

"

Sickness wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Extra Credits, S06E03: Differences in Scale vs Differences in Kind

That is pretty bad evidence for the SA side considering the fact that with loot options you still have SA in the game.

There is no reason to force multiplayer and single player to be different in that way. If the game lacks differences in kind, that have to be solved in ways that improve the single player experience aswell...

Here is better list...

You can't consistently implement a core difference-in-kind mechanic if you allow players to turn it on and off. I guess you could inconsistently apply it; but that's like inconsistently applying the Standard death penalty by making it optional, or inconsistently applying the requirement that sockets be linked in order to support each other. You don't take a mechanic you actually care about and give it an off button; if you do, it's a clear message that the developer isn't emotionally invested in it, and that it can safely be skipped. That severely limits the possibilities.

A good loot tension mechanic deserves GGG's full, unreserved sanction.

But enough of that, and onto the atrocity of trying to claim that option-lovers subsume our entire position platform.

First: you cannot simultaneously believe "altering loot tension to give a competitive edge to an otherwise co-op mode presents some very interesting design opportunities" and "There is no reason to force multiplayer and single player to be different in that way." You'd probably focus on the word force -- I get it, you like options. But there is still a reason to do so, a reason that would, in your pluralist dystopia, compete with several other reasons. In order to truly believe in options, you need to believe that the options are balanced against each other, that they are all valid on their own mutually exclusive merits.

But that's not the case here; advocates of the current PA system are in fact only rarely true believers in options, and instead use "options" as a blanket dismissal for suggestions they find critical.

Second: You cannot simultaneously believe "Party play should always make the content easier and/or more rewarding" and "Party play should make the content equally hard and rewarding." The truth is that making party play no more rewarding than solo (especially with maps) would utterly destroy PA partying, since it would enjoy no significant advantage over solo.

Although I disagree with them, I can at least respect the current breed of PA supporters. I cannot, however, look at one who pretends to agree with SA principles and not smirk -- his true intent is not to agree, but to undermine.