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

"

Incense wrote:

"

Rhesos wrote:

I think that this can be a very good system if it's done right... But i have some concerns regarding this system: Imagine the following: You are in a party and get in a big fight, with lots of foes and you just killed some of them. But one of the few you killed dropped a really rare item which is assigned to the ranged character => He has to stop fighting and run as fast as possible towards the foes to get the item... This could end in his and even the partys death...

That's my concern too - having reasons for people to stop fighting is not good design.

Also, what if the ranged character's special bow is allocated to a fighter, and the fighter takes the attitude of, well, it was HIS, right?

"

OHwever, I am in favour of almost anything that is not FFA - FFA was horrible in other games like D2 since it produces other combat issues

Clicker to enable instanced loot?

"

Bottom line: anything is better than FFA.

Bah, LOL. We all have preferred styles, and very strong opinions on them. Which is why there may not be a one-solution-fits-all fix for this issue.

The main problem is the currency, without it trading system is kinda worthless since the values are in a constant variation.
For that reason the exaggerated greediness on loot, you never know what to offer in exchange so you take all.

I'm going to list several dropping systems that I saw in other games and let you guys comment on them:

-Same loot for all, each team member will be looting the same items from the bosses but not more than one of each item that dropped (like a copy of those items for all party members).
Here this system is worthless since we have no binding, that group can farm all over again the bosses and the items can be traded between the players: one can get 6 orbs at the end of a run.
On the other side each group member has the chance to get the loot.

-Popup window of the item. Only the classes eligible: wand/witch can roll.
Again worthless since the majority of the items can be used for almost all classes; there are no limitation for a Witch to use Templar armor and vice versa.
_____

With that said I think the option they gave us is the most reasonable and comes to players to decide how they will loot. PuGs were, are and there will always be a reason to argue about looting because of ninjaing.

"

Cathal wrote:

The main problem is the currency, without it trading system is kinda worthless since the values are in a constant variation.
For that reason the exaggerated greediness on loot, you never know what to offer in exchange so you take all.

I just don't agree with this at all. It'd be the same as picking up gold, only here the drops have real value beyond that.

Individual loot should be implemented. There's nothing fun about competing for loot, even if it is timed and allocated. All this will do is cause people to play alone.

I discovered this game today, and im really impressed, very good graphics, gameplay seems smooth (from gameplay videos, i dont have a beta key) and it looks just like diablo 3 should have been.

and this is the first thing i find wrong...

I think a way to make everyone happy is just to set as a party leader the type of loot.

FFA
Dedicated
The way it was described in the first post
Dice roll for magic, rares etc

I would be pretty happy with just the first 2 options avaible at launch in open beta, maybe later implemente the other 2.

i will still play this game if its just FFA, but i wont get into parties...

After playing Diablo 3 and seeing how the instanced loot system works, I think GGG should do that for the default leagues. Just going through this thread you can see the common theme that if there is FFA, people will play solo.

Instanced loot is better for co-op play. Leave FFA to the cut-throat leagues.

Just to throw in my 2 cents... I just started playing this game and I'm loving it, but any kind of FFA looting would spell the end of me joining a pick up group on my main. The only time I could see myself putting up with that kind of loot squabbling is if I'm on an already geared alt and don't care about the drops where I am.

"

Ameey wrote:

Some people tend to treat others over the internet on the same level as NPCs. Or even worse. It's sad but nonetheless true.
You guys are the rare ones I see. Online games would be incomparably better with more people like this.

-----

Players "less willing to party up" at best. This could ultimately lead to GGG creating a new genre - Massievely Singleplayer Online - MSO if you would.

For the Greater Good's sake, at least make it league dependant feature, hardcore league having ffa, default having shared/individual loot or something. Anything.

Competing with friends over an item when we want to play together is not my idea of "fun" and I think a few others here will agree with me on it. GGG You are creating a multiplayer game. By my logic, support for group-based gameplay is a must here then, or that MSO thing won't be just a bad joke anymore.

I agree. FFA should be for certain leagues, while default has it's own unique loot system. I hate FFA, and it's the reason why I never play co-op, unless they are people I interact with regularly. I end up playing solo ALL the time because of this.

FFA creates a great disparity between how many "useful" items each person has. You have those who "act" like they are trying to kill the mob, but rather are simply waiting to click on the next good drop.

I just joined today, and have read a couple post in this thread about the allocation system.


This is my proposed loot system for the parent league.

1. It will apply to support gems/skill gems/rare armory/rare weaponry. An "I can equip this gem/rare item right now" and an "item range" requirement system will need to be in place for rares/gems. Lets say a shield/gem/weapon requires the player to be at lvl 40 and have 60 dex. The item range requirement for this shield/gem/weapon might be min/max lvl 35/45 min/max dex 54/66. This will determine those who get to have a chance to get the item. I can equip this now simply means the character can currently equip the gem/rare that just dropped

2. There should be a "Deny" button/option/etc so that if someone doesn't want an item it will go to the next chosen person (Will explain what I mean in the later parts). It is not needed as a timer would be in place, but it might shave a few seconds off when rares/gems are dropped.

3a. Items have requirements, character level/int/dex/stre. The gem/rare item dropped will single out players that meet the "I can equip it right now" requirements. If all/several party members meet the requirements, then someone is chosen randomly to see it first, with the option to deny. If he accepts to keep it, only party members that met the requirement are notified, via a small message on the side of their screen, (like how it tells you your gem has leveled up), that "Player X randomly got blank". This message will only pop up for gems/rares so you don't have to worry about seeing it every time someone picks up non-rare item/gem. This way players who see the message know that they can currently equip the rare item "X" player has, and can ask to trade whenever the time calls for it.

3b. If only one character has the requirements then the item appears to him only. He has the option to accept or deny it, or simply let the timer run.
3c. If he denies or timer runs out, the item's "range requirements" option kicks in. Lets say the character chosen during the "I can equip now" req declined/let clock run on a sword. The sword requires 52 str, and level 20. The other 4 party members are lvl 16/25 str, lvl 23/40 str, lv 19/48str, lvl 21/30 str. The range requirements for the sword are min/max lvl 18/23, min/max str 40/60. By default the lvl 16/25 str and lvl 21/30 str characters are eliminated. The item will randomly be given to either the lvl 23/40 str or lvl 19/48 str character first. If it goes to the lvl 19/48 str character first, he too will have the option to deny. If he denies it/timer runs out, then it goes FFA
3d. The first character who could equip it will have like 8 seconds to decide whether to keep it or deny. If he doesn't do anything, then "range requirements" kick in. Same goes for characters who are randomly chosen during range requirements selection process. If they don't decide within the time, it will go to the next randomized character that fits the range.

4. If all characters meet the "I can equip it now requirement", and if the person chosen rejects it, then it goes to the "range requirement". Characters who meet the "I can equip it now requirement" might not meet the range requirement and vice versa. Once it is rejected in the range requirement phase, it goes to FFA.

5. If no character meets the "I can equip it now" requirement then it goes to range requirement. If no one meets the range requirement then it goes to chooses a character at random. If they reject it goes FFA. If range requirement starts first and no one meets it, then it goes to I can equip now

6. Which one of the requirements, Item requirement/I can equip it now, comes first on the very first rare/gem drop will be random, and then will alternate for the remainder of the game. Both requirements will always take place, assuming the item isn't picked up after the first requirement.
The game starts, you and your party open a chest, kill a boss/mob, etc and rares drop. This is the first rare drop you've encountered, so either "I can equip it now" or "range requirement" will kick in. If it's not taken then the other requirement will kick in. If Range requirement was up first, and the item wasn't taken then I can equip it now will follow suit. Since range req came up on the first rare drop, "I can equip it now" will be the first requirement on the next rare drop, and if the item isn't taken then range requirement will kick in. The starting requirement will alternate.

7. If no one fits either requirement then it is randomized to a character. If he declines, FFA


This favors everyone.
-"I can equip is now" requirement favors players who can actually use the item right now and might want to.
-"Item range" requirement favors those who can't equip it now, but are a few points away.
-The requirements alternating means people who are within range, and those who can use it right away don't feel any one side is favored.
-The randomization ensure that no one is given an edge.
-This way, higher level players and players close to equipping an item have "first randomized dibbs". I believe those who can already equip an item or who are close to equipping should get first dibbs. In other words, a lvl 20 can still obtain a lvl 45 crossbow, but will have to wait for others to let timer run/decline. Nothing is more painful, imo, than watching the only lvl 20 in a gruop pick up a lvl 45 sword/bow/etc, when the other party members in the group are lvl 40-50. The lvl 20 still has a ways to go to lvl 45, and there is no telling whether that item will be of use to him by lvl 45. The lvl 40-50 can actually use the item, or will be able to soon, so I personally believe they should get first dibbs.
-At the same time the lvl 20 can still get the item cause if it is declined twice it goes to FFA. Or if a rare is dropped and he's the only character within the range requirement then he gets it for free as the range requirement will "randomly" select him first since he's the only one within the range.


Sorry if I made mistakes or my post is hard to understand. I'm rushing so I can go to bed. Will return tomorrow to correct.

The concept looks nice. If You clean it a bit and take into account all possibilities, it could become a fine and fair loot system. Looking forward to it.

-----

Ok now, this is page what, 126? Ok 127. Last dev post was on page 54 or sth. In the last update the system presented on the first page was implemented. I'm starting to think this tread is slowly becoming pointless. We can have milions of ideas but we still don't know how the game is coded, so those ideas could be simply impossible. Mind you, not asking about the code, just if idea X or Z is possible, maybe why if not.

Another thing, it looks just like the devs have made this tread only to see our reactions and are not planning to use any of our ideas.

Now waiting for some developer to prove me wrong. Not moderator. Developer.

If you guys do what you proposed on the post, the system will accomplish everything you guys seem to be looking for, approved.