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

hi all,
i'm pretty sure we've all experienced the party member that just joins to pinch the best loot that drops, then logs or portals out.

sug 1, teleing/ during the instance be denied and only enabled by map provider. if a player logs then his/her inv gets dropped on the floor.

sug 2, all party members inv be viewable by map provider upon clearance of the dg. simply by a right click on char view inv.

sug 3, or any uniques that drop go automatically to map provider. up to him/her then if he/she wants to share with friends in party.

sug 4, or any/all loot/drops cannot be picked up untill the instance has been cleared and map provider enables pickup.

sad that these ideas are put forward, but people can be very disrespectfull and untrustworthy.

these might already be in place i don't know as i have not setup a party before this post, if they are then plz ignore sorry to bother you.

advised to post this here so i am

The heart of this argument, methinks, revolves around the Prisoner's Dilemma.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

Consider, if you will, three parallel two-player games of PoE.

In game #1, two GREENS are merrily bounding along when one spots a group of zombies on the horizon. Running up, he wtfpwns the zombies. And from the zombies' bellies burst forth not one, but two Orbs of Awesomesauce! One Orb has a timer for the attacking player; the other has a timer for his companion. But that second Orb is juuuuuust off the edge of the screen; the second player doesn't see it.

Being GREEN in nature, the player calls over his friend, and each player picks up one Orb. The end.

This same scenario repeats itself, endlessly, over the course of their game. Sometimes it's player #1 who finds the Orbs; sometimes it's player #2. But it doesn't matter, since they both always share. So in the end, on average, each GREEN has a similar amount of loot.

In game #2, two REDS are slinking forward, every watchful, ever wary, when one spots a group of zombies. Leaping forward, he mercilessly shreds the wretched creatures. And from their bellies burst forth two Orbs of Awesomesauce. Again, each Orb has a timer for each player. Again, the other player's Orb is just outside the field of his vision.

Being RED in nature, the player immediately snatches up the Orb that was allocated to him. Then, the player leans toward the monitor, watching with sadistic, cackling, primal glee as the loot timer oh-so-slowly ticks down. Three... *wipes away drool*... two... *adjusts underwear*... ONE... EUPHORIA! He grabs the second Orb and runs off into the shadows, congratulating himself on his own awesomeness. Meanwhile, of course, the other RED is doing exactly the same thing.

Again, this same scenario repeats itself, endlessly; but, on average, this scenario will happen for both REDS about the same amount of time. So in the end, all things being equal, each player arguably ends up with a similar amount of loot. Their RED natures provide no real benefit, as each cancels the other.

In game #3, one RED and one GREEN are adventuring together. The GREEN, of course, is oblivious to the RED's true nature; and the RED, naturally, doesn't give a rat's ass either way. Herein, two different scenarios can occur: the GREEN can stumble upon two Orbs, whereupon he'll share the Orbs with the RED; or, the RED will stumble upon two Orbs, and keep them both.

So when the smoke clears, on average, for every four Orbs that drop, the RED acquires three and the GREEN acquires one. This means that the RED will collect three times as many Orbs as the GREEN.

Now, let's break this all down in terms of the Prisoner's Dilemma:

- If both prisoners (i.e., players) cooperate and act in a trustworthy manner, then they each get a fair amount of loot apportioned.

- If both players betray one another constantly, then they still each get a fair amount of loot apportioned.

- If only one player betrays the other, then the betrayer receives a disproportionate reward.

Thus, logically, the most efficient and effective strategy is for everyone to play RED. Snatch it all up, be greedy; it all averages out in the end. It's rather ironic that this is, in actuality, no more or less efficient overall than just playing pure GREEN. But this strategy solves the Prisoner's Dilemma aspect of loot at its simplest level.

The problem, however, is that the Prisoner's Dilemma wasn't intended to be this simplistic. In the true Prisoner's Dilemma, should both prisoners betray one another (i.e., choose RED), their rewards are supposed to be worse than if both prisoners cooperate (i.e., choose GREEN). That is to say, there is supposed to exist a benefit, an enticement for both persons to work together. That's the whole point of the Prisoner's Dilemma, in fact: each prisoner needs to individually decide whether blindly attempting cooperate will be to his benefit or not.

But in order for that choice to be meaningful; in order for the player to be able to weigh the pros and cons of cooperation vs. betrayal; there has to actually be a marked distinction between the rewards. More specifically, the rewards for cooperation must necessarily be SUPERIOR to the rewards for mutual betrayal.

However, as demonstrated, there is no greater reward for two GREENS who cooperate vs. two REDS who predictably mutually betray one another. The quantity of Orbs that drop, on average, remains the same. The distribution of these Orbs, on average, remains the same. Thus, PoE's loot system constitutes a broken Prisoner's Dilemma. It ONLY ever makes sense to be a RED player in a public game. It is NEVER more beneficial to play as a GREEN player; at the most, that player can only possibly break even, and only if all other players in the game happen to also be GREEN.

I'll be pondering this dilemma today. I invite you all to do the same.

Um, prisoner's dilemma assumes they can't communicate. The beauty of this (and any online game really) is that you can. Work together and problem solve people.

Problem solve = make your own party rules to enforce, boot the ninjas.

Wow, score one for problem solving.


My opinion = This silly system isn't remotely worth

"

ifarmpandas wrote:

Um, prisoner's dilemma assumes they can't communicate. The beauty of this (and any online game really) is that you can. Work together and problem solve people.

The lack of communication is to preclude collusion. Nor does communication necessarily guarantee cooperation in any event. "Oh, SURE I'll share loot with you, Greenie! You betcha!" *wink*

Indeed, what GREENS are petitioning for is for the capacity to systematically *enforce* collusion, by providing an environment wherein loot distribution is automatically fair. Thus, any given GREEN is making the active decision to guarantee cooperation by joining such a game; and, conversely, any player in such a game can be assumed to be a GREEN, since by joining the game, he's allowing himself to be systematically enforced to behave in such a manner.

For me, extending the timers by 2, 5, 10 seconds would be meaningless. It's all or nothing.

I say the following having played video games for over 3 decades. I know what I like.

I dislike:

1. competing with my fellow players, particularly if they are my teammates.
2. having to have to monitor who is playing nice and who isn't.
3. having to keep records of character names of who to avoid.
4. having my teammates grab loot while the fight still rages.
5. not getting my fair share of loot
6. taking more than my fair share of loot

Anyone would be hard-pressed to convince me that they actually enjoy 2,3 or 5.

"

iamstryker wrote:

Problem solve = make your own party rules to enforce, boot the ninjas.

Wow, score one for problem solving.


My opinion = This silly system isn't remotely worth

Private leagues where one must pay for your special rules. No race items can be sent there from other leagues. Meaning its not a default league. Gotta pay for it.

Instanced loot option - lose the group party bonus.

"

TheSwampDog wrote:

5. not getting my fair share of loot

This one is the most problematic imho. Say in a party made up of equally good characters, the guy who concentrates on the fight and kill the monster is the one who is likely to miss his drops and get screwed over the loot. The guy who works hardest is likely to get less rewards...

Doesn't sound like Chris wants a league for us so if he does anything it would probably have to be in default.

I doubt any party bonuses would be removed with a simple extended timer.

"

iamstryker wrote:

Doesn't sound like Chris wants a league for us so if he does anything it would probably have to be in default.

I doubt any party bonuses would be removed with a simple extended timer.

Haven't seen Chris or anyone say anything about the specifics of paid leagues.

Simple extended timer?

I said nothing about extended timers. I said instanced. Instanced loot equates to no party.bonus for IIQ.

Although I'm sure they would rather have it as a paid league that really isn't apart of the actual game.