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

"

"wrathmar wrote:I don't think an 999 second timer is a good idea. The current system has strengths that should not be discarded. I think adding to the base timer and making it flexible based upon surviving monsters is the best way.

"

What are these "strengths" to which you refer? What are the benefits of an FFA loot system?

For me changing the loot to instanced would be like going from one extreme to the other. I feel that there is a number between 1 and 999 for the base timer that will make most players happy. Changing the length of the timer should change player behavior.

Strengths of the Timer
1. It’s unique
2. You can see what others get
3. Keeps the pace of co-op going
4. Easy to share loot that you do not want

"

wrathmar wrote:

"

"wrathmar wrote:I don't think an 999 second timer is a good idea. The current system has strengths that should not be discarded. I think adding to the base timer and making it flexible based upon surviving monsters is the best way.

"

What are these "strengths" to which you refer? What are the benefits of an FFA loot system?

For me changing the loot to instanced would be like going from one extreme to the other. I feel that there is a number between 1 and 999 for the base timer that will make most players happy. Changing the length of the timer should change player behavior.

Strengths of the Timer
1. It’s unique
2. You can see what others get
3. Keeps the pace of co-op going
4. Easy to share loot that you do not want

Kind of a system like:

When opening up your instance to parties, have a setting that says "Choose your drop timer: Default, +1, +2, +3, +4, +5". The plus #'s meaning that is the amount of seconds added on to the default timer. I believe that would be fair to everyone, so long as its information placed on the board when joining said party.

I am really not sure how hard it would be to code this though. If it would take any significant amount of time, due to it being per instance and not global as it is now. It it takes longer to code and implement it would be less likely to be implemented.

I feel it might not be enough for most of the people arguing for instanced though.

edit:
Also, anything higher then 5 I fear would slow the pace of parties down to a crawl. It would be up to the party creator and the people joining to determine how they want to proceed at that point.

I basically said what you just said, which I realized after writing this out.

"

wrathmar wrote:

For me changing the loot to instanced would be like going from one extreme to the other. I feel that there is a number between 1 and 999 for the base timer that will make most players happy. Changing the length of the timer should change player behavior.

Strengths of the Timer
1. It’s unique
2. You can see what others get
3. Keeps the pace of co-op going
4. Easy to share loot that you do not want

1. Unique doesn't equate to good. Every turd I produce is unique.
2. Also accomplished with 999s timer.
3. ? Can't see why a longer timer would cause any slowdown.
4. If the item is assigned to you, left-click picks it up, right-click makes it available to others. Can't see why a longer timer makes it the least bit harder to share.

I'd like to see responses to some of the other issues caused by the FFA system.

- having to track other players' various character names (anyone find this fun?)
- having to play hall monitor on others' behaviour (anyone find that fun?)

Neither of those makes for a fun mini-game in any way.

RED p.o.v. = Our way or no way
GREEN p.o.v. = Our way and your way

"

wrathmar wrote:

This is an excellent point that is hard to argue against, but I'll try.

I admire your courage! =D

"

Once you reach end game or are playing thru lower levels for the 10th time you get to a point that you're melee toon does not care what happens to that rare bow.

Herein I immediately beg to differ. You, sir, have no place asserting what I may or may not care about. Now, perhaps it's *possible* that I won't care at that point what happens to that bow. I fully admit that there are many times that I see rare drop, shrug my shoulders, and sally forth, notwithstanding my character archetype, my veteran status, my boredom level, the nature of the item that dropped or the phase of the moon. But that decision is mine to make, based on parameters of my choosing, which may or may not change from day to day.

The point being: it's my loot, and I'll decide whether or not I care about it. Neener neener.

"

With an instanced loot system or infinite timer if you wanted to share you would have to pick it up have to send the message and have to trade. If the loot system is adjusted in a way that loot camping is no longer rewarding the Reds will be on the front line with the Green while you archer fried can hang back to pick up the loot once the extended timer has expired. Or if you are looking out for your fiend you will have time to grab it if others are camping

You're not thinking four-dimensionally. It's easy as pie to create an "unlock" function for infinite-timer, instanced loot. Alt-click, or whatever, on the item and it becomes just as up-for-grabs as the purest of FFA loot.

GREEN Z: Hey, can I get that bow?
GREEN Y: *click*
GREEN Z: Thanks!

And if the REDS are camping the item (thus exposing themselves as REDS but to no ultimate benefit), then yes, you'd have to walk over, pick it the hell up, and hand it to your new friend. A sacrifice worth making, believe me you.

"

Extending the timer will affect current player behavior. If you have to wait 10-15 seconds to grab loot that you don't need you may miss a drop of something that you want.

*makes strangled noises* wrathmar. We ALREADY PLAY THAT WAY. We ALREADY wait as long as we want to grab our loot. We ALREADY clear the field of every monster, take a deep breath, sigh in gentle, warm satisfaction, and only then begin the arduous process of casually rummaging through the endless piles of crap on the ground. Already. Right now. That's because we ONLY PLAY SOLO.

In solo games, we can take as long as our bleeding hearts desire to pick up our loot. In fact, THAT'S WHY WE PLAY SOLO. So we can take as long as we want to pick up the loot. So no, wrathmar, our "player behavior" will not change AT ALL if the timer is extended to infinity. We already play with infinite loot timers. We're just asking to play with infinite loot timers together, in the same game. That's all. Nothing more.

"

Xaxyx wrote:

"

wrathmar wrote:

I agree with Chris assessment that a fully instanced loot system would be bad for the game. I along with others have presented suggestions that would reduce player frustration while preserving this core mechanic.

Bad in what sense? What would be "bad" about giving players the opportunity to enjoy the game together? Why do you feel so confident that my play experience is somehow LESSENED by being given the opportunity to merge my already solo game with others'?

Let me repeat that, because it's very, very important -- fundamental, in fact -- to my point: GREENS ALREADY PLAY SOLO. Right now. We NEVER, EVER play in public games. Right now. All we're asking for is the opportunity to play solo together. How, precisely, does that ruin the game for us?

This is something that I've seen a number of times in this thread and I tried to address it earlier, after which you told me not to speak for the devs because I am not a dev.

While I completely understand what you mean and what you're asking for, the only thing that matters is that the devs have designed their game a certain way and (so far) want you and everyone else to play their game within a certain social context. Whatever their reasons may be, this is something that is very important to the devs as stated in the first post of this thread.

Your point may be that it won't lessen your experience, but the disconnect is that the devs want you to play their game while you want to play your own version of their game. Your question of "why shouldn't they?" is about you and what you want, yet the answer isn't about you: it's about what the devs want.

Of course, there's no harm in asking for changes - this is a beta after all - but there seems to be much frustration with GGG because some players feel they're being ignored, yet the reason we haven't seen changes has nothing to do with that: the devs are just happy with the game as-is.

"

Jackel6672 wrote:

I feel it might not be enough for most of the people arguing for instanced though.

It's possible that most people arguing for instanced are simply using that as a placeholder stance. I've been arguing for instanced but a ten second timer would for sure cover me. I just need enough time to deal with the immediate crowd of monsters, then I'm good to go back and loot.

"

1. Unique doesn't equate to good. Every turd I produce is unique.

True. They also feel good when you are done making one.

"

2. Also accomplished with 999s timer.

One step away from the devs vision. One step towards "ass hats not giving you that high lv rare bow for fun"

"

3. ? Can't see why a longer timer would cause any slowdown.

Takes time to sort and share. Current system is grab and go.

"

4. If the item is assigned to you, left-click picks it up, right-click makes it available to others. Can't see why a longer timer makes it the least bit harder to share.

Accidently right click an item using skills, free for all. You guys would complain about that if it was implemented.

"

- having to track other players' various character names (anyone find this fun?)

Its up to you to do this. The devs make the game, you implement your own unwritten rules when you make a party. Its up to you to enforce your own rules.

"

- having to play hall monitor on others' behaviour (anyone find that fun?)

Same as your first point. Kicking is easy, tracking is up to you.

edit:

I wont be responding for awhile.

"

Aixius wrote:

This is something that I've seen a number of times in this thread and I tried to address it earlier, after which you told me not to speak for the devs because I am not a dev.

And I'm glad to see you've taken that advice to heart. *wriggles eyebrow*

"

While I completely understand what you mean and what you're asking for, the only thing that matters is that the devs have designed their game a certain way and (so far) want you and everyone else to play their game within a certain social context. Whatever their reasons may be, this is something that is very important to the devs as stated in the first post of this thread.

Okay, sure, I'll bite:

- I openly acknowledge and agree that the devs have designed their game their way.

- I openly acknowledge and agree that this issue is important to the devs, as indicated by the fact that they created this thread to begin with.

- And I openly acknowledge and agree I agree that ultimately, it is only the devs' opinions that matter.

"

Your point may be that it won't lessen your experience, but the disconnect is that the devs want you to play their game while you want to play your own version of their game. Your question of "why shouldn't they?" is about you and what you want, yet the answer isn't about you: it's about what the devs want.

That is absolutely correct, and an astute observation, if you'll permit me to say so. This entire thread -- despite the fact that GGG started the thread! -- is of no *inherent* significance, utility or influence. It's simply a collection of opinions, and the debate of those opinions. Nor did GGG imply in any way, shape or form that any the opinions expressed on this thread will or will not weigh in any fashion upon their decision-making process, now or in the future. All they asked was, "What do you guys think?"

Now, what they DID do, as it happens, is note expressly that a decision that they have made about loot WAS supposedly based upon player feedback. Here's the exact quote, from page 1:

"

Chris wrote:

This is a concept based on feedback only. It's not locked in stone, but we like the direction it's going in.

The "concept" in question is the loot timer. Thus, GGG themselves are asserting: yes, we made a decision based on feedback. From this I can conclude: yes, GGG *is* capable of making decisions based on player feedback. I have *evidence* to back this claim. Under these auspices, I will continue to provide feedback to the devs, as it is demonstrated that such feedback *might* influence their future decisions.

Now, part of that feedback process can involve expressing my own opinion. And, part of that feedback process can also involve critiquing the opinions of others (whether I agree with them or not -- booga booga!). Open discussion is a form of feedback, I would purport.

"

Of course, there's no harm in asking for changes - this is a beta after all - but there seems to be much frustration with GGG because some players feel they're being ignored, yet the reason we haven't seen changes has nothing to do with that: the devs are just happy with the game as-is.

Watching the replay, and... yep! He's over the line! Whether or not the devs are "just happy with the game as-is" is only for GGG to say -- and could change at any given moment. But what I CAN say, what I KNOW to be true, is that GGG is capable of using player feedback in their decision-making process. Wielding this knowledge, I am resolute in my intention to continue to provide my feedback. Perhaps they'll listen to me. Perhaps they're all secretly laughing at me. I don't know. But I'm-a gonna keep at it, stubborn fool that I am.

I don't think that people are remembering that we are already not playing the game the way they originally wanted. They wanted full FFA. Chris even admitted that they sometimes wish they could go back to it. Question is why don't they? They have a vision which they adjust to player demand. Which is also why Chris apparently said "If there's enough interest we can have a league for you".

"

Jackel6672 wrote:

One step away from the devs vision. One step towards "ass hats not giving you that high lv rare bow for fun"

I have no issues whatsoever with seeing an item designated for another player that I can't have. That would be like getting mad in an instanced system that the other guy gets a great item. Its random and he had better luck so what. Its nothing like what we are complaining about here.

"

Jackel6672 wrote:

Accidently right click an item using skills, free for all. You guys would complain about that if it was implemented.

I don't see this happening. If it did it would be very very rare.

"

Its up to you to do this. The devs make the game, you implement your own unwritten rules when you make a party. Its up to you to enforce your own rules.

"The devs making the game" argument only goes so far. Feedback will always be very important. Some of the devs probably loved the way that CI is right now but its still being changed due to player feedback. I appreciate the devs and their amazing talent and dedication to the game but just because they like something doesn't necessarily mean that its the best for the game.