Rarity/Quantity find calculation (proposal)

In every action rpg that uses a loot system, whose dropchances can be altered through several effects (rarity and quantity find), and also is dependant on the player that lasthits a particular enemy in order to calculate which players rarity find bonus is utilized, there always is one particular problem:

People are being encouraged to always let the player with the highest rarity find get all the lasthits.
There is a chest? Sorry cant open, the player with the highest rarity find should open it.
There is a rare enemy? Sorry cant kill it, have to wait for the rarity find player, so on and on.

People stop playing the game (killing monsters and opening chests etc) and start standing around, out of fear that they might lasthit a boss by accident, or open a large chest by accident.

This is bad gamedesign. It was bad gamedesign back in diablo 2 and it is still bad gamedesign in every single arpg that utilizes this way of handling the issue.
This issue makes playing the game in a group a hassle instead of a fun experience.

People shouldnt have to worry about tedious stuff like this if they want to compete, but right now you are basically forced to.
People basically are encouraged to play alone instead of in a group, because they dont want anyone to mess their rarity find up (in case they have a lower value).

Players should never be punished for playing in a group, it should atleast be as fun as if you were playing solo, rather it should be more fun.

There are several solutions that can fix this issue without making rarity find too strong.


One solution would be to have separate loot for each player.
If player A and B play together, and A kills an enemy, the enemy should drop loot for both, once for player A and once for player B.
The loot for player A is enchanced by player A´s rarity find, while player B´s loot is enchanced by his rarity find.
Every player can only see his loot and not the others.

Problem solved. No one has to worry about opening chests and killing stuff if they have low rarity find, they can do it without having to wait for the player with the highest rarity find.

That solution is probably not the most preferable one, therefore i have two (now three) more solutions that soften the issue up a little (they dont fix it altogether).


The first one is to have a weighted table that factors in the player with the highest rarity find the most.
If player A has 100% rarity find, and player B has 50% rarity find, the lootsystem could factor in player A´s rarity find with a factor of 2, while factoring in player B´s rarity find with a factor of 1, regardless of who lasthits an enemy.
Player A would basically contribute 200% rarity find to the kill, while player B contributes 50% rarity find.
250% divided by 3 = 83% combined rarity find.


This would mean that the combined rarity find is a little closer to the rarity find of the player with the highest value, while never exceeding it (there is no way to abuse this system and increase the combined rarity find above 100% in this particular case.



Another option is to have a weighted diceroll on whose rarity find is utilized for a specific slain enemy (regardless of who lasthits).
If player A has 100% rarity find and player B has 50% rarity find, 66% of the time the lootsystem will utilize player A´s rarity find when determining the loot (regardless of lasthitter) and 33% of the time the system will utilize player B´s rarity find instead.



All three options would make it a lot more fun to play in a group when rarity find is involved.
Right now its a hassle to play with friends, since you are always forced (if you want to be competitive) to leave the lasthit/chest to a specific player.



edit(another idea came to my mind later in the thread, here is the copy paste):

Another option that came to my mind, fixes the rarity find lasthit dilemma i described in the OP, but at the same time works for cut throat league (if you can actually party up there, i still dont know whether thats possible or not).

Monsters dont necessarily need to drop loot that is invisible to some in order to fix the issue.
Monsters could just have several loot tables, each allocated to a specific player from the same party.
If a monster is slain by someone from that party, it is decided whether something drops, FOR each loot table from that same party (with the same dropchance that a player would have if he played solo).
If player B kills a monster, then the system checks twice whether something drops, once out of player A´s loottable and once out of player B´s loottable.
Player A´s loottable is enchanced by his own rarity/quantity find, and player B´s loottable is enhanced by his.
Once the item drops, it is visisble to everyone though.
(it is visible to everyone from the party, and also to everyone that does not belong to the party)

This way, mates that party up dont have to worry about who lasthits what, because they dont have any disadvantage rarity find wise when compared to playing solo, while at the same time making it possible in cut throat league to have a competition for items (since the items dropped are visible for everyone).

This solution fixes the issue that is described in the OP, for both normal leagues and cut throat leagues, without any unwanted sideeffects.

"

Right now its a hassle to play with friends, since you are always forced (if you want to be competitive) to leave the lasthit/chest to a specific player.

"

Chris wrote:

It's important to us that Path of Exile has a cut-throat feel where players are not only competing against monsters, but also their fellow players. We do not feel it is an option to arbitrarily hide items from players who have not been allocated them.

http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/392

Based on what I've heard so far, my impression is that GGG simply doesn't expect you to cooperate in the first place. They think that you should be trying to screw over your friends as much as possible by grabbing everything you can find because you can. Apparently if we want to actually get the loot we play the game for, we have to either play solo or have the best reaction time.

I don't find that kind of game fun whether I get the item or not. If I get the item there's drama from the people who didn't get it, and if I don't get it there's drama from me because good items are so rare. Your only other option is to not play with anyone else, which totally uproots the point of this being an online game and severely limits its replayability, which is fatal to a game of this type.

It's a lose-lose-lose situation.

"

Strill wrote:

"

Right now its a hassle to play with friends, since you are always forced (if you want to be competitive) to leave the lasthit/chest to a specific player.

"

Chris wrote:

It's important to us that Path of Exile has a cut-throat feel where players are not only competing against monsters, but also their fellow players. We do not feel it is an option to arbitrarily hide items from players who have not been allocated them.

http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/392

Based on what I've heard so far, my impression is that GGG simply doesn't expect you to cooperate in the first place. They think that you should be trying to screw over your friends as much as possible by grabbing everything you can find because you can. Apparently if we want to actually get the loot we play the game for, we have to either play solo or have the best reaction time.

I don't find that kind of game fun whether I get the item or not. If I get the item there's drama from the people who didn't get it, and if I don't get it there's drama from me because good items are so rare. Your only other option is to not play with anyone else, which totally uproots the point of this being an online game and severely limits its replayability, which is fatal to a game of this type.

It's a lose-lose-lose situation.

Definitely agree with you.
The multiplayer aspect of this game is what makes it infinitely replayable, but if there is more incentive to play it solo (because playing in a party brings more disadvantages than anything else) then i dont see how this game can be a success in the longrun.
It will devolve into a singleplayer game that you run through once and thats it.

GGG should reevaluate whether it makes sense to pit party members against each other, because we (the playerbase) dont like it at all (old diablo 2 veterans and this was already an issue back then and ultimately the reason people stopped playing).

In a game where playing solo yields more success than playing in a party, why would you ever want to join a party in order to "compete" against your own friends?
Makes no sense and takes away alot of fun for no reason whatsoever.

"

gh0un wrote:

In a game where playing solo yields more success than playing in a party, why would you ever want to join a party in order to "compete" against your own friends?
Makes no sense and takes away alot of fun for no reason whatsoever.

Probably because waiting for the "ding" of a ring or amulet keeps the progress tense and exciting like a game of musical chairs. However, that in my experience just makes it that much more drama-prone. The only tense that I'm interested in is that created by the combat system itself.

Yeah, while reading through the beta manifesto, one line brought a huge frown to my face:

"

We are very serious about sticking to systems close to FFA

One thing that Hellgate: London did right is to not have people fighting over loot. It may not be "realistic" for people to only see their own loot, but it makes the game a lot better. There are enough reasons not to play with random people on the internet, I don't really need to add another negative to the list.

You might say "Hey, bring friends!", but not everybody has real life friends interested in this game, and, if Diablo II taught me anything, it's that even people you think you're friends with on the internet will backstab you the instant they get the chance.

FFA loot would be perfect for the Cut-Throat League, though.

---
As for the loot quantity and quality, I think it should count the highest value out of the people that hit it before it died. If the guy with high quantity/quality has hit the monster in question, then his values should apply to the drops without having to worry about who gets the final blow.

I don't know how its done currently.

I think the chance to find should be based on either the mean of both player's chance or should just default to the highest player's chance and eliminate the "last to hit issue".

As far as having the developers provider baby sitter conflict resolution in the programming I think that's lame. Getting screwed is part of life. Deal with that now or resign yourself to a life of cutting and watching Twilight. Build trust, form partnerships, be wary of new people in your parties.

If the dev's want to have fun make PvP allowed in parties. Add a vote feature or button you can push opening up the item to contest. Don't like that they grabbed your uber item? Hit the "bad teammate button", slay them, and watch the last 1-5 items dropped become available again for you to take what was rightfully yours.

I don't need a random system, roll system, raid leader system, etc etc etc.

Fairness or combat = problem solved.

Lost the fight? Lesson learned. Maybe a rep system. You could defame the person and their account gets flagged. Name in red, skill and crossbones next to their name. Wanna be ruthless and player with the ruthless? They can be found easily. Want mommy to tuck you in and tell you the bad man can't hurt you anymore? Only party with folks with hearts and rainbows in their rep profile.

You're welcome.

"

akajinroh wrote:

I think the chance to find should be based on either the mean of both player's chance or should just default to the highest player's chance and eliminate the "last to hit issue".

As far as having the developers provider baby sitter conflict resolution in the programming I think that's lame. Getting screwed is part of life. Deal with that now or resign yourself to a life of cutting and watching Twilight. Build trust, form partnerships, be wary of new people in your parties.

If the dev's want to have fun make PvP allowed in parties. Add a vote feature or button you can push opening up the item to contest. Don't like that they grabbed your uber item? Hit the "bad teammate button", slay them, and watch the last 1-5 items dropped become available again for you to take what was rightfully yours.

I don't need a random system, roll system, raid leader system, etc etc etc.

Fairness or combat = problem solved.

Lost the fight? Lesson learned. Maybe a rep system. You could defame the person and their account gets flagged. Name in red, skill and crossbones next to their name. Wanna be ruthless and player with the ruthless? They can be found easily. Want mommy to tuck you in and tell you the bad man can't hurt you anymore? Only party with folks with hearts and rainbows in their rep profile.

You're welcome.

You're incredibly ignorant. Anyone who's spent 2 minutes in Maple Story knows that rep systems are worthless.

And I also might add that you haven't given any justification for why we should tolerate getting screwed on drops other than "I think that's lame" and that getting screwed happens in other completely irrelevant contexts.

this is pretty much the sole reason people farm ledge map in chaos.

its long and it has 2 separate lanes.

i think thats a decent compromise for those that dont want to fight over loot or want to make pug farm groups.

maybe some 3 lane chaos maps like a dota/lol map would be a cool thing to think about?

just brainstorming to fit with needs and desires of the dev team.

"

Strill wrote:

"

akajinroh wrote:

I think the chance to find should be based on either the mean of both player's chance or should just default to the highest player's chance and eliminate the "last to hit issue".

As far as having the developers provider baby sitter conflict resolution in the programming I think that's lame. Getting screwed is part of life. Deal with that now or resign yourself to a life of cutting and watching Twilight. Build trust, form partnerships, be wary of new people in your parties.

If the dev's want to have fun make PvP allowed in parties. Add a vote feature or button you can push opening up the item to contest. Don't like that they grabbed your uber item? Hit the "bad teammate button", slay them, and watch the last 1-5 items dropped become available again for you to take what was rightfully yours.

I don't need a random system, roll system, raid leader system, etc etc etc.

Fairness or combat = problem solved.

Lost the fight? Lesson learned. Maybe a rep system. You could defame the person and their account gets flagged. Name in red, skill and crossbones next to their name. Wanna be ruthless and player with the ruthless? They can be found easily. Want mommy to tuck you in and tell you the bad man can't hurt you anymore? Only party with folks with hearts and rainbows in their rep profile.

You're welcome.

You're incredibly ignorant. Anyone who's spent 2 minutes in Maple Story knows that rep systems are worthless.

And I also might add that you haven't given any justification for why we should tolerate getting screwed on drops other than "I think that's lame" and that getting screwed happens in other completely irrelevant contexts.

I absolutely did, you just don't like the implications of a world where you remain at risk of getting screwed. I like the idea having the chance to screw and be screwed. It ads an element of danger, risk, relationship building, social ramifications, planning, etc etc. You know, like in life. I don't want to have this removed because your solutions are either to be anti-social entirely or remove social interaction from the party system. Either way you don't want to play with people. You want an emoticon e-pal to sit around and chat about nothing with. Don't like the person, don't play with them. Want to play with a ruthless bunch and mad grab everything? Go for it. Want to get to know people and play with those you trust? Go for it. I don't want some feature to slow down my game play and make the decision who gets what being made by the digital baby sitter.

Don't be a child, life has risks and people don't always play fair. That's fun sometimes. I want to be able to have me and my long-term buddy stab him/her in the back, or visa-versa. Or just jam somebody up because that's part of the hazing process, or visa versa. See if they react in an amusing or mature way. Maybe give them their stuff back, maybe not. I ALWAYS play HC/PvP because it's more fun to know that next blow could be my last. Sounds like you just want to stare at a screen and watch what little yellow and blue items drop like the zombies at the casino pumping cash into the slot machines. I for one see value in real risk and real interactions with real people who make their own decisions.

"

akajinroh wrote:

I absolutely did, you just don't like the implications of a world where you remain at risk of getting screwed. I like the idea having the chance to screw and be screwed. It ads an element of danger, risk, relationship building, social ramifications, planning, etc etc. You know, like in life. I don't want to have this removed because your solutions are either to be anti-social entirely or remove social interaction from the party system. Either way you don't want to play with people. You want an emoticon e-pal to sit around and chat about nothing with. Don't like the person, don't play with them. Want to play with a ruthless bunch and mad grab everything? Go for it. Want to get to know people and play with those you trust? Go for it. I don't want some feature to slow down my game play and make the decision who gets what being made by the digital baby sitter.

Don't be a child, life has risks and people don't always play fair. That's fun sometimes. I want to be able to have me and my long-term buddy stab him/her in the back, or visa-versa. Or just jam somebody up because that's part of the hazing process, or visa versa. See if they react in an amusing or mature way. Maybe give them their stuff back, maybe not. I ALWAYS play HC/PvP because it's more fun to know that next blow could be my last. Sounds like you just want to stare at a screen and watch what little yellow and blue items drop like the zombies at the casino pumping cash into the slot machines. I for one see value in real risk and real interactions with real people who make their own decisions.

And it also adds the element of excessive caution, just like real life. Don't assume I don't know what it's like. I've PVPed in EVE in a battleship. It's definitely exciting, but it's also very low on action since everyone is so cautious. No one ever gets themselves into a fair fight and you spend most of the time waiting around. When action finally happens it's over in an instant. None of your preparations ever actually matter because no one ever considers going into combat unless they vastly outnumber their opponent in the first place. The equivalent cautious response in this game is to not play with other players, which is exactly what you'll see here just as you see the vast majority of the EVE population living in high-sec.

While the excitement is enjoyable, I find planning, executing, and playing with character builds more enjoyable. I like this game because I enjoy the combat and customization systems. I'm here to complete builds, not to play musical chairs with the loot system. If GGG insists on Free-for-all loot in all Leagues, then so be it, but I won't be participating in it, which means I won't be staying for long.

Oh, and real life, unlike this game, is not built on anarchy. There are legal ramifications for screwing people in real life which the game does not include. If there were a way to make binding agreements in the game, that would be more than acceptable.