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

"

Panda413 wrote:

"

orioxthetree wrote:

+10000000 for the **OPTION** for designated loot, there is just absolutely no reason not to have it as an option for those that want it

This is one of my biggest annoyances with this thread. There is a reason. There are several reasons. Chris Wilson has directly stated his main reason on more than one occasion. Other people have offered more reasons in this thread. Yet there are dozens of people that say this exact same thing every day.

Anyone that says "there is no reason" shouldn't be included in the debate. If you are unwilling to acknowledge the points of the other side, you aren't equipped to add to the debate. You only detract from the debate. This is true whether we are talking about PoE loot mechanics or any debate on any topic. In order to hold an informed position, you must first be informed.

I hereby officially remove your +10000000.

Someone saying there is "no reason" why this hasnt been done is implying that the reasons given do not warrant the decisions...Someone can make a reason for anything, generally, in an argument, the "good" or "valid" or "justified" is implied. I would think this would be common knowledge to someone who holds themself in high enough esteem to determine who should be able to debate their opinion or not...

TL:DR "No 'good' 'valid' 'justified' reason"

"

Xyre wrote:

Well I am a huge traditionalist when it comes to gaming, however one thing that really drives me crazy is the idea of someone telling me "what is fun". I prefer FFA loot, because it adds to the excitement, however I completely disagree with forcing others into experiencing a mechanic that I deem to be fun, when it is so easy to implement a compromise. There is absolutely, zero, zilch, nada reason not to put in an option upon party creation that makes the group loot FFA or Designated. People who enjoy FFA can join FFA groups, people who enjoy Designated can join Designated groups.

Not giving that option is really the equivalent of saying "Well these players enjoying hardcore really enjoy it, so instead of having default league we are now forcing everyone into hardcore"

It really is that silly...and holding on to that tradition will always create controversy and a rift in the community...its not worth it, let people enjoy the loot thats dropping the way they want to enjoy it...

Pretty much this. An option for this would be best for the party leader upon creation of the party. Make it so that before you accept party invitation it tells you the party options so you absolutely know what the deal is. This way no side is being forced to play a certain way, since its now a choice.

"

"We're pretty happy with how it works at the moment. There is great tension around item drops in multiplayer, but people are still able to grab ones that are allocated to them if they're paying attention.

We do read that thread and will continue to look at feedback. It could easily change in the future."

"We're currently at record levels of party engagement in the game, and we're very pleased with how well that's doing considering the game is designed around being played solo.

Bear in mind that looting isn't actually pure-FFA at the moment (though we often wish it was) - there is an allocation timer that helps smooth out unfairness with lag and distance.

Adding more options to games is generally a bad thing. The goal of the game designers is to create a system of restrictions that challenge the players, rather than throw in dozens of options and allow the players to try to find a fun game in there somewhere.

I understand if allocated looting seems like a good idea when it hasn't been tested, but we have done extensive testing and have also seen how badly it hurt other games that implemented it. We feel this is a really important part of PoE to get right."

Here is the PM Chris made to papercut pretty recently. It does provide a few reasons definitely. However these reasons are pretty vague and really aren't enough to make people want to ignore their own experiences. I know because I am one of those players. I have not seen or played any game that appeared to be hurt by instanced loot I only ever enjoyed it myself. I'm not going to get into the loot tension/competition because that has been talked about to death. So far in this beta it does not appear to be worth alienating so many players. In regards to this option being a bad thing sort of falls in line with the loot competition argument. If players don't enjoy FFA they just aren't going to see why this option would be bad in any way. It isn't comparable to any other mechanic in the game. Its a mechanic that players are actively avoiding.

I am glad that Chris said that it could easily change in the future. Some here have argued that it wouldn't be easy to change.

"

iamstryker wrote:

Furthermore their feedback still holds weight and is not null and void because of any reasoning given by the devs. If people don't like it then they don't like it. Reasons won't change player perception.

So much facepalm.

Reasoning is the exact thing that changes perception. If you have a different opinion than me, the way to convince me to change my opinion is to providing reasoning for your opinion. If you offered your reasoning and I turned around and said "there is no reason to agree with stryker!" you would feel the same way.

If a person forms an opinion without knowing the reasoning of the other side, they clearly don't have an informed opinion. This is common sense. I can't stand how much I have to defend common sense every time I reply to iamstryker.

If 500 people weigh in on a debate, and some of those people are uninformed, removing those opinions is a great way to simplify and try to resolve the debate. Sometimes I think this thread is just entertainment for you though -- you don't want the debate resolved, you just want to stir the pot.. a.k.a. trolling.

"

iamstryker wrote:

In the forum, I have only seen Chris say mainly that A) He wants loot tension and competition. This reason was given more than a year ago.

You spend more time in this debate than anyone. You have over 100 posts in this and related threads. If this is the best summary of supporting reasons for FFA you can come up with you are either not as bright as I have previously given you credit for or it just indicates how thick your personal bias is.

Your response adds to my previous comment. If the leader of the anti-FFA debate can't even accurately state the reasons for FFA, you know it's the blind leading the blind. Reading your posts reminds me of Fox News every time. Ugh.

"

Xyre wrote:

Someone saying there is "no reason" why this hasnt been done is implying that the reasons given do not warrant the decisions...

Don't respond for someone else. You don't know what he was implying.

Besides, in this case.. there are good reasons. So if your interpretation of the other guy's comments are right - it only adds to my point that his opinion holds no weight.

Either he is unaware of the reasons for FFA, or he is discrediting valid reasons. Either way, his +10000000 is worth exactly 0. You defending him only discredits your 2 cents.

"

Panda413 wrote:

You spend more time in this debate than anyone. You have over 100 posts in this and related threads. If this is the best summary of supporting reasons for FFA you can come up with you are either not as bright as I have previously given you credit for or it just indicates how thick your personal bias is.

Your response adds to my previous comment. If the leader of the anti-FFA debate can't even accurately state the reasons for FFA, you know it's the blind leading the blind. Reading your posts reminds me of Fox News every time. Ugh.

Styker understands the reasoning behind FFA and his historic post prove it. You pick one quote by him that does not go into detail and attempt to use it to dismiss his stand point. It seems like you are spending too much time watching fox news yourself.

"

Panda413 wrote:

Furthermore their feedback still holds weight and is not null and void because of any reasoning given by the devs. If people don't like it then they don't like it. Reasons won't change player perception.

"

Panda413 wrote:

Reasoning is the exact thing that changes perception.

Then the devs should give some that players might listen to. So far there hasn't been anything like that. Refer to my above post. Anti FFA has given NUMEROUS good reasons why FFA is bad for the game and only ask for another option. Yet somehow that doesn't help the perception of Pro FFA, I wonder why that is...

"

Panda413 wrote:

If you have a different opinion than me, the way to convince me to change my opinion is to providing reasoning for your opinion. If you offered your reasoning and I turned around and said "there is no reason to agree with stryker!" you would feel the same way.

Its apparent enough that reasons can be thrown around by both sides all day and night and it won't make a difference. Thats why the player feedback is so important.

"

Panda413 wrote:

If a person forms an opinion without knowing the reasoning of the other side, they clearly don't have an informed opinion. This is common sense. I can't stand how much I have to defend common sense every time I reply to iamstryker.

When exactly have you talked to the devs to know the reasons of the other side? The devs have given very little on the subject. In regards to Pro FFA informed opinion it has made no difference whatsoever, when will your common sense alert you to this fact?

"

Panda413 wrote:

If 500 people weigh in on a debate, and some of those people are uninformed, removing those opinions is a great way to simplify and try to resolve the debate. Sometimes I think this thread is just entertainment for you though -- you don't want the debate resolved, you just want to stir the pot.. a.k.a. trolling.

There is absolutely no piece of information that is going to negate the opinions of the vast majority of these players. I know because I have the same perception that they do.

Accusing me of trolling? seriously? Ya I am trolling one topic in this entire forum. That definitely makes sense. Of course I want it resolved. I have given numerous suggestions that would make me personally much more happy with the game. What responses do I get from the Pro FFA side? "Get over it", "No, competition is good", "Pay attention if you can't then tough luck", "What you can't make friends". Ya really lame responses that aren't aimed at helping my side at all. If anything your side has made this topic worse.

"

Panda413 wrote:

You spend more time in this debate than anyone. You have over 100 posts in this and related threads. If this is the best summary of supporting reasons for FFA you can come up with you are either not as bright as I have previously given you credit for or it just indicates how thick your personal bias is.

Really sad Panda. I quote a dev because I want to point out only what devs have said and you attack me as not knowing Pro FFA arguments? Pathetic. I have responded to every Pro FFA argument ever given in a mature fashion. Get over yourself.

"

Panda413 wrote:

Your response adds to my previous comment. If the leader of the anti-FFA debate can't even accurately state the reasons for FFA, you know it's the blind leading the blind. Reading your posts reminds me of Fox News every time. Ugh.

I can give you the entire lame list of FFA reasons. Like I have done numerous times. But you guys can just pretend that I haven't. I am just sooooooo biased.

Why don't you actually try listening and understanding the other side. Whens the last time that any of you have done that?

"

Panda413 wrote:

"

iamstryker wrote:

Furthermore their feedback still holds weight and is not null and void because of any reasoning given by the devs. If people don't like it then they don't like it. Reasons won't change player perception.

So much facepalm.

Reasoning is the exact thing that changes perception. If you have a different opinion than me, the way to convince me to change my opinion is to providing reasoning for your opinion. If you offered your reasoning and I turned around and said "there is no reason to agree with stryker!" you would feel the same way.

If a person forms an opinion without knowing the reasoning of the other side, they clearly don't have an informed opinion. This is common sense. I can't stand how much I have to defend common sense every time I reply to iamstryker.

If 500 people weigh in on a debate, and some of those people are uninformed, removing those opinions is a great way to simplify and try to resolve the debate. Sometimes I think this thread is just entertainment for you though -- you don't want the debate resolved, you just want to stir the pot.. a.k.a. trolling.

"

iamstryker wrote:

In the forum, I have only seen Chris say mainly that A) He wants loot tension and competition. This reason was given more than a year ago.

You spend more time in this debate than anyone. You have over 100 posts in this and related threads. If this is the best summary of supporting reasons for FFA you can come up with you are either not as bright as I have previously given you credit for or it just indicates how thick your personal bias is.

Your response adds to my previous comment. If the leader of the anti-FFA debate can't even accurately state the reasons for FFA, you know it's the blind leading the blind. Reading your posts reminds me of Fox News every time. Ugh.

If the option for Instanced Loot is ever implemented, I'll still support GGG -- but I'll know that they are simply catering to the LOWEST common denominator. I'm sorry if I offend anyone - but 98% of the anti-ffa loot arguments presented are authored by people in the LOWEST common denominator group. If/When you get what you want, it will just add to your entitlement. This is why we can't have nice things.

Its an opinion Panda on both sides and anyone who has posted on this subject does give their reason, either they enjoy it or they do not...As it stands one side, your side, wishes to impose what you(and myself) enjoy on others when there is no reason, sorry let me clarify since the "good" wont be implied...there is no "good" reason why both sides of this argument can not be given the option to choose when the mechanic is based on game enjoyment and such a simple compromise is easily made.

Another vote for the option to have designated loot (real designated loot, not that laughable timer).

If the Devs really wanted to address/consider this issue seriously, they should have announced a Poll and gotten beta player feedback a long time ago. A simple "Do you want us to add the option to have designated loot? A: No, and it would make the game worse. B: I have no preference, as long as its optional. C: Yes, it would make the game better." And check out the results.

If we were to see something like A: 50% B: 40% C: 10% it would be a good indication that those wanting designated loot are in the minority and that the majority specifically doesn't want it. On the other hand if it were say, A: 10% B: 40% C: 50% this would be a clear message to the Devs of "if you want to make PoE a better game for your players, then you need to add this feature."

It is a wonder to me that for the cost of $0 and maybe 5 minutes of time the Devs had not made use of this sort of player feedback. Right now you just have some tiny number of vocal people pointlessly arguing the issue, and no one, including the GGG Devs has any actual idea where the playerbase at large stands on the topic.

"

Xyre wrote:

Its an opinion Panda on both sides and anyone who has posted on this subject does give their reason, either they enjoy it or they do not...As it stands one side, your side, wishes to impose what you(and myself) enjoy on others when there is no reason, sorry let me clarify since the "good" wont be implied...there is no "good" reason why both sides of this argument can not be given the option to choose when the mechanic is based on game enjoyment and such a simple compromise is easily made.

Be careful Xyre. I bet your painfully close to Panda accusing you of lacking common sense or not being very "bright".

The current system promotes group play and a "sharing is caring" methodology. The only reason I can conjure up as to why somebody would want instanced loot rather than how it is currently is because they often find themselves partying with bad players. I personally haven't experienced any of these bad players.

If I'm in a party and something drops that I want, I ask for it, and 90% of the time they will be happy to give it up unless it is something of a large value. If somebody else wants something that I got, I would gladly give it up. Does my generous persona make me one of a itsy bitsy minority or something?

Also, to make loot instanced will remove what little reason people have to actually communicate in a public party. One may as well play alone.

I am all in favor of leaving everything as it is currently setup.