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

"

TremorAcePV wrote:

It's not beside the point when that's the reason most of the people are complaining in the first place. If they stopped thinking that, FFA would be fine for them. It'd be fine for everyone. It's completely within "the point".

It would not be fine, it will probably never be fine.
Because when you're part of the team that reaches its goal you reap the benefit as a team.
And there is no team in the world that rewards only 1 team-member because he picked up the reward first.
In a team every and each one of the team members have a right to the rewards that the team gained thru all its members working on it.
This is where your judgement gets clouded. Dev's also.
You have to just look farther 1 more step to see the whole picture.

"

TremorAcePV wrote:

Allocated loot is not an option. It defeats the purpose of the game.

No it REALLY doesn't. It's primarily a single player game and designed as such, so it really does not make any sense that making multiplayer loot more like single player loot would defeat the purpose of the game. It would be easier to argue for the opposite being true.

"

XCodes wrote:

So you see no problem with people playing Path of Exile in a party and getting absolutely no loot for the trouble?

Let me ask you this in return, if I was bad at a game, and I asked for the developers to make it easier so I could win and have fun, do you think I would be in the right? If I didn't pay for it?

That's what you are doing. If you can't get any loot because of your lack of ability, something within your control, then that is fair and should not be changed. You should practice until you get better at the game. That's how games are meant to be played. Unless you like to face roll everything, but then it isn't a game.

Now, obviously, lag, desyncs, and bugs, are all things we can't control. They need to fix desyncs and bugs and set up something within the loot system that actually compensates for lag between players. If they did that, boo ya. Awesome system.

But to answer your question, yes, I have no problem with that if it because of their ability, or lack thereof, to play the game. I don't think they should l2p, I think they should practice and get better, or play a game that's more aligned with their level of ability. Not ask the devs to change the game so that they, personally, can play it when it effects everyone else too.

"

mibuwolf wrote:

... I am gonna try my best to not insult/demean you. You are more than likely not a developer or coder of an aRPG game (or any game possibly?) and would not know what is/isn't an option for this dev team. There are ways to fix this loot issue, but the hard part is implementing it.

I have faith that the dev team could resolve the issue many of their players are facing. If they do not do anything about the system the way it is now however, expect plenty of players to just lose interest.


Save my own ass note: I don't care about the loot system and just accept it as is, but I do KNOW it bothers many people and they will quit. You don't want your players to quit. That's potential income out the door. Gaining a customer is harder than maintaining the relationship, especially when the issue affects so many. Performance issues/Bug issues are one of the many reasons for example why people would quit, but GGG is already on top of that issue. Loot is just one more.

I'm not, and thank you. I know what's not possible based on what they themselves have said.

A longer timer would make the game slow down too much. This is because people will wait on it if the person it's designated to isn't there. They've said this.

The reason instances close every 8-15 mins is for server resources. Adding loot for every single player that was inside each instance would multiply the resources necessary multiiple times. Basic math.

Allocated loot is the opposite of what they want for this game. That's why it's been FFA for so long. They want the atmosphere of the world and the player's interactions to reflect the cruelty of the world. Thus "cut throat". They have said this, though I paraphrase it.

I would expect most, if not all, of those players to be playing in Default, perhaps even strictly. Which would be a sad loss, but not a game or GGG breaking one, for obvious reasons.

I don't have much to say about what money is to GGG. I just assume they love the game, based on all I've seen. So I doubt that would be a motivating factor.

"

TremorAcePV wrote:

It's not instanced. (Good because it allows (albeit, almost forces) players to interact)

People use this argument as if all player interaction is equal. Just because there is a form of player interaction does not automatically mean that it makes the game BETTER.

If the devs forced public games to be 100% cutthroat would they say "We know that most of our player base do not enjoy combat with other players while they play our game, however we believe its better because there is more player interaction."

That would be absurd.

ffa loot + desyncs + completely bad and useless trading system (trade chat and forum all messed up) = Losing players all days.. And u know people are quitting
And we have a season race comming up...
really?! so much small and big fixes to be done and u guys makind a season run

"

mobutu wrote:

It would not be fine, it will probably never be fine.
Because when you're part of the team that reaches its goal you reap the benefit as a team.
And there is no team in the world that rewards only 1 team-member because he picked up the reward first.
In a team every and each one of the team members have a right to the rewards that the team gained thru all its members working on it.
This is where your judgement gets clouded. Dev's also.
You have to just look farther 1 more step to see the whole picture.

I don't think you understand what Wraeclast is supposed to be. It's not a "team" in a public group. It's supposed to be less than that. Where you are only helping each other enough to get ahead yourself. That's what the idea is. That's what "cut throat" is.

"

Sickness wrote:

No it REALLY doesn't. It's primarily a single player game and designed as such, so it really does not make any sense that making multiplayer loot more like single player loot would defeat the purpose of the game. It would be easier to argue for the opposite being true.

Well, the developers decide what the games purpose is. And what they say it is goes against that. I take this from the fact they want it cut throat. Using caps does not make it any more true.

If we are to play together, we must decide who gets what we as a group find or take it ourselves.

If it is allocated, it may as well not be a multiplayer game at all. That's all it has that's multiplayer besides PVP, which is irrelevant atm.

Plus, we could argue about whether it's mostly a singleplayer game, but I've played the entire thing in a group (public, not the same people), only being solo when I farm XP. So I don't see where you say it's a primarily singleplayer game.

"

iamstryker wrote:

People use this argument as if all player interaction is equal. Just because there is a form of player interaction does not automatically mean that it makes the game BETTER.

If the devs forced public games to be 100% cutthroat would they say "We know that most of our player base do not enjoy combat with other players while they play our game, however we believe its better because there is more player interaction."

That would be absurd.

Fair enough, but we can't have instanced loot either way. Server resources.

"

Crizaig wrote:

Everyone just ignore Tremor. I'm pretty sure he is just someone posting on their extra account so their main account doesn't get put on probation.

He is here to troll you and start fights, nothing more.

If that's what you want to believe, go for it. However, I know nothing of how to troll. I can't even recognize it when it's done to me. So... yeah. Believe what you will.

"

TremorAcePV wrote:

Let me ask you this in return, if I was bad at a game, and I asked for the developers to make it easier so I could win and have fun, do you think I would be in the right? If I didn't pay for it?

Bad at what game? Loot isn't the game itself, loot is the reward for playing the game. If loot is the reward and you're not getting loot, then that's not a failure on the part of the player, that's a failure on the part of the game.

Also, Free to Play is a business model. It's not charity, it's not for funsies, it's a proven, profitable business model. A method by which a company makes money. It has nothing at all to do with any discussion of game suggestions, ever.

Now, answer my question, and I mean legitimately answer my question: The game is arbitrarily saying that someone can't play the game. Not can't play as intended or having technical issues, but just can't play. Period. At some point, that character's gear is so bad that he simply can't progress any further, and there is no standard by which this person is selected. Not player skill, not build, not anything. It's just a plain "Fuck you, you don't get to play." Is that OK?

"

TremorAcePV wrote:

Let me ask you this in return, if I was bad at a game, and I asked for the developers to make it easier so I could win and have fun, do you think I would be in the right? If I didn't pay for it?

Anyone who would say this is not willing to recognize the real issues that people have with the loot system.

This is seriously the worst argument anyone has ever used in this thread.

Public games isn't even the easiest way to play. If you want to play the game easy you get in a private party of friends who want to help each other. Not only do you get your share of the loot without risking your neck and averting your focus but the game is a cake walk. Do you also have issues with private games?

Point is you can be amazing at this game and still hate the loot system. Its sad that your acting like loot camping is skillful.

Oh and so Sickness doesn't need to waste his time replying to you. This game was confirmed by Chris as being built for single player. So your argument that FFA is somehow core to playing this game is just wrong.

Edit: Too late

"

TremorAcePV wrote:

Well, the developers decide what the games purpose is. And what they say it is goes against that. I take this from the fact they want it cut throat. Using caps does not make it any more true.

Plus, we could argue about whether it's mostly a singleplayer game, but I've played the entire thing in a group (public, not the same people), only being solo when I farm XP. So I don't see where you say it's a primarily singleplayer game.

Yeah, and the devs have said that it's primarily as single player game.

"

TremorAcePV wrote:

If we are to play together, we must decide who gets what we as a group find or take it ourselves.

Not so different from deciding that the game should automatically split up the loot to everyone.

"

TremorAcePV wrote:

If it is allocated, it may as well not be a multiplayer game at all. That's all it has that's multiplayer besides PVP, which is irrelevant atm.

Loot is not the only multiplayer element in this game. That claim is so ridiculous that you now lost all credability.