Looting -- The official thread for discussing the loot system. Updated 18th March, 2013.
"
Ladderjack wrote:
Spoiler
"
TremorAcePV wrote:
Spoiler
Time-out. You ask for arguements against your position, but in reading the last 5-10 pages I haven't seen you make an arguement for it. If it's further back, feel free to copy/paste it as a quote. You would know how far back to look, that's why I ask you to do it.
I disagree. It should not be allowed because it devalues the choice of FFA for the people who enjoy that loot system. I'm one of those people. I am the evidence of that claim. That makes it a fact.
Whether it's a fact that should be considered is up to you, since I only have evidence for myself. However, there are many other players who I know share my viewpoint. I can't really say "hey, be my witness." because this isn't a court room and we aren't lawyers. That'd just be silly.
Now, you might say "Well, why should they cater to you over the rest of the player base?" and the simple answer is thus: This game was made for us in mind.
If you dispute that fact, read up on where the game came from and who it was made for. This is why the developer's choices matter in this discussion. They show what I just stated is true.
The following facts are also true:
Originally, the game was pure FFA.
Now, it's FFA with a timer to make up for uncontrollable circumstance (such as distance and lag). That's true, and I've given explanations a many times to prove it.
This same loot system has been in effect for 2 years. That's a pretty long time for people to complain and nothing to be done.
Based on that, I think it is a very safe thing to say the devs want FFA. Badly enough to keep it for this long against negative feedback from part of the player base.
I guess, in a sense, saying "It should not be an option because it being an option detracts from my enjoyment of the game." is personal greed, to an extent. However, I don't personally believe that me desiring a game that was made for people like to me to stay that way is so much to ask.
I think (I think implies opinion, btw) it's actually more greedy for people who the game wasn't made for to come and ask it be changed so they can have fun in it too when that hurts the ones it was made for.
Then we are just deciding which greed to cater too. And in my personal opinion, ours is justified. It was made for us after all. Whereas, the ones trying to change it are unjustified beyond "It doesn't let them have fun like the rest of the players".
Examples of why I believe this to be true is the following:
There are an extremely limited number of hardcore ARPG's like PoE, if any at all.
There are an extremely large number of MMORPG's that have what you are asking be in PoE already implemented into them.
So basically, you are trying to turn what little we have into what you have an abundance of. Taking from the "have-nots" and giving more to the "haves". That's just backwards.
My above statements regarding how many ARPG's like PoE are out there is further shown when we consider why the developers made the game for themselves, originally, considering themselves hardcore gamers. I would wager the reason they did that rather than just play a game already made is because there were none for what they wanted. So they made PoE, and it grew into this.
Now, consider what happens if options are added:
You have more fun. The people the game was made for have less fun. (That's not right imo)
PoE has changed from being a hardcore ARPG with a few MMO elements to a "not-so" hardcore ARPG/MMO (Keep adding elements and it will eventually just be another MMO)
I understand that you don't understand how that could be, but it's true.
Regarding your understanding of players like me and how adding options would detract for our fun in the game, it's just like, somehow, NFL players play Football because they enjoy it. I'll never understand that. Ever.
This is not a weak analogy. It's the same thing with a different subject matter. You are in my position in this analogy and I in the NFL players position. I enjoy the game as is, so much so, that if I could have it as my job, I would. (Most hardcore players are like this)
So I don't expect you to understand why you having an option to play differently from me, but still be in the same game as me, is effecting me in how you play differently than I do.
All you must understand is that it does, not why it does, because you can't.
The argument for having a non-FFA loot option is that a clear majority of players would prefer an option and it has no affect on players who aren't trying to grab loot that is intended for other players. But you know that.
Most of your post is a rambling mess centered around the idea that you are a "hardcore gamer" and so what you want is what GGG intends in this project. Until you can support this perspective with statements from GGG, we are going to ignore all of that nonsense for the purposes of this response.
But this bit, . .
"
TremorAcePV wrote:
So I don't expect you to understand why you having an option to play differently from me, but still be in the same game as me, is effecting me in how you play differently than I do.
All you must understand is that it does, not why it does, because you can't.
. . .this is ridiculous. You can explain it clearly and everyone knows it. . .the only problem is you have to lay bare the fact that how this affects you is that it deprives you of the chance to snatch loot that belongs to other players. (If the principle of ownership didn't apply, the timer system would not have been implemented.)
Having the option for non-FFA loot doesn't deprive "hardcore gamers" of anything. Until you can explain how it does, that is no argument.
Non-FFA loot should be an option.
Disagree? Explain why it should not be allowed.
(Pro-tip: if your explanation can be tracked back to personal greed, you will be eaten alive.)
I want to itterate that when you say options, I assume you mean in game, via the group leader's choice, as that's what's been suggested over and over.
That is a bad arguement for it because it is based on the lie that it does not affect other players. The loot isn't intended for other players, even iamstryker understood this as I explained what the timer is for. Ignore it if you want, but here it is:
Spoiler
"
TremorAcePV wrote:
I'm going to explain how the current loot system works. One. More. Time.
The name that goes on the timer is based on a combination of distance and lag (and some other third thing that I don't know).
It's to create an even playing field. The problem is that lag is not constant. Sometimes there are spikes, so if you have a spike the moment an item drops, you can get your name on the timer even if you are right on top of it, rather than the ranged player behind you.
The name on the timer is the person with the LEAST chance to get it. That way, everyone theoretically has a chance. This fails practicaly, but not the point.
The current loot system does not distribute loot accordingly, it was made to give everyone a level playing field in a FFA loot system.
Meaning that it's intention was never to make sure the guy who's name was on the timer get the loot, but that no one should get it before he had a chance to.
Example of how this theoretically would work:
Loot drops. One player is far away and has a bit of lag. These two combined are greater than any other member of the group. His name is put on the timer. The time is set, considering his distance and lag, so that the moment before he gets to it, the timer ends. This means that everyone, assuming it's a good item, are on top of the item at the moment the timer ends and everyone has an even chance of getting it.
This means that your name on the timer does not make it yours. It only means you are the most disadvantaged person at the moment the item dropped. This changes sporadically as lag is not a constant, so if the person with the lowest chance to get the loot suddenly loses all lag the moment after the loot drops, he will get it before the timer goes off defeating the purpose of the timer.
That's how it works. That's why it's not a good system.
You can call it "yours" all you want. Until it's in your hands, timer irrelevant, it's not yours.
Now, I don't know what the third thing is that goes into it, but I came up with this understanding of the loot system based on posts by GGG. So dispute it if you want, but it's how it works.
I know you are wrong. Particularly about that.
My perspective is supported by their actions (or lack thereof), as I stated in the post you quoted. Actions > Words.
You want me to explain it clearly? Very well.
Spoiler
I'm a hardcore gamer. I verify this by knowing that I am willing to play games for excessive amounts of time because I desire to be challenged and love the games I'm playing at the same time.
Example: One summer, I played purely Disgaea (1, the original). I have over 1500 hours in that series alone. It has massive levels, loot drops where the stats are majorly based on loot, and hours and hours and hour and hours of grinding grinding grinding.
I love that game. I love playing that game. Even if it's purely to grind. The reward for that grind is bonus scenes to the story (essentially, the "real" story and secrets to it).
Now, Disgaea 2 had a mechanism that made grinding easier. It's called an EXP mod on a weapon (equivalent of). This meant I grinded less which meant I beat the game's challenges sooner which meant I stopped playing it sooner.
I'd say it's broken up thus: Disgaea 1 (1000 hours), Disgaea 2 (230 hours), Digaea 3 (100 hours), and sadly, I've yet to play Disgaea 4. That's not counting remakes or side games (which bumps it up to 1500 as a total).
Hardcore players are driven by challenge. Once it's beaten, interest is lost. The faster it's beaten, interest is lost. If there's a way to circumvent the challenge to save time, hardcore players will use it. This is where min-maxing originally came from.
Part of adding to a challenge is finding the fastest way to beat it. Renewing a challenge this way can get hardcore players to replay a game from time to time. That's also where "adding limitations" adds to a challenge. Like me going through PoE without any resist boosts, at all. We aren't to that point, but someone will make a character around that challenge eventually (assuming the game stays popular and it gets balanced eventually).
Now, what all that has to do with why FFA can't have alternative options:
When a challenge has an easy out, it's value in beating it is lost. This is because hardcore players seek the easiest and fastest way to beat a challenge. If it makes it too easy, the value of the challenge is lost. How little I played the sequels to Disgaea is a good example of this.
In regards to Default existing with Hardcore as a league, that's fine. It's fine because the two player bases don't mix (dying in HC aside since you can't come back), making them almost two different games.
TL;DR: My problem with options via group leader would be that playing alongside people who were playing an easier game than me would devalue me playing it the hard way. Meaning I have less fun.
Yes, that is true, in every sense of the word. We can't argue it, since it's a fact, jack. And if you just ignore it, then I'm done talking to you as well. And I'll just speak ignoring the fact that a lack of choice from FFA means you have less fun, even if it is indeed, a fact.
My suggestion: Make leagues that are exclusively allocated loot. Keep the players who want that separate the same way Hardcore keeps the players who want perma-death separate (at least until they die) from Default, the ones who don't. Let them die off like all other games appeal do when they get easy. And PoE, as another person has already stated, isn't hard on it's own as a singleplayer game.
Asking to take away any interesting or unique challenge it has versus other games like it is just asking to make it boring.
This still gives them an option but keeps it fair by not allowing them to compete with players playing a harder version of the game.
Edit And Jack, what you think of difficulty means nothing when compared to if it is actually more difficult.
Whether you consider it more diffiicult or not means nothing. It is harder. Regardless of what anyone thinks.
Last edited by TremorAcePV#7356 on Mar 1, 2013, 5:16:37 PM
I have yet to really see an argument for FFA that doesn't essential boil down to "i like it better" despite how some people love to mask it in nonsense like "fairness, risk vs. reward" or "added difficulty, game would be too boring otherwise".
Cutthroat looting by definition isn't going to be fair. And no, FFA looting makes it easier, not more difficult, for players who want to contribute nothing in a group but still take as much loot as possible from other players.
And when asked why they don't support more options, it pretty much comes down to "i'm scared no one will play FFA and then i can't take other people's items anymore".
I want to itterate that when you say options, I assume you mean in game, via the group leader's choice, as that's what's been suggested over and over.
That is a bad arguement for it because it is based on the lie that it does not affect other players. The loot isn't intended for other players, even iamstryker understood this as I explained what the timer is for. Ignore it if you want, but here it is:
What you said here makes no sense.
"
TremorAcePV wrote:
TL;DR: My problem with options via group leader would be that playing alongside people who were playing an easier game than me would devalue me playing it the hard way. Meaning I have less fun.
Yes, that is true, in every sense of the word. We can't argue it, since it's a fact, jack. And if you just ignore it, then I'm done talking to you as well. And I'll just speak ignoring the fact that a lack of choice from FFA means you have less fun, even if it is indeed, a fact.
Except that you chose to join that group with instanced loot. Play with others who use FFA loot and no more problem.
I have yet to really see an argument for FFA that doesn't essential boil down to "i like it better" despite how some people love to mask it in nonsense like "fairness, risk vs. reward" or "added difficulty, game would be too boring otherwise".
Cutthroat looting by definition isn't going to be fair. And no, FFA looting makes it easier, not more difficult, for players who want to contribute nothing in a group but still take as much loot as possible from other players.
And when asked why they don't support more options, it pretty much comes down to "i'm scared no one will play FFA and then i can't take other people's items anymore".
Misrepresenting arguments to make it easier to support your own.
Strawman. Look it up.
And saying FFA makes it easier is laughable. In instanced and allocated, you get your loot whether you attack something or not. Whether you contribute, or not.
In FFA, you are forced to be near the group, firstly, and secondly, to be near the mobs. This automatically means you will have to do something to get the loot, such as kite the monsters or at the very least tank damage/attention from the ones actually fighting.
Easier? lol no.
Edit: This is directed at the post just before this one.
Except that players, in the same game, that interact with me, can play an easier mode than I choose to but still affect me.
This devalues my experience in the game and takes fun in playing it away from me. You saying it doesn't is a lie because I'm the one who understand and decides if what I just said is true, and it most certainly is. I'm talking about me, specifically, after all. So stop trying to tell me what I am.
If it doesn't for you, you aren't me. And you aren't others like me.
Oh, and if that part didn't make sense, then you didn't read what I was responding to.
Last edited by TremorAcePV#7356 on Mar 1, 2013, 5:27:18 PM
I have yet to really see an argument for FFA that doesn't essential boil down to "i like it better" despite how some people love to mask it in nonsense like "fairness, risk vs. reward" or "added difficulty, game would be too boring otherwise".
Cutthroat looting by definition isn't going to be fair. And no, FFA looting makes it easier, not more difficult, for players who want to contribute nothing in a group but still take as much loot as possible from other players.
And when asked why they don't support more options, it pretty much comes down to "i'm scared no one will play FFA and then i can't take other people's items anymore".
You have yet to see? Funny i see it every other post.
I usually kill more than my fair share of monsters and have no problem getting drops. Its fun fighting monsters, staying alive and FFA looting. This is why i enjoy the game GGG made. I don't get every drop. But NOT GIVING A RATS ASS is the key to playing.
Pubs are for shit and giggles. If they add any loot option i sure as hell won't play FFA.
That loot timer is messing with your brain. Ask yourself how many times that item dropped where you had NO actual cause for it.
As in, someone else kills the monster and the items drops with your name on it... YOu run aross the screen to get it but where just toooo slow. The fact that you even had a chance at the drop should be good enough.. But NOooOOoOOOoooOoo.
Thing is, with any loot options i will always take the path of least resistance.
The path of least resistance = private parties with friends. No pvp and the game is super easy.
"
TremorAcePV wrote:
TL;DR: My problem with options via group leader would be that playing alongside people who were playing an easier game than me would devalue me playing it the hard way. Meaning I have less fun.
Those private parties must really get on your nerves.
Standard Forever
Last edited by iamstryker#5952 on Mar 1, 2013, 5:34:32 PM
And saying FFA makes it easier is laughable. In instanced and allocated, you get your loot whether you attack something or not. Whether you contribute, or not.
The worst thing about this thread: People get hard-ons for logic terms and then go and make the EXACT SAME FUCKUP!
Instanced/Allocated loot doesn't have to give you shit if you're not contributing to the party.
I have yet to really see an argument for FFA that doesn't essential boil down to "i like it better" despite how some people love to mask it in nonsense like "fairness, risk vs. reward" or "added difficulty, game would be too boring otherwise".
Cutthroat looting by definition isn't going to be fair. And no, FFA looting makes it easier, not more difficult, for players who want to contribute nothing in a group but still take as much loot as possible from other players.
And when asked why they don't support more options, it pretty much comes down to "i'm scared no one will play FFA and then i can't take other people's items anymore".
Misrepresenting arguments to make it easier to support your own.
Strawman. Look it up.
And saying FFA makes it easier is laughable. In instanced and allocated, you get your loot whether you attack something or not. Whether you contribute, or not.
In FFA, you are forced to be near the group, firstly, and secondly, to be near the mobs. This automatically means you will have to do something to get the loot, such as kite the monsters or at the very least tank damage/attention from the ones actually fighting.
Easier? lol no.
Edit: This is directed at the post just before this one.
Except that players, in the same game, that interact with me, can play an easier mode than I choose to but still affect me.
This devalues my experience in the game and takes fun in playing it away from me. You saying it doesn't is a lie because I'm the one who understand and decides if what I just said is true, and it most certainly is. I'm talking about me, specifically, after all. So stop trying to tell me what I am.
If it doesn't for you, you aren't me. And you aren't others like me.
Oh, and if that part didn't make sense, then you didn't read what I was responding to.
The same can apply to ffa also.. I just have to be near mob it doesn't matter if I dps (=contribute) to the killing of the mob
The good thing about instanced is that AT LEAST if I am top dps (=contribute) I get the same loot with everyone else... I don't have to contribute more (= play the click festival for loot)
You guys just refuse to see it right? I bet you weren't top contributors anywhere...
When you judge another, you do not define them, you define yourself
TL;DR: My problem with options via group leader would be that playing alongside people who were playing an easier game than me would devalue me playing it the hard way. Meaning I have less fun.
What about people who play in private groups vs solo? Should grouping be removed because it devalues the game for solo players?
Last edited by Sickness#1007 on Mar 1, 2013, 5:38:50 PM
