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

I can't be bothered to look for a source but I read the devs say that instanced loot would cause more server load. This tells me that the way they're delivering information to player clients is through a shared pool of data and the arrays are just not segregated... artificially segregating them would leave loot vulnerable to hacking... rewriting the databases to create isolated arrays per player would be a massive amount of work for both the devs and the servers themselves...

Y U no like my idea?

I believe I have read basically everything the devs have ever said on the issue and I don't recall them saying anything bad about doing it technically. If there was a technical problem with doing it then I am sure they would have clearly said so by now. So please show a link to back up the claim. Thanks.

"

Chris wrote:

We do not feel it is an option to arbitrarily hide items from players who have not been allocated them.

While this is not evidence for my claim, it does prove that hiding drops from players is not considered an option by the devs.

Is there a dev tracker that I could search? Otherwise, there's no way for me to know whether or not I dreamt of them saying this...

What I'm talking about is implementing actual instanced loot, not merely hiding items. Hiding items would definitely cause more server load (but not by much). Instanced looting is just not possible in the current system, unless I'm completely wrong about how the system works. Instanced looting requires arrays to be created per-user..

It really doesn't take inside information or a DBA to determine that instancing loot would require a totally different system... I don't think they're keen on the idea of scrapping such a large body of code..

Hiding items is not an option, instanced looting would require a massive reworking of the DBMS..

Why not the roll-for-loot system? Seems like a best-of-both-worlds idea... I would prefer it be an option, and not the locked-in system..

My ideal option list would be:
FFA ~ FFA with timers (current system) ~ Round-Robin Distribution (drops have long timers assigned to the player that is next in rotation) ~ Shared-inventory/Roll-for-loot ~ Deathblow gets the loot ~ Most damage gets the loot ~ Most damaged gets the loot (if a monster dealt no damage to any player before it dies, the loot would be FFA)

-

"

mibuwolf wrote:

"

RestInPieces wrote:

Thing is you can't ask for an option. It just won't work. Claiming that an option for a convenience in a competitive online game would be perfectly viable is just wrong.

You just ignore what we say, so I'll just ignore everything you've just stated as well. Good day.

Options can work, but you don't want them to. Just say "Deal with it" like Vooodu does and call us carebears for all I care. You're just as damaging to the thread if you won't try to argue our points and then call us wrong rather than just flat out state you are correct.

Talking to a wall is more productive than talking to you isn't it? :)
I took the time to wrote a whole fucking essay to back up the things i was saying, yet you pretend i said nothing.
At least iamstryker had the decency to respond to my actual arguments while the only thing that you care about, is not to make conversation, but to just have it your own way.
You remind me of how my little niece acts when she wants something badly and won't listen to any explanation and won't take no for an answer.
In the end "deal with it" is what you deserve.

"

"

RestInPieces wrote:

It seems you get it. With a trade-off of equal value it might work... at least FFA wouldn't die out... I doubt it is a wise thing to do dev-wise though but nevermind that whatever will be will be.

There's already a trade-off with instanced looting vs FFA.

Example: (6 person group)

FFA: 30 pieces of loot whoever gets it gets it.

Instanced: 5 pieces of loot each. You overall would get LESS, but are not having to compete for loot and instead focus on the PVE aspect of PoE, which is what clearly many want.

The people that know and love FFA would stick with FFA because it is better overall, but players that don't want FFA would have a choice given to them.

You can make options work; as stated many many other times before. It's just you guys would like to force others to have to use the FFA looting system for whatever reason unknown to me.

Endofends this one's for you. Here's the reception your suggestion will have - countered with devastating arguments - might be even worse than the current situation as the "trade-off" will be more obvious and some people just don't care for compromises.

"

iamstryker wrote:

This is really jsut your theory but IMO if people really don't enjoy FFA enough to play it then it deserves to be gone. The game should be fun to the majority of players. What your talking about sounds a lot like Jay Wilson trying to force his idea of fun onto the players.

I just don't agree. If most players are avoiding the loot competition then the system is already a failure. If your theory is true then thats just more proof that an option should be available to the massive amount of players who deem FFA to be so not fun that they would abandon it forever to another option. People enjoy a good challenge. They willingly play hardcore over softcore for the enjoyable challenge. It surprises me that you don't think FFA would garner the same base of players to choose it over instanced or a non competitive system.

First things first, you can't claim to be the majority at the moment.
We can assume that whoever is not complaining about the current system is relatively to quite happy about it, so until now, i only see a small number of people doing that.


You mentioned the hardcore vs softcore example.
And i ask you, how many people do you think would play hardcore if all the players were in the same server?
The answer to this question holds the answer for whether the game can be called competitive or whether my theory is correct.

"

prowesss wrote:

While this is not evidence for my claim, it does prove that hiding drops from players is not considered an option by the devs.

What I'm talking about is implementing actual instanced loot, not merely hiding items.
Hiding items would definitely cause more server load (but not by much).
Instanced looting is just not possible in the current system...
Instanced looting requires arrays to be created per-user.

Hiding items is not an option, instanced looting would require a massive reworking of the DBMS.

I'm reposting since it got ignored:

Just keep the current system but with longer timers. Whatever, 10s, 30s, 1min, 8-15 min (as long as the instance stays up) etc etc.
This way you dont hide the items (all party members can see them if they choose so) and for sure you dont need any array bullshit.
It would be exactly like an instanced system, but only for the duration that they will settle on.
Heck, its "instanced" now, but only for 1-5 seconds or whatever the timers currently are.

So, imo, its perfectly doable.
The only reason that they're not doing it it's because of their so called "vision".

"

RestInPieces wrote:

-Pro-FFA people who want FFA for the reasons i mentioned earlier (i don't have to quote it again right?) will NOT make FFA parties in the end - they will make non-FFA parties. That's obviously because they run the risk of getting ninja'ed which the people in non-FFA parties do not have. So, in truth, all they do is virtually gimping themselves in comparison to the now privileged non-FFA players gameplay-wise by being in FFA parties

That has been debunked so many times already.

You seem to completely forget one thing: Players in FFA parties have a chance to ninja other peoples loot aswell. It's a zero sum game, you only "gimp" yourself if you are bad at FFA-looting, but that's the whole point of a competition isn't it??

There is also the fact that in a FFA game you will see alot more items that may be good for you but not even worth picking up for the one it dropped to. So the "easy mode" of instanced loot is ridiculously exaggerated.

"

RestInPieces wrote:

First things first, you can't claim to be the majority at the moment.

I don't claim to know anything for a fact on this, just an educated guess. However what I really said was a response to your claim that no one would play FFA anymore. That tells me that people weren't really enjoying it which is why I said "The game should be fun to the majority". I feel like you guys claim that people are fine with the current system but then you go and contradict this by saying that no one would play FFA with another option. The typical response from your side at this point would be "No, people will just play whats easiest not what they find to be most fun" this doesnt make much sense either since 1) People can already avoid FFA BUT STILL choose to play it 2) The game is the easiest in private games so this issue can't be about game difficulty since the easiest way to play is already available.

"

RestInPieces wrote:

We can assume that whoever is not complaining about the current system is relatively to quite happy about it, so until now, i only see a small number of people doing that.

No you can't make that assumption. There are certainly people who don't like the system and haven't complained because they don't come to the forums at all. You also can't base the complaints from this thread alone. There have been many many threads. How many players have only posted their complaints once in the forums and then just continued playing without further complaints? How many players quit PoE over the issue or never even tried it over the issue?

If you want to use the forums as a sample population then take a thread and analyze the raio of those who are fine with the current system to those who want SOME KIND of change to it. I have done this and its usually slanted towards people wanting a change to the current system. Some of the pro options people in this thread have made their own threads polling those in the forums and the results were heavily slanted towards a change.

"

RestInPieces wrote:

And i ask you, how many people do you think would play hardcore if all the players were in the same server?

I think people would choose to play hardcore anytime whether its the same server or not. They just love it that much.

This is not a competitive game. A competitive game would be like one of those online shooters thats designed only for pvp (I think counter strike is an example). Its kind of absurd to call a game a "competitive game" when you can opt completely out of ALL competition.

"

Sickness wrote:

"

RestInPieces wrote:

-Pro-FFA people who want FFA for the reasons i mentioned earlier (i don't have to quote it again right?) will NOT make FFA parties in the end - they will make non-FFA parties. That's obviously because they run the risk of getting ninja'ed which the people in non-FFA parties do not have. So, in truth, all they do is virtually gimping themselves in comparison to the now privileged non-FFA players gameplay-wise by being in FFA parties

That has been debunked so many times already.

You seem to completely forget one thing: Players in FFA parties have a chance to ninja other peoples loot aswell. It's a zero sum game, you only "gimp" yourself if you are bad at FFA-looting, but that's the whole point of a competition isn't it??

There is also the fact that in a FFA game you will see alot more items that may be good for you but not even worth picking up for the one it dropped to. So the "easy mode" of instanced loot is ridiculously exaggerated.

Don't mix the pro-FFA people i mention with ninjas.
I think i was perfectly clear and mentioned pro-FFA with ninjas separately.
Contrary to what you may believe, not all pro-FFA players want to ninja your loot!
We still want FFA though for reasons, some of which were mentioned even by the developers themselves.
So much for debunking it.

It is not about the game being easy or hard Go read the reasons why FFA is more enjoyable for some people.

PS: Some people say "easy mode" because they just don't enjoy loot placed by the game in their hands, surely "easy mode" is not a good way to put it because people confuse it with difficulty etc.

"

RestInPieces wrote:

Don't mix the pro-FFA people i mention with ninjas.
I think i was perfectly clear and mentioned pro-FFA with ninjas separately.
Contrary to what you may believe, not all pro-FFA players want to ninja your loot!
We still want FFA though for reasons, some of which were mentioned even by the developers themselves.
So much for debunking it.

So you want FFA loot but you don't want loot competition? That doesn't make much sense since loot competitions is the point of FFA.
Then there surely must be some other option that is better. Longer timers for example.