Are the Devs still making the game they want to play?
|
As a SF player I always liked FFA loot because I won't loot in parties as it's not 'SF' which my party members appreciated as much as I appreciated their help in difficult content or just to break the solo monotony. Now it just goes to waste, but I see that in others too, not looting everything. So FFA actually served a legit purpose as well.
|
|
" I think people defend FFA for the same reason they defend griefing aka killing others with cheap tricks like bandit selection, they do it for their own enjoyment because they are sad individuals that want to see others suffer. Cutthroat was proof people wanted to screw others over as hard as possible and not have fair lvl equal pvp. The high lvl guys at 20+ hunt down the lvl 1 to 10 people. Same with FFA, the bad apples in this game would of course prefer to have it always be FFA so they can get the party benefit and reap all the spoils without sharing. PA limits what the individual gets as solo players get all items for themselves. __________________________________________________________________________________ All 3 allocation types can be used anyway people see fit and you never might see FFA because the parties are full as full parties dont show up in the party tab. Again, SA and FFA for the more trusted group and PA for some random party thrown together via the party tab. |
|
"As a member of a rather large guild, I understand how you can "transcend" the status quo of public parties and instead rely on more stable connections with actual friends. I only party with guildies, so in terms of my own personal play experience, the state of pubs doesn't effect me at all. Nevertheless, saying loot tension and public parties "have no overlap" is an utter cop-out. Part of the reason why SA and FFA work better with dedicated friends is precisely because there is actual loot tension; you can snag an item, but you actually have consequences in terms of the relationship. If, after snagging an item originally allocated to another, that player comes begging you to release it, you're far more likely to do so for a friend in which you have a legitimate connection, than with a random stranger. In public parties, loot tension remains essentially as broken as it was before PA was introduced. When SA or FFA is enabled, there are still no substantial consequences for ninja behavior. The pseudo-anonymity which is inherent in pubs sows a deep distrust of others which causes PA to be the overwhelming choice, which has no loot tension; in SA or FFA pub play, there are essentially no consequences, so players are always in full ninja mode, and there still isn't any real tension — if you can ninja it, you do. When properly designed, loot tension is more than just trying to maneuver for position. It's about the choice itself, whether or not you want to bring in more than your fair share even if it means starving a teammate as a consequence. It's the closest PoE comes to Light Side vs Dark Side decisionmaking. This is something which admittedly is not broken in friendslist and guild party play; within that context, the current system works great and requires no substantial modification. However, as far as public parties are concerned, loot tension is utterly broken, and although you explicitly state that your opinion is not necessarily yours of GGG as a whole, we can see that at least one dev has very little interest in actually fixing the problem. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB#2697 on May 8, 2014, 11:55:55 PM
|
|
|
PA and FFA are unfun for different reasons.
PA enforces the "post-battle sweep" (or even "post-map sweep") playstyle, where items are just a thing that you are guaranteed for being present. While this heavily enforces fairness, it slows down the game considerably, and makes it a pain to ask someone to "turn around and get you that rare Gavel that dropped for them because you use Gavels and they were going to leave it there anyway". FFA makes the game all about item drops, and the battle is completely secondary. The only place this seems fun is with friends. SA is the sweet spot between them, where 99% of the time it plays like PA but it makes people focus on the item drops at least a little instead of a "post-battle sweep", and it forces people to be near combat to get drops. It also solves the problem of leftovers after combat. It's a shame that it's not used as often. I don't think it's okay to say that people who like SA/FFA are solely ninja-looters. You win some, you lose some, and it all comes out in the wash. SA has had a lot of custom work done for it by GGG, but as long as PA is around, most people aren't even going to attempt it. |
|
|
I play short allocation with my friends since we pretty share eachother's drops. There is no real loot tension but we use SA so we can pick eachother's scrolls/anything we miss.
I never really liked the whole loot tension aspect in the past. It worked in low levels but at higher levels you need everyone working together. There was nothing more frustrating than the team working against eachother in a very difficult map(Especially in HC). The game was far too stressful and some characters simply got no drops if they wanted to stay alive. Some would simply do no damage and just run at the loot(while frostwalling you away). I was really happy when options were included. It made groups friendlier and it definitely encouraged people to work together more. Last edited by kasub#2910 on May 9, 2014, 12:24:43 AM
|
|
|
I really really really hate it when a party is killing monsters together and as soon as one single monster dies all damage stops while people all try to body block the guy that is trying to get his orb of chance. really it ruins the whole reason to be in a party, I've tried to get people killed after they ninja my unique or something and that does not feel much like a party, usually I join party games to go the other way and fight harder monsters for better loot without other people....
Spoiler
please add a /players command
Last edited by Didros#0092 on May 9, 2014, 12:25:56 AM
|
|
" I would like it to be forced on people yes. I However understand what u are saying and yes u are right. Most people do not want to play like this. I remember full well when this debate was raging full on this fourm. Us FFA players lost out on it overwhelmingly.Dosent mean i have to aggree with it or like it :( Just a sec let me grab a beer...@#*@ Ok how did I die this time
Learn the rules, it's the only way to exploit them. |
|
|
ffa exist in party races (or in good strong parties rather)
a maurauder doesnt need a yellow wand, let the witch have it save time and race faster |
|
" "Making the game they want to play" is nothing but a marketing blurb. What YOU want may not be the same things your audience will want, hence, the compromise to use PA. It's not even enforced. Just having the option is enough to appease everyone. |
|
"It's not so much about "transcending" the "status quo" of public parties as them just not being part of how I'd want to experience the game. They aren't the status quo for me. I'll play with friends, to socialise and hang out with them, and enjoy the game. I'll play solo, to enjoy the game at my own pace and sometimes to play hardcore without worrying about one of the group dying and not being able to keep playing together. If I didn't have my friends online, I'd play solo or not play - public parties aren't a thing I would do, because I would not gain from them anything I want from the game. I realise I am not like other people, but the OP asked for devs to give their opinions, and that's mine. I realise the distinction may not be meaningful to some, but I'm not getting around using public parties because I'm able to play with friends, which is the implication I took from your wording (my apologies if I'm wrong on that), I'm treating the game as though public parties didn't exist, because for purposes of my play, they offer me nothing I want. "I never said anything of the sort. I said that public parties and how I want to play the game has no overlap. Here's the quote: "I have no idea how you read into that what you claimed I said. "I'm assuming you missed the last paragraph of my post, so I'll paraphrase it for you: I acknowledged there's quite possibly a problem. I stated that I hope that problem can be fixed. I pointed out that I don't personally have a solution to said problem, and didn't speculate on what the solution should be - because I have no personal experience of the problem, and it occurs entirely outside my experience of playing the game. What other possible resonse should I give? The OP asked for GGG devs if we were still making the game we want to play, under the assertion that loot tension was not at all a part of the game. I pointed out why that assertion didn't hold in all cases, and that I personally still enjoy the game because I'm not at all interested in the cases (public parties) in which he's identified this problem. How does "I don't personally play X, or have any interest in playing X, but I hope issues with X are fixed for those who do" translate to "I have no interest in solving problems with X". Last edited by Mark_GGG#0000 on May 9, 2014, 1:15:53 AM
|
