Nekentros said:I don't have a problem with there being a want/pass option for those who want it and I’m not even saying I would never use it myself, but I’d also want to make sure that there are also other options available to us. I think the most important thing for me would be to have some way to not only graphically make it known what looting mechanic the group/raid has contractually agreed upon, but that there be code in place that ensures players are bound by the contract.
My concern there is that players have been conditioned for 15+ years that NBG is the standard for grouping (Pick-up groups in particular), and that standard is (to me) very harmful and misaligned with an open world and freely traded items. If that were to become a default in this game I would see it as a real awful shame, and you don't really have much of a choice to say no thanks at that point. If anyone wants something dropped by mob(s) being camped by the group they should all have an equal opportunity toward obtaining the item when it drops if they want.
The notion that X should go to Y because they can equip it is lost on me when items are not bound in any way to that character and sooner or later that item is likely to end up being sold for full personal profit.
Iksar said:
The notion that X should go to Y because they can equip it is lost on me when items are not bound in any way to that character and sooner or later that item is likely to end up being sold for full personal profit.
I think for the most part, the impetus for suggesting such a system stems from past issues I have had with how guild(s) have dealt with loot and not anything to do with pickup groups. In a guild, how class specific loot is distributed, tends to be a factor in whether or not the guild has the means to accomplish certain things in a certain way. The problem I have with certain distribution methods such as the master system for instance, is that it is often done in a way that favors a min-max hierarchical ideology at the expense of equally rewarding all guild members for their invested time irrespective of their role in the guild. I would much rather see something like "who has the best main tank setup stats wise", be something that changes organically as a byproduct of the system I suggested than one where it is always the same couple of people filling that role as a result of a discriminative loot distribution ideology.
As Joppa often says, "It's about the journey, not the destination".
Iksar said:Nekentros said:I don't have a problem with there being a want/pass option for those who want it and I’m not even saying I would never use it myself, but I’d also want to make sure that there are also other options available to us. I think the most important thing for me would be to have some way to not only graphically make it known what looting mechanic the group/raid has contractually agreed upon, but that there be code in place that ensures players are bound by the contract.
My concern there is that players have been conditioned for 15+ years that NBG is the standard for grouping (Pick-up groups in particular), and that standard is (to me) very harmful and misaligned with an open world and freely traded items. If that were to become a default in this game I would see it as a real awful shame, and you don't really have much of a choice to say no thanks at that point. If anyone wants something dropped by mob(s) being camped by the group they should all have an equal opportunity toward obtaining the item when it drops if they want.
The notion that X should go to Y because they can equip it is lost on me when items are not bound in any way to that character and sooner or later that item is likely to end up being sold for full personal profit.
Very true. For this (and other issues) VR need to think very carefully about what the 'default' system is, as they are effectively endorsing that as 'best' and setting the direction of the game and community.
The only fair and impartial looting rule is random. That should be default. Once loot is allocated fairly, then the players can negotiate after, but the player that won the loot should feel no artificial pressure to hand it over according to someone else's idea of 'fair' that just isn't.
Even the 'for the good of the guild' thing is not good enough, either. Anyone involved in a fight deserves a shot at the prize. All members being well geared is good for the guild.
Might allocating those items to the guild's 'elite' improve rate of progress? Sure. Is that what we prize over fairness and fun? In some guilds I guess they will and they can do it that way.
For VR to encourage that as standard/good practice is another matter, however, and that will set a tone for the whole game.
I'm hoping VR want to encourage fairness and sharing not elitism and pushy progression.
disposalist said:
Anyone involved in a fight deserves a shot at the prize. All members being well geared is good for the guild.
I'm hoping VR want to encourage fairness and sharing not elitism and pushy progression.
This is exactly what I am after and I'm glad there are others who agree.
One thing I might add though to the random roll thing is that I would hope there would be some sort of round robin/item value checks going on under the hood, otherwise it could end up being quite frustrating if the scale ends up being heavily tipped just by chance.
That doesn't mean that there would need to be a forced single item rotation, but it would mean that under the hood, the system would compare the number of wins a person has had while in the group or zone and adjust their max potential roll accordingly.
Nekentros said:
disposalist said:Anyone involved in a fight deserves a shot at the prize. All members being well geared is good for the guild.
I'm hoping VR want to encourage fairness and sharing not elitism and pushy progression.
This is exactly what I am after and I'm glad there are others who agree.
One thing I might add though to the random roll thing is that I would hope there would be some sort of round robin/item value checks going on under the hood, otherwise it could end up being quite frustrating if the scale ends up being heavily tipped just by chance.
That doesn't mean that there would need to be a forced single item rotation, but it would mean that under the hood, the system would compare the number of wins a person has had while in the group or zone and adjust their max potential roll accordingly.
Maybe somthing under the hood could be done, but it's very hard to 'fairly' do a round robin when the system has no idea whether people will just leave the group/raid/guild when they get what they want, or whatever. Unless it then takes that into account a player's history which gets into very iffy ground and complex calculations.
It's been discussed a couple of times here before and, really, the only conclusion is that complete randomness is the only fair way. You get an equal shot at stuff you are involved in. If the person that gets 2 of something before another even gets one is magnanimous enough to hand it on, then great, but if they don't that could well be because they have been going to that camp for many many sessions and got nothing and people should not be expected or pressured into some other way, when randomness is already as fair as it gets.
Randomness can see you being lucky or unlucky, short term, but can't be unfair in the long run.
Other systems might alleviate some of the luck, good and bad, but are less fair, overall.
disposalist said:Unless it then takes that into account a player's history which gets into very iffy ground and complex calculations.
Randomness can see you being lucky or unlucky, short term, but can't be unfair in the long run.
I don't really see anything iffy about a random number generation system with an added element of diminishing returns factored in. As a software engineer by trade, I could hammer out the code it would take determine how many items a person has received in a specific zone over a specific period of time in less than an hour, so I don't see an issue there.
While I do agree that a person’s odds under an unconstrained random number generation system does tend to even out over the long run, the time it can take for this to happen can vary considerably, with the extreme end being in number of years rather than something more reasonable such as weeks or days. The fact that there is nothing standing in the way of this happening gives some players a huge advantage early on in a games lifespan and that right there is the reason why I think the constrained system I described is far superior in terms of fairness to one that is unconstrained.
By iffy ground I mean that there is a lot of legitimate player activity that is very hard for a computer system to take account of.
For example, off the top of my head, say a character wins lot of items helping his friends - he gives those items to his friends as he wins them or at the end of the session.
Later, he tries for something of his own and the system screws him because he 'won stuff' earlier.
I know the system could take account of him no longer holding those items, but what if someone realises that is the measure and always gets others (that don't adventure) to 'hold' his items for him?
Etc etc. There are just so many 'human' complications to any constraints you might think are reasonable.
I'm not saying it's not worth a stab and maybe some simple measures would be ok, but just that as soon as you do make assumptions in order to add logical rules, you have cases that fall foul of them and defeat the purpose.
I'm a software developer myself and one thing I've learned over 25 years or so is beautifully coded logical systems can fall to pieces as soon as you involve humans.
It sounds like we are probably not going to agree on this one aspect of loot distribution, so I think I’m just going to leave it at that and let others decide for themselves.
Nekentros said:It sounds like we are probably not going to agree on this one aspect of loot distribution, so I think I’m just going to leave it at that and let others decide for themselves.
I don't think we disagree. I think your idea is a good one theoretically and if VR could do it, it would be good, I just think it would be very problematic.
We want basically the same thing, though.
I don't mean to seem argumentative - not trying to shoot you down - just discussing the aspects is good.
Paying customers will be less happy with:
Diminishing Returns
Lack of Personal Choice
Competing Against Allies
The primary issue being danced around in page 3 of this thread (IMHO) is that throttling equippable resource generation at corpse creation/NPC death isn't the right or ideal place in the process flow.
You need to give customers the freedom to choose, and reward their time investment.
Additionally, not creating negative social interactions by forcing them to rip the reward out of the hands of their allies is also a good thing. :)
Equippable Resource generation should be throttled after the fact, once the paying customer is done action channelling the combat loop.
If you're willing to accept that premise, you can come up with any number of tunable mechanics that are less stick and more carrot.
Until then, it's just varying shades of negative, bad, and punitive, based on history.
philo said: All that seems necessary is a random roll function. The players will decide how they want to distribute loot. All of these extra systems seem like unnecessary fluff. Players don't need a system that distributes loot for them. This is the definition of hand holding. That's only necessary in games where bad behavior has no consequences and you won't ever see that player again.
This is exactly what I was getting at back on page 1. Building community means acknowledging that bad will happen along with the good. Pre-empting the bad with integrated systems and technical controls diminishes the necessity for good.
Leave the loot system open, let the players decide how they want to handle and distribute it.
eunichron said:philo said: All that seems necessary is a random roll function. The players will decide how they want to distribute loot. All of these extra systems seem like unnecessary fluff. Players don't need a system that distributes loot for them. This is the definition of hand holding. That's only necessary in games where bad behavior has no consequences and you won't ever see that player again.This is exactly what I was getting at back on page 1. Building community means acknowledging that bad will happen along with the good. Pre-empting the bad with integrated systems and technical controls diminishes the necessity for good.
Leave the loot system open, let the players decide how they want to handle and distribute it.
If Free For All is the default setting I'd be fine with that. It's just that to me sometimes Round Robin makes sense for fairness with strangers and NBG works great with a tighter group of friends. Why deny those options if you still have FFA? I suppose if there are other options FFA would not be used as much? Why is NBG more toxic than FFA no loot system other than /ran 100? It seems like they are about the same level of negativity.
As to the total random / automated looting camp, I'm actually surprised at some of the supporters. Not that I know you all that well haha, but I have been lurking for awhile and it kinda surprised me. It just seems like removing group discussion about loot would be a greater hit to community, even in the name of fairness, than the negative aspects of community arguing over loot. Also the connection to the World, it seems so important to not simply have all your loot go in to your inventory without interacting with it, a corpse with loot is like The carrot of the world to me.
As to @randomrob82 hyperbole I will answer in kind.
There should be a system in place where every time loot drops, it automatically assigns it to the winner and decides whether or not they would keep it or vendor it. Everyone in the group will have to partake to make dungeon crawls faster. Make it ridiculously automated where it converts all junk loot in to coin on the fly and equips upgrades for you so you never have to look at loot. That would be epic. 30 seconds to kill the mob, and zero time worrying about loot.
GeneralReb said:eunichron said:philo said: All that seems necessary is a random roll function. The players will decide how they want to distribute loot. All of these extra systems seem like unnecessary fluff. Players don't need a system that distributes loot for them. This is the definition of hand holding. That's only necessary in games where bad behavior has no consequences and you won't ever see that player again.This is exactly what I was getting at back on page 1. Building community means acknowledging that bad will happen along with the good. Pre-empting the bad with integrated systems and technical controls diminishes the necessity for good.
Leave the loot system open, let the players decide how they want to handle and distribute it.
If Free For All is the default setting I'd be fine with that. It's just that to me sometimes Round Robin makes sense for fairness with strangers and NBG works great with a tighter group of friends. Why deny those options if you still have FFA? I suppose if there are other options FFA would not be used as much? Why is NBG more toxic than FFA no loot system other than /ran 100? It seems like they are about the same level of negativity.
As to the total random / automated looting camp, I'm actually surprised at some of the supporters. Not that I know you all that well haha, but I have been lurking for awhile and it kinda surprised me. It just seems like removing group discussion about loot would be a greater hit to community, even in the name of fairness, than the negative aspects of community arguing over loot. Also the connection to the World, it seems so important to not simply have all your loot go in to your inventory without interacting with it, a corpse with loot is like The carrot of the world to me.
As to @randomrob82 hyperbole I will answer in kind.
There should be a system in place where every time loot drops, it automatically assigns it to the winner and decides whether or not they would keep it or vendor it. Everyone in the group will have to partake to make dungeon crawls faster. Make it ridiculously automated where it converts all junk loot in to coin on the fly and equips upgrades for you so you never have to look at loot. That would be epic. 30 seconds to kill the mob, and zero time worrying about loot.
while my "mini game" option was originally meant to be tongue-in-cheek, the more I think about it, the more I think that option should actually be considered as one of many loot options. The more options for groups the better. And the mini game option would actually be super social. Plus, with pantheon going back to the "camp" style of leveling, there may actually be enough down time to where this mini game for loot would be a good time filler in a social way.
Plus, if you think of EQ, players would randomly roll a 100 sided dice roll for the loot. That wouldn't be the way that adventurers would actually divvy up loot though. A more immersive way to decide who gets what would be through a mini game like rock paper scissors or drawing sticks.
GeneralReb said:As to the total random / automated looting camp, I'm actually surprised at some of the supporters. Not that I know you all that well haha, but I have been lurking for awhile and it kinda surprised me. It just seems like removing group discussion about loot would be a greater hit to community, even in the name of fairness, than the negative aspects of community arguing over loot. Also the connection to the World, it seems so important to not simply have all your loot go in to your inventory without interacting with it, a corpse with loot is like The carrot of the world to me.
For me it's not about removing discussion and interaction. That can still happen, but the system can remove the initial arguments, 'mistakes' and grief like ninja-ing. I'm not asking for the whole 'personal loot' thing some others are.
Items will be tradeable, so if someone wants to ask for it from the winner of that item, because they 'need' it and have been unlucky on rolls, or whatever, they can, but there is no undue pressure on the decision, because the game has impartially and fairly allocated it already. If someone wants to suggest that random isn't fair in that particular instance, somehow, they can make that case.
You can still have to interact with the corpse too. Maybe you make it so the winner is the only one that can loot the item they won, or maybe they can 'unlock' it or delegate a looter if, for example, they died and can't get back in time or are giving it to someone else.
You could even have it such that, even though the system has allocated a 'winner', someone else can just ninja it. At least it will be clear what has happened, though.
The point for me is you *can* remove the bickering and the pressure to accept someone else's subjective idea of 'fair' by having the system do the choosing, then players can discuss whatever they want after without it messing up the session.
randomrob82 said:while my "mini game" option was originally meant to be tongue-in-cheek, the more I think about it, the more I think that option should actually be considered as one of many loot options. The more options for groups the better. And the mini game option would actually be super social. Plus, with pantheon going back to the "camp" style of leveling, there may actually be enough down time to where this mini game for loot would be a good time filler in a social way.
Plus, if you think of EQ, players would randomly roll a 100 sided dice roll for the loot. That wouldn't be the way that adventurers would actually divvy up loot though. A more immersive way to decide who gets what would be through a mini game like rock paper scissors or drawing sticks.
Lol. My utmost apologies randomrob82, I took the rat tail part as you arguing that discussing loot in a group is a waste of time. That sounds like a fun option, as long as it's optional, as a way to settle between players contending for the same drop. It's like a duel, choose your weapon! Blackjack, rock paper scissors, /ran 100, 1 poker draw, actual /duel. I'm not very creative there lore wise but yea.
@disposalist great ideas to mitigate those concerns well done.
I wonder how intrustive it would be to have more than just a link to the item in chat as it's assigned? A small popup you could click skip all or it would vanish after X seconds, maybe it auto cycles through a quick summary or has a list with icons ppl would be familiar with at a glance. The idea being so people wouldn't miss what was looted in chat spam. I understand that would be annoying to some people and of course it would have settings for rarity levels and a toggle to turn it off completely.
I realize we will most likely not see this for awhile in game but I'm dying to know what Kilsin meant by "interactive and well designed"
Another issue to keep in mind is item weight. With coins having weight, we will have to keep an eye on encumbrance, ala old school EQ. When it comes to divvying up loot, that weight will eventually be a factor as to whether people want an item or not. There should be an option, regardless of which loot system you have chosen, to allow people to simply decline all loot and/or coin split. It would be cool for there to be an additional feature to only ignore specific coins (copper vs. silver vs. gold, etc.)
GeneralReb said:eunichron said:philo said: All that seems necessary is a random roll function. The players will decide how they want to distribute loot. All of these extra systems seem like unnecessary fluff. Players don't need a system that distributes loot for them. This is the definition of hand holding. That's only necessary in games where bad behavior has no consequences and you won't ever see that player again.This is exactly what I was getting at back on page 1. Building community means acknowledging that bad will happen along with the good. Pre-empting the bad with integrated systems and technical controls diminishes the necessity for good.
Leave the loot system open, let the players decide how they want to handle and distribute it.
If Free For All is the default setting I'd be fine with that. It's just that to me sometimes Round Robin makes sense for fairness with strangers and NBG works great with a tighter group of friends. Why deny those options if you still have FFA? I suppose if there are other options FFA would not be used as much? Why is NBG more toxic than FFA no loot system other than /ran 100? It seems like they are about the same level of negativity.
As to the total random / automated looting camp, I'm actually surprised at some of the supporters. Not that I know you all that well haha, but I have been lurking for awhile and it kinda surprised me. It just seems like removing group discussion about loot would be a greater hit to community, even in the name of fairness, than the negative aspects of community arguing over loot. Also the connection to the World, it seems so important to not simply have all your loot go in to your inventory without interacting with it, a corpse with loot is like The carrot of the world to me.
As to @randomrob82 hyperbole I will answer in kind.
There should be a system in place where every time loot drops, it automatically assigns it to the winner and decides whether or not they would keep it or vendor it. Everyone in the group will have to partake to make dungeon crawls faster. Make it ridiculously automated where it converts all junk loot in to coin on the fly and equips upgrades for you so you never have to look at loot. That would be epic. 30 seconds to kill the mob, and zero time worrying about loot.
That's the thing though. You dont need an in game system for any of those.
If you want loot to be FFA it can be. You want NBG? That is an option you can easily work out in group. You want to round robin the drops? Sure, go ahead. Want a master looted who sells everything and splits it at the end...do it. Its not like any if those type of loot distributions started with an in game system. Players did them on their own first.
We are trying to get past this dumbing down, hand holding bs that has become the norm in the genre the last 15 or so years.
Again, that's only necessary in games where bad behavior has no consequences and you won't ever see that player again.
so in terms of this question I don't mind a little dice popping up for the quality loot and everyone in the group rolling that way, total time saver. With that being said I do not like the idea of "soulbound" items or "bind on..." items. I want everything to be resellable, tradeable, and dropable. I invested hours and hours into the grind to get my character to max level, now if I have a piece of gear I used that I can send to an alt to make that grind not as harsh that is a good thing.
philo said:That's the thing though. You dont need an in game system for any of those.
If you want loot to be FFA it can be. You want NBG? That is an option you can easily work out in group. You want to round robin the drops? Sure, go ahead. Want a master looted who sells everything and splits it at the end...do it. Its not like any if those type of loot distributions started with an in game system. Players did them on their own first.
We are trying to get past this dumbing down, hand holding bs that has become the norm in the genre the last 15 or so years.
Again, that's only necessary in games where bad behavior has no consequences and you won't ever see that player again.
I'm really not against your premise, I mean I'm cool with naked CR oldshcool with corpse decay lol.
Do you not hear the same thing that I do when Kilsin said " I just want it to be interactive and well designed, which it is, I can say from experience. " as meaning there is already a system in game? Or are you advocating for it's removal?
Seeing that quite a few here are for going even further all the way to completely automated, it seems as though you would be in favor of a selectable FFA/NBG/RR/M system over that? The ninja looting / training type discussions between Kilsin and Joppa and others in older streams leads me to believe it will Not be too much hand holding. However I have a hard time imagining that they won't have some system in place other than EQ1 vanilla.
That is a good point in regards to encumberance being in game, that it is another push towards being in touch with what you loot. Not to derail here, there are pages and pages of weight threads. That is really my main concern is the connection to the loot as part of the world/experience of the world #1 and if that causes some strife I'd accept that rather than make looting a dumbed down activity that you speed through in most scenarios.
Edit: I do see those solutions to keep it interactive with the auto/random but that is going down a path that say in philo's argument is antithetical
vjek said:eunichron said:... That is literally the personal loot system that exists in current WoW, and, surprise surprise, people hate it.
What people hate it? I've don't think I've heard anyone say "I hate this personal loot" in any game that has it.
The economic issues with personal loot are a solved problem. What are the other downsides, from your perspective, eunichron?
The (social?) lack of bickering over limited resources, when that's objectively not the best place to limit it? I wouldn't miss that, myself. :)
Just gonna chime in and say I hate personal loot, a big part of why I don't play modern WoW. Now if you guys can drop that statement that nobody hates personal loot. You can maybe say "most people are fine with it"? But I don't think you can even get away with that, there are a lot of people that hate that loot system. Fully automated personal loot systems completely diverge from the old school RPG experience where you hash out who gets what loot. Would I still play Pantheon with a fully automated personal loot system? I don't know, that might actually be enough to make me not bother yes it's that big of a deal to me. Yes there are bigger dealbreakers like having everything be instanced, or having the game be stupid fast leveling on rails with easy soloing etc. But this would be a huge negative in my book.
GeneralReb said:Do you not hear the same thing that I do when Kilsin said " I just want it to be interactive and well designed, which it is, I can say from experience. " as meaning there is already a system in game? Or are you advocating for it's removal?
Seeing that quite a few here are for going even further all the way to completely automated,
Whatever type of loot system we end up with, the point is its unnecessary except for a /random roll. This is such a minor thing but it seems like the minor things are adding up.
It's just another one of many things that people seem to be vocal about the last couple years that people werent vocal about 5ish years ago. The community has definitely changed.
Maybe that is why VR seems to have been over complicating (imo) quite a few things recently? To try to appeal to the newer, vocal crowd? It seems like it. There has definitely been a shift from VR.
I have advocated for keeping it simple a number of times in the last couple years. I'm very concerned about the direction some things are going. The loot thing being one I could give or take but it does seem like a microcausm of a larger issue.
After a few days away from this thread, I think I’m starting to see how the crux of this loot distribution matter really just boils down to the potential income a player can achieve rather than anything class related.
A random roll system that is completely unconstrained, seems likely to be the most effective at self-balancing over time the "potential income" of players who are investing equivalent amounts of time.
With this understanding, then the issue of who gets what is sort of mute, because at the end of the road when you compare your total income received from selling items received from random rolls to that of other players who have invested the same amount of time, they should be nearly equivalent.
Where and when a player decides to spend this income to acquire their class specific items, is where the social aspect comes into play.
Unless someone can come up with something really good, I think I may have just switched sides on this issue. lol
Nekentros said:After a few days away from this thread, I think I’m starting to see how the crux of this loot distribution matter really just boils down to the potential income a player can achieve rather than anything class related.
A random roll system that is completely unconstrained, seems likely to be the most effective at self-balancing over time the "potential income" of players who are investing equivalent amounts of time.
With this understanding, then the issue of who gets what is sort of mute, because at the end of the road when you compare your total income received from selling items received from random rolls to that of other players who have invested the same amount of time, they should be nearly equivalent.
Where and when a player decides to spend this income to acquire their class specific items, is where the social aspect comes into play.
Unless someone can come up with something really good, I think I may have just switched sides on this issue. lol
I also have changed my tune and the guys in this and the other loot related thread have done a really good job of defining what "need" is, which has helped me to adjust my outlook on whats fair. I am totally on board with wanting fair, but I am also very emotionally attached to the thought of getting loot to the person who can really use it. So in my groups I will be advocating (not forcing just advocating) for a kindness 1st policy, which any players are welcome to adhere to or not at all, but it wont matter if they dont, in fact it may only matter to them depending on who wants in to the system. The way i see it is if everyone rolls on everything and as many as 4 out of 6 people are interested in passing on usable stuff to the other 4 of 6 who are involved in the "kindness 1st" policy (JUST A DUMB NAME DONT GET CAUGHT UP ON THE NAME) then there will be twice the chance for 1 of the 4 people to win an item they can use with only 2 non inclusive loot players. It actually sways the favour to the people who are willing to give away in the hope of recieving usable items. But we all have the same individual chance of being the highest number opn the roll every time.
Can someone point out if I am creating a problem within that system?
Maybe it is unfair to those who wish not to partake, is that problematic?
Edit: just to add, I'd also happily give an item to those not involved, but also I can't say that would be the case for the other 3 involved. Hope this is not too convoluted
Hokanu said:
Can someone point out if I am creating a problem within that system?
I think the only thing that, "rolling to try to boost someone else’s odds" does is remove those participating in it from the natural balancing action what would happen under the unconstrained random roll loot distribution method.
It essentially creates a second layer, (for those participating) that would need to be balanced in it's own right. Since the loot is being assigned manually, the balancing would need to be done manually via reciprocal "kindness". Whether or not this reciprocal kindness actually happens and whether or not it is of equivalent monetary value will determine whether or not that secondary layer is monetarily balanced.
As far as how it effects the unconstrained random rollers in the group, I don't think that it does. It doesn’t change what they rolled when compared to all other members of the partly, so the natural balancing over-time for them goes on as if nothing happened.