Hokanu said:@Zorkon
Your 2 versions of what constitutes as need is the reason I like a more manual conversational roll, but like you said if it greys out the option for people who can't equip the item, that makes sense
Not to me, which is exactly why there is an issue. Some will disagree. Why, just because they aren't 'the right class' or because, even, they already have the item, should they expect no chance at the good loot from a camp? It is exactly the nature of that "what does 'Need' mean?" argument - that has been going on for as long as those systems have existed - that points to why the game should allocate loot.
Assuming we want trade in the game (where everything is tradable) money is needed very much.
I want all people to potentially come help in a camp, not just those that need an item from it. Yes, I know, lovely altruistic types will camp where they need nothing just for the social pleasure... Mmm Hmm, but in general, you will struggle.
Everyone who takes down a monster deserves a shot at the treasure.
As Zorkon said, though, once the system has done its job of allocating the treasure in a completely fair, unbiased and impartial fashion, avoiding interpretations and arguments, the players can then exercise their social muscles to do whatever trades or giveaways they wish.
disposalist said:Hokanu said:@Zorkon
Your 2 versions of what constitutes as need is the reason I like a more manual conversational roll, but like you said if it greys out the option for people who can't equip the item, that makes sense
Not to me, which is exactly why there is an issue. Some will disagree. Why, just because they aren't 'the right class' or because, even, they already have the item, should they expect no chance at the good loot from a camp? It is exactly the nature of that "what does 'Need' mean?" argument - that has been going on for as long as those systems have existed - that points to why the game should allocate loot.
Assuming we want trade in the game (where everything is tradable) money is needed very much.
I want all people to potentially come help in a camp, not just those that need an item from it. Yes, I know, lovely altruistic types will camp where they need nothing just for the social pleasure... Mmm Hmm, but in general, you will struggle.
Everyone who takes down a monster deserves a shot at the treasure.
As Zorkon said, though, once the system has done its job of allocating the treasure in a completely fair, unbiased and impartial fashion, avoiding interpretations and arguments, the players can then exercise their social muscles to do whatever trades or giveaways they wish.
Really interesting Dispo,
So maybe I should be thinking about it as in terms that need references needing money and greed references not needing money but wanting more, as opposed to thinking about the item itself.. Yeah I see that alternate way of thinking it and it's completely fair. I probably won't follow it myself but I would now understand someone else's perspective who feels like that, Excuse my internal conversation haha...
The bit that hurts is imagining all the other people clicking need hoping to finally win this item I'm going to list for sale in an hour. Of course you could buy it there and then, I would just hate taking money off someone for something that just fell into my inventory 5 seconds ago.. don't think I could do it
I guess I'll just aim to get a bit of a conversation going in group about pieces people need to fill and hope the other members are up for getting pieces to the right place.
And anyone who doesn't want to do it in the group, that's completely ok and I respect that and everyone is using need anyways.
Aaaarrrrgggghhhh still seems weird :)
Hokanu said:disposalist said:Hokanu said:@Zorkon
Your 2 versions of what constitutes as need is the reason I like a more manual conversational roll, but like you said if it greys out the option for people who can't equip the item, that makes sense
Not to me, which is exactly why there is an issue. Some will disagree. Why, just because they aren't 'the right class' or because, even, they already have the item, should they expect no chance at the good loot from a camp? It is exactly the nature of that "what does 'Need' mean?" argument - that has been going on for as long as those systems have existed - that points to why the game should allocate loot.
Assuming we want trade in the game (where everything is tradable) money is needed very much.
I want all people to potentially come help in a camp, not just those that need an item from it. Yes, I know, lovely altruistic types will camp where they need nothing just for the social pleasure... Mmm Hmm, but in general, you will struggle.
Everyone who takes down a monster deserves a shot at the treasure.
As Zorkon said, though, once the system has done its job of allocating the treasure in a completely fair, unbiased and impartial fashion, avoiding interpretations and arguments, the players can then exercise their social muscles to do whatever trades or giveaways they wish.
Really interesting Dispo,
So maybe I should be thinking about it as in terms that need references needing money and greed references not needing money but wanting more, as opposed to thinking about the item itself.. Yeah I see that alternate way of thinking it and it's completely fair. I probably won't follow it myself but I would now understand someone else's perspective who feels like that, Excuse my internal conversation haha...
The bit that hurts is imagining all the other people clicking need hoping to finally win this item I'm going to list for sale in an hour. Of course you could buy it there and then, I would just hate taking money off someone for something that just fell into my inventory 5 seconds ago.. don't think I could do it
I guess I'll just aim to get a bit of a conversation going in group about pieces people need to fill and hope the other members are up for getting pieces to the right place.
And anyone who doesn't want to do it in the group, that's completely ok and I respect that and everyone is using need anyways.
Aaaarrrrgggghhhh still seems weird :)
Hehe I do understand. I used to think Need/Greed was the obvious 'fair' and 'sensible' option, but, as someone interested in logic and maths, and someone who's experienced so so many loot arguments over the years, I've come to realise it's just not. I could look back in my posts to this forum because I think it was here, years ago, that someone part persuaded me and I part had the epiphany.
Most issues we dicuss come down to subjective opinion and reasoning those out, but basically, no one's opinion can be 'wrong'. I think this one is a simple maths and logic thing, though. Random equal chance is the only fair and impartial method provably (if we could be bothered).
To be honest, I look at it as everyone needs everything. We all 'need' gear. We can go to the camps where what we want in particular drops or we can buy it later with the proceeds of other camps where 'our' gear doesn't drop. If we go to camps our gear doesn't drop then we are hoping for gear to sell so we can trade for our own later.
If you spend time in a camp you get a shot at 'the loot' whatever that is. The more time you spend, the more shots you get. That's it.
It's the only fair way without someone else deciding how Need or Greed or whatever other system is interpretted by them (or VR if it's automated somehow). The random loot method is so fair and impartial it can even be automated, though picking the item off the corpse might be a desired mechanic, the allocation would be automatic.
Personally I would usually be willing to sell an item cheap to someone who can use it straight away when I can't. Maybe even give it to them with the promise of money later (and the risk that involves). Maybe even gift it if they have been nice and I'm feeling rich. But to me the ridiculous and weird situation is to be at a camp but have no chance at the loot because my class doesn't match what is available or because I've looted the item with a different group last week or a year ago or whatever the weird reason someone else is defining as 'fair' that results in me having no chance at loot.
If you play, you get a chance at 'loot' equal to everyone in the group. There's just no fairer (or simpler) way to do it.
The added bonus is because it is logically and mathematically fair there can be no argument. No reasonable one anyway. The socialisation can happen, but it will all be after the argument has been avoided, the loot allocated and the pressure to do what others feel is 'fair' (but isn't) removed. You want to be altruistic? Cool. Do that. You want to just stick with what's fair? Do that and there will be no pressure because there will be no good reason another player can claim otherwise.
I've waffled on, sorry. To relate it back to the OP more: It is perhaps better to think of loot, when wanting to be fair and avoid arguments, as just 'loot' and not something with pre-conceived ideas of 'belonging' or 'suitability' (which are subjective).
When I started playing MMOs, oh so long ago, the consensus was that for gear "need" means the character rolling can use the item as an upgrade. People rolling "need" because everyone "needs" money were insulted, shunned and blacklisted. Many felt that if a piece was ideal for a specific class no one in another class should roll "need" even if the piece was an upgrade for them unless no one in the intended class was in the group. I picked this up as the normal and proper approach, along with a strong aversion to campstealing of any type. That was simply the way things were done.
The seemingly endless debates in these forums have succeeded in persuading me that this was, perhaps, an overly simplistic approach. Not so much on the theoretical basis that everyone does need coin, but on the more practical ground that if a boss is known to drop a particular item good only for a few classes, or for just one class, characters for whom "need" is grayed out will have no incentive to join groups to kill the boss other than to help others. Adding to the complexity would be any system whereby choice items can be broken down into valuable componants for use in crafting especially good products. Thus, if a plate helm +3 can be broken down into an aetherial shard +3, which in turn can be crafted into a piece of cloth or leather or chain or silk armour +3, and I am a skilled crafter with the ability to do such, I may legitimately feel I "need" the item as much as the group's paladin, even though I am a finger wiggler.
Since people can legitimately disagree on these points I have come to the conclusion that the game should not force any particular approach on a group - this tends to produce ill will and reduce civility as people argue over who really "needs" something. Thus I prefer a system along the following lines.
1. If an equipable item is no-trade with no significant value in transmuting/disassembling it, have a traditional need/greed/pass roll as the default option. With only characters that can use the item having the option to roll "need". A mage that can only sell a plate helm +3 for a few silvers has no legitimate argument at all that she should be able to roll "need" on it against a plate using class that can actually use it.
2. If an item is no-trade with a significant value in in transmuting/disassembling it, have a traditional need/greed/pass roll as above but with a character that can transmute/disassemble it having the same ability to roll "need" as a character that can equip it.
3. If an item is tradable to anyone, break with the old consensus and simply have a want/pass roll.
4. If an item is tradable only to other characters on the same account, ditto. I separate this out only because the argument against need/greed may be weaker here than if the item is freely tradable.
If Pantheon only included the following options for loot, in groups or in raids:
1) FFA
2) Round-Robin
3) Roll/Pass
4) Master/Assigned
Would it be enough? Would we see players continually fighting over when they should or shouldn't roll on an item, or would it actually be easier this way?
All the conversation about the nuance of "Need" makes me think it might be easier if the game didn't try to interject itself into that and just said "hey, if you want to roll dice, roll dice."
As long as Roll/Pass is the default in effect making it clear it is the fairest ;^)
Nephele - I think it would work well with the exception of no-trade items. At this point we don't even know if there will be no-trade items in terms of valuable gear - which is all this discussion really relates to.
A group should be able to select any option it wants but IMO if there is no contrary choice the default should be roll/pass. FFA tends to be a truly horrible system in a PUG, not just because it rewards the greedy people and punishes those that are more task-oriented, but because many groups have wiped because people raced for the loot while the fight was still going on, or split the group up as they headed in different directions looting. Master looter in a PUG lends itself to the so-called master essentially stealing things for the benefit of him or her self or friends/guildmates. Round robin in a PUG often results in items one player may badly need going to another that has no use for them and may not even notice that he or she got them until long afterward.
It was common for a long time in EQ that alphabetic order was used for round-robin distribution of loot. There became a disproportionate number of alts with names beginning with A. I even saw an Aaardvark.
All other things being equal, people want loot and will tend to do what gets them more loot.
Any loot rule that relies on human interpretation or action will simply not be as fair as random for many different reasons.
Some, as noted by Dorotea and myself, will even have negative effects on gameplay, nevermind on the group harmony.
This has moved away from the OP to a discussion on loot methods again - sorry Hokanu - I think it is relevant though.
Some loot methods, such as FFA, wind up with the opposite of "someone gives you" situations. Take a scrolling text window, a busy group and a player that likes to 'clean up' corpses and you have a recipe for ninja looting or 'mistakes' that ends up with people having to scroll up through text logs in every pause or have arguments over looting during a fight and players claiming "I have to, I can't do my ground target skills with corpses around" and subsequent recriminations.
With FFA loot rule as a background, the answers to the "someone gives you" OP question might change to "I take it and make a note of what a sucker that guy is - I'll tap him for a loan later" because the kind of community you are encouraging is one that has learned it needs to grab loot as quick as they can or they don't get any.
I think that would be enough. There is always going to be a hurdle in getting people to move beyond the now standard NBG system but I think people would warm up to roll/pass.
Roll/pass goes a fair way toward getting people spread out across the world instead of clamoring over class/role specific camps. It also makes for a very vibrant/healthy economy as often enough players will win items they want to trade compared to a game where one is more or less guaranteed to get most things they want defaulted to them if they find their way into the right camps (leading to far less need for many to participate in the player market/economy).
((It also makes for a very vibrant/healthy economy as often enough players will win items they want to trade compared to a game where one is more or less guaranteed to get most things they want defaulted to them if they find their way into the right camps (leading to far less need for many to))
This is a valuable and not entirely obvious point. I have played in games and on servers where the broker or auction house was essentially dead. It is much better having a lot of things to buy and sell.
This really speaks to the players character in game, to me. If that action was taken I would be gracious of course, but I would take note of the person and put them on friends list because I am aware of their character. Wanting to also exemplify the same character I would look for future situations where I can show the same, wether with that same person or not. It would set the tone, hopefully for the group.
For instance, if there is an item that is an upgrade I would roll for need. If I won, I now have an old item, would I sell it? I could, but I would be more inclined to go to areas where others of my class were, maybe a few levels lower and invent quests or offer the old item as a reward for the first person to agree to do whatever, get 5 clear hoarfrost pelts or something. Or depending on my bag space limitations- I may just give it away to the first person that replies in class chat because I need the room- lol.
However if I find myself among those that do not feel the same and are more coin oriented and roll on everything, I would then offer my downgraded item up for another roll where I would abstain. However if I was in this group and I won the uber item that is useless to me and instantly got a tell from said class making an offer, I would silently give the sword to that person. If they put trade or coin in trade I would refuse and re-initiate with just the item and let them know they can have it. I would not put them on friends, however, not yet. That would depend if our paths crossed again or if the group was good, play-wise.
On the other hand, loot be damned if this group are top notch players where I am practically carried along. Who cares if I miss all the good stuff. We beat the mission, got the flags, killed the dragon and finished the quest and got the lore item for everyone that would have norrmally taken me months. Hopefully I learned something. Hopefully I impressed them somewhere along the line so they might invite me again. Hopefully there was one I could talk to privately to ask about such things like loot next time so not to sound greedy or to overstay my pressence so-to-speak.
I would see if
1. is it a real upgrade for me if so use it and thank them offer them the trade of what I may be using currently and or some in game $$ for it
2. its not an upgrade for me and offer it to anyone else in the group who may need it, then possibly friends/guildmates etc. offer thanks and some $$ for it if they want.
When players are generous I will be generous back if not immediatly some time later.