Forums » General Pantheon Discussion

In One Word - Tell us your thoughts on NEED or GREED

    • 861 posts
    October 13, 2020 4:13 PM PDT

    We had a great thread on this a while back, where i switched my position, i now can see the true fairness in RNG even though I am someone who will happily give away my looting rights to a person who i believe needs it more.

    The Nb4G cann still exist in a RNG setting.  If group members talk then they will forge their own smaller looting rights between themselves.  For instance 6 people in a group, 3 of which are for NB4G and the other 3 are RNG everyone in loots.  If the NB4G people are looking out for each other they are effectively rolling a 50% chance to win an item they truly NEED (as in upgrade) because they have agreed to share the Need loot if they win it between the 3 of them.

     

    This is as fair as anything i think.  I would still love to be running with 6 people who just want to see the loot go to the most needy, it will be different all the time and thats once of the things i love about MMO's

     As RNG people mentioned ot me in the last thread that cxhanged my mind on this, what you do with loot after you win it fair and square witha RNG roll is completely up to you


    This post was edited by Hokanu at October 13, 2020 4:15 PM PDT
    • 25 posts
    October 13, 2020 4:51 PM PDT

    I think we both whole heartedly agree. I never actually said it, but i DO NOT want any coded mechanic for looting in the game. other than when i pick up an item, it goes in my inventory. I guess that would be equivilant to RNG. I just assumed that the norm that was, would also be the norm of what is to come. Meaning when items drop, the group talked about it and doled out loot that way... OR when you joined a group you told the others you were going to pass on all items but one, and if it drops could you have it uncontested..

     

    And I welcome your thoughts Disposalist, Im glad you could see that i wasnt trying to be rude or negative.

     

    On another note, there is only one time that I would agree with having a "master-looter" type system. Years down the road when the content becomes trivial, and there begins to be PuRaids - I do belive that everyone involved in that raid would much rather have a coded mechanic in place, rather than just rely upon the "reputation" system.

    • 85 posts
    October 13, 2020 5:44 PM PDT

    I think I've come a bit circlular on this from the last thread in regards to the difference between a full on auto-roll RNG system as disposalist suggests and NBG because either way the same situation will occur on the Feeling of people that they should receive an item.

    We know there will be specific drops from named (perhaps similar items in multiple areas but still limited), camping has been discussed in streams. I always fall back to FBSS in vanilla EQ pre kunark as my example.

    If I am camping that as a melee and the Pantheon pure RNG system gives it to a caster, I politely point out that I've been in this group all day long through 5 different members leaving and that it is the item I'm here for, that the caster can not use. The caster reply is "RNG gave it to me, I'll sell it and buy a spell haste belt" (as Iksar suggests), then I would be upset.

     

    The discussion happening before or after a pure RNG still makes it a discussion. The same thing would happen with the caster rolling Need on it and beating the melee.

    This was all part of the social fabric. You made friends knowing that my non-melee friend camped FBSS with me and I will go camp some caster item with them in return.

    Turning EVERY item in to a purely "I can sell it and buy my own upgrade" is so against the spirit of dungeon crawling and boss killing. It trivializes the Feeling of accomplishment to me.

     

    Also I would want whatever system to require a player to actually click the corpse, show all group members what is there to roll, and not have it be automated. Again the same feeling of disconnect from the loot as making all loot a selling for plat feel.

     

    So many modern games you feel disconnected from the loot you just run through as fast as possible and don't even Look at the items it sucks.. EQ was not that way. Yes ninja looting is bad though so there has to be something there, but I think the caster looting the "2hand sword of awesome 20hour camp" feels just as bad as that person ninja looted it when they say they are going to put it on the AH or whatever.


    This post was edited by GeneralReb at October 13, 2020 5:47 PM PDT
    • 455 posts
    October 14, 2020 2:14 AM PDT

    The big problem with the greed mechanic that then expects the looter to sell the item to a character who can use it for a discount, is that greed will win. They are much more likely to sell in on an AH than to a group member for less than the market value. If a very rare item drops and rnd is employed, those that want greed will not be concerned with doing "the right thing" and will sell it every time. Their reputation will not concern them if they can sell an item for 1000 plat and the average drop value is say 10 plat.

    I cannot see any advantage to greed except for self profit at the expense of the group at that time.

    If a master looter system is wise for a raid, why isnt it also applicable to a group?

    Camps; say someone leaves a group and is replaced by a wizard. The bow the ranger who formed the group has been after for days finally drops. Rnd is done and the new wizard wins. Really? That is acceptable? Na, I think not. By the same token, if a wand dropped instead, I think it fair that it goes to the Wizard or if there are two in the group, they and only they rnd. Afterall, the ranger wants the bow!

    Now, I will say that no matter how I word my point of view across, those that want greed will not see it. By the very same token I cannot see the greed point of view, no matter how many times I re-read the pro arguments. Because of this polarisation, I would advise that the mechanics employed by the game have to cater for pro greed and for pro need players. Then each group leader can decide what they want from the group when it is formed. As long as it is obvious to players joining the group at the outset, this has to be the best option.


    This post was edited by chenzeme at October 14, 2020 2:39 AM PDT
    • 502 posts
    October 14, 2020 10:37 AM PDT
    I find Disposalist's arguments for RNG very persuasive since, in the aggregate, random will balance out and isn't subject to exploitation like other systems. But it also a dumb system, since no weight is given to distributing the loot to those who could use it. It would be frustrating to be the only healer on a team and only have a 16% of getting it. Sure, I'll sometimes get the armor the tank needs and sometimes the equipment the DPS needs and can sell those on the Auction House in order to buy the healer drop that I lost the rolls on.

    Either way is frustrating. We want a system that feels right and makes sense. There is no scene in the Lord of the Rings trilogy where Gandalf is given a looted bow, Gimli a wizard'a staff, and Legolas a shield. But sometimes game balance has to take precedence over realism and immersion.

    If we decide on RNG, we get initial fairness, but it feels wrong and will lead to pressure to give away or sell at a big discount to teammates. But since not everyone will do that, there is still some unfairness on the back end.

    If we use Nb4G or some other "smart" system, it will feel more logical but also be at least somewhat exploitable. Pantheon can (and should) design it in such a way as to minimize bad behavior, but the more it relies upon the honor system, the more it will be exploited. And while guild/friend-only teams may not have a problem, if it's a problem for PUGs, it adds toxic behavior to the game in general, which harms us all.

    Some other ways loot could be handled:
    1). Individual private loot for items. Each person's loot is unique to them and no one else sees it. This removes any social pressure to give away loot and it's basically all collected to sell.
    2). Very small inventory space for storing loot for selling. This means most loot won't be picked up, thus most items a character doesn't need won't be rolled on because they have no where to put it. This is also much more realistic to the amount of gear a person could actually carry.
    3) Use some basic screening to determine how appropriate answer item is for each character, and give those characters preference. If an item isn't equipable, that character can only roll greed. If the item is not within 90% of the value of the item currently equipped, then the character can only roll greed (since its considered a downgrade).
    • 2997 posts
    October 14, 2020 11:17 AM PDT

    chenzeme said:

    I cannot see any advantage to greed except for self profit at the expense of the group at that time.

    If a master looter system is wise for a raid, why isnt it also applicable to a group?

    Camps; say someone leaves a group and is replaced by a wizard. The bow the ranger who formed the group has been after for days finally drops. Rnd is done and the new wizard wins. Really? That is acceptable? Na, I think not. By the same token, if a wand dropped instead, I think it fair that it goes to the Wizard or if there are two in the group, they and only they rnd. Afterall, the ranger wants the bow!

    Now, I will say that no matter how I word my point of view across, those that want greed will not see it. By the very same token I cannot see the greed point of view, no matter how many times I re-read the pro arguments. Because of this polarisation, I would advise that the mechanics employed by the game have to cater for pro greed and for pro need players. Then each group leader can decide what they want from the group when it is formed. As long as it is obvious to players joining the group at the outset, this has to be the best option.

    Whomever receives the item is profiting at the expense of the group, whether it is now (they sell to buy something they need) or later (they equip now, sell the item they previously were wearing, then sell this new item when they find the next good option).

    Master looter works for raids because typically those aren't PUGs. This whole conversation is centered around pick up groups/random players together. 

     

    As for the ranger/wizard thing, you are making up stories with imagined circumstances. Who is to say that wizard hasn't also been after this bow for days? Maybe it is for an alt, a friend, or just holds a high market value and whatever wizard item they want is very expensive and out of reach to camp for their character for one reason or another. The point is it doesn't matter what reason anyone in a group has for being at a camp and wanting whatever loot. 

     

    It is very unlikely there is going to be too much dungeon crawling compared to camping, and I highly doubt that each camp is going to have good drops for all roles. Using something like the FBSS as an example, why would healers/casters engage in these camps with PUGs when they have little to nothing to gain from it if every drop went to melee?

    Any sort of NBG twists and rots away at grouping and PUGs: from funneling classes/roles toward very specific camps so they can get what they want unopposed (compared to being able to feel good picking any camp), to excluding people who would otherwise be welcome because one doesn't want another melee/caster/whatever in the group as roll competition, to stunting the entire player trade economy because far fewer items end up on people who are looking to sell. 

     

    I really don't think NBG should be an option (especially for PUGs); want/pass for randoms. Don't need people forcing random players into giving them fully tradable drops, too much room for exploitation. 

    • 755 posts
    October 14, 2020 12:53 PM PDT

    Man, I'm feeling like I shoulda taken this question more seriously but it's hard for me...

    I'm gonna get rich very early in my character's life due to my love of trade. In EQ for example I would earn about 100pp from bonechips/pelts/crookstinger/etc by lvl 12 or so and then use that as a seed to trade, and trade, and trade until I can afford stuff near the top. So worrying about someone hitting need on something tradable would never be much of an issue for a self-twink like me.

    If there is something I absolutely need I'll likely confirm that whoever I'm going with is aware and ok with me having it. Guilds and friends are very useful here, but normal people are usually reasonable too, if you talk to them beforehand.

    That said, I don't group with people who need on no drops that turn into vendor trash unless I have no other choice. However, I don't think that's going to be a very big issue in Pantheon, because no drops seem like they will be rare exceptions to the rule.

     

     

     


    This post was edited by BeaverBiscuit at October 14, 2020 12:53 PM PDT
    • 2402 posts
    October 14, 2020 2:02 PM PDT

    Counterfleche said:

    I find Disposalist's arguments for RNG very persuasive since, in the aggregate, random will balance out and isn't subject to exploitation like other systems. But it also a dumb system, since no weight is given to distributing the loot to those who could use it. It would be frustrating to be the only healer on a team and only have a 16% of getting it. Sure, I'll sometimes get the armor the tank needs and sometimes the equipment the DPS needs and can sell those on the Auction House in order to buy the healer drop that I lost the rolls on. Either way is frustrating

    But that is where player agency and socialisation comes in, as it should. You don't just have to equate loot to cash trade value, unless you want to.

    The tank wins the healer drop and might volunteer (or be prompted) to sell, trade or lend that drop straight away on the agreement the healer will hand over the tank drop if they win it (or whatever).

    Most times I imagine groups *will* follow a 'need before greed' kind-of procedure *but* the important thing is there would be no *expectation* or pressure on people to act that way, because there are so so many ways that that can be abused or interpreted or argued, etc.

    If that social interaction ends in negativity, it will at least *start* with a neutral and fair situation and any 'bad' outcome is utterly down to the subsequent social interaction, as it should be. Consequences ensue. I would imagine it would much more often lead to positive social interaction (and consequences), though.

    Counterfleche said:

    We want a system that feels right and makes sense.

    That would be lovely, but in this instance, I disagree. Need before Greed 'feels right' and, on first thought, 'makes sense' but it is wrong. RNG makes logical sense, but a lot of people feel is undesirable, but is actually the best way to go.

    It took quite a long thread of discusssion for me to realise it the last time it was discussed.  I would not expect most players to either have the patience for that discussion or the inclination to care that much, so what you actually need is for VR to work out what is really 'the best' and to implement it and to explain that decision in a way players will all understand and, even if some think they disagree, will go along with.

    In this issue like many others, I think VR need to have the guts to use their decades of combined experience and do what is best rather than give out options and hope players do what is best.

    In this issue like many others, if VR just hand over control to players and cross their fingers, they will be, at best, asking for a mass of customer service calls that could have been avoided and, at worst, getting a badly toxic effect in the game that could have been avoided.

    Counterfleche said:

    There is no scene in the Lord of the Rings trilogy where Gandalf is given a looted bow, Gimli a wizard'a staff, and Legolas a shield.

    No, there is not, but to be honest, nothing in an MMORPG game actually fits a cinematic story. They are just so different. If gamers got loot as infrequently as LOTRO characters this wouldn't be an issue at all or would  be a very different one.

    Counterfleche said:

    But sometimes game balance has to take precedence over realism and immersion. If we decide on RNG, we get initial fairness, but it feels wrong and will lead to pressure to give away or sell at a big discount to teammates. But since not everyone will do that, there is still some unfairness on the back end.

    Not unfairness. Never unfairness. That is the whole point. Even if a warrior wins the cleric loot and decides to destroy it, it simply is not 'unfair' and cannot be. It's his and up to him what he does. How *you feel* about what he does with his loot is up to you, but one thing you cannot feel - not with any justification - is that it was unfair.

    Counterfleche said:

    If we use Nb4G or some other "smart" system, it will feel more logical but also be at least somewhat exploitable. Pantheon can (and should) design it in such a way as to minimize bad behavior, but the more it relies upon the honor system, the more it will be exploited.

    Firstly, I don't believe Need/Greed is in any way 'smart'. 'Smart' implies some kind of intelligent, logical process and personal interpretation based on a subjective feeling like 'need' is anything but.

    Secondly, RNG loot allocation does minimize bad behaviour as far as it can be and then utterly relies upon the 'honour' of group members, but, importantly, at least *begins* from a position of fairness and equity. It cannot *be* exploited because it is in the first instance, utterly fair and, then, relies upon totally *optional* activities. No one has to hand over the loot for any reason, because it was already fairly rewarded. Any social accommodation after the fact is just a bonus.

    Counterfleche said:

    And while guild/friend-only teams may not have a problem

    But I think they do, because anything other than RNG places a prejudice and a pressue on the situation. Even guild/friend groups will be prone to ill-feeling when anything other then neutral RNG is used to reward them. Even agreeing to sign up to another particular loot system doesn't mean all the members are 100% happy, it simply means, in order to play that session, they were willing to go along with the consensus.

    I can't say it too many times (so I'll say it again): only RNG is fair and anything else, even when signed up to by the group, can lead to unpleasantness, because it is flawed when it comes to impartial fairness.

    I really think it is one of the most serious decisions VR will make. We all know loot reward is a fundamental of MMORPGs like Pantheon and if VR suggest or automate a looting system it will utterly prejudice the way that fundamental activity takes place and will set the tone (or at least *a* tone) for the game.

    Counterfleche said:

    if it's a problem for PUGs, it adds toxic behavior to the game in general, which harms us all

    Absolutely. 

    Counterfleche said:

    Some other ways loot could be handled:

    1). Individual private loot for items. Each person's loot is unique to them and no one else sees it. This removes any social pressure to give away loot and it's basically all collected to sell.

    But utterly removes a very important shared experience and social activity. I think this is one of those things that modern MMORPGs have implemented to 'solve' a problem that has actually stripped away something that made old-school MMORPGs great.

    Counterfleche said:

    2). Very small inventory space for storing loot for selling. This means most loot won't be picked up, thus most items a character doesn't need won't be rolled on because they have no where to put it. This is also much more realistic to the amount of gear a person could actually carry.

    I don't think this would solve anything as the times when this is a 'problem' is for the most rare and valuable loot that people would gladly throw aside other bag-filler for. It would probably just ramp up the importance (and grief) around the issue.

    Counterfleche said:

    3) Use some basic screening to determine how appropriate answer item is for each character, and give those characters preference. If an item isn't equipable, that character can only roll greed. If the item is not within 90% of the value of the item currently equipped, then the character can only roll greed (since its considered a downgrade).

    But it's just not that simple. What if it's equipable, but they already have it? What if it's not equipable, but nor is anything else that drops - Do you warn players that nothing drops that they can 'need' (so that they leave)? What if people intentionally equip 'cheap' stuff for the boss (big loot drop) fight? What kind of meta will that (and other get-arounds) encourage?

    I'm loving that you are trying to think around this issue, and they are some good thoughts, and I hope you don't take my comments as negative or dismissive - I'm loving the discussion.

    • 2402 posts
    October 14, 2020 2:24 PM PDT

    Iksar said:

    Master looter works for raids because typically those aren't PUGs. This whole conversation is centered around pick up groups/random players together. 

    Actually, I think it applies to guilds too. Fair is fair no matter the situation.

    I'm still in two minds about Dragon Kill Point systems.

    In some ways they simply formalise a 'storing' of RNG 'chance'.  Your chance of getting loot is still related to the number of fights you take part in, but can be saved up and deferred.

    To me it kind of removes a lot of the interest in exchange for speed of guild progression.

    I know that joining a guild and going to a raid and doing your bit but having *no chance whatsoever* at the main loot is not a good feeling, but I also know that joining a guild, going to a raid and getting awarded good loot in front of others that have been there a dozen times before doesn't feel good to them, either (no matter that it *is* fair).

    I also know that feeling you are 'stuck' with a guild, even though they have become aholes, because you have banked a lot of DKP and would have to start again if you moved is a bad feeling, but also someone getting good loot than abandoning a guild feels bad too.

    Again, there is good and bad in the system, *but* one thing I keep coming back to is: RNG *is* fair, no matter the good/bad feelings. Other system have good/bad feelings *and* are *not* essentially neutral and fair...  RNG wins...

    • 57 posts
    October 14, 2020 2:32 PM PDT

    NeedB4Greed

     

    If loots drops and it's an equipable upgrade then always need before greed.

    • 25 posts
    October 15, 2020 2:01 AM PDT

    So much has been said since my last post I dont know where to start. Soooo Ill start here, 

    1. A pure RNG auto roll system is a bad thing, it means no loot will ever hit the ground. I think loot hitting the ground, on a dead body, is very important to the fabric of social interaction. disposalist's opinion on the "fairness" of this system is dead on correct. 

    2. personal loot tables is probably the worst idea ever for a socially driven game. it is as bad as need/greed buttons. it completely minimalizes the possiblity of a conversation about loot, or coin, or crafting mats, or anything, down to a single click of a button.

    3. my character is mine, because  i built him the way i saw fit. why in the world would i want another player, or the game itself, telling me what is good for me and what isnt. i would never sign on for a game that dictates lootablity based upon current holdings.

     

    chenzeme said:

     If a master looter system is wise for a raid, why isnt it also applicable to a group?

     

    A group requires very little effort, or time to assemble, and chances are, if you are looking to join a group because of a paticular item, you will get to kill the mob that drops it many times per session. Raids on the other hand require a lot of effort and time to assemble, and research, and instruct new people about how the fight works. The probablity of success is MUCH less in the raid than in a group. IF you succeed in the raid, I would like to see all of that work put in by MANY groups protected. the rate at which you see valuable drops from group level monsters vs raid level monsters warrants the master loot protection.

    chenzeme said:

     Now, I will say that no matter how I word my point of view across, those that want greed will not see it. By the very same token I cannot see the greed point of view, no matter how many times I re-read the pro arguments. Because of this polarisation, I would advise that the mechanics employed by the game have to cater for pro greed and for pro need players. Then each group leader can decide what they want from the group when it is formed. As long as it is obvious to players joining the group at the outset, this has to be the best option.

     

     

    On the contrary, I completely understand your point of view. it is one that i use to have myself. I just disagree with it now. simply because of my #2 above. I do agree with everyone that a system of need before greed should be in place, I just dont think it should be hard coded into the game. I think the players should handle it in game, socially, together - before the group starts, and any time a new member joins the group. As disposalist said in the past, the hard coding of any system will inherently be used as the norm, and i think we have established WHY that would be a bad thing. The second half of this statement i agree with. "Each group leader can decide what they want from the group......" i just dont want it to be hard coded.

    disposalist said:

    Iksar said:

    Master looter works for raids because typically those aren't PUGs. This whole conversation is centered around pick up groups/random players together. 

    Actually, I think it applies to guilds too. Fair is fair no matter the situation.

    I'm still in two minds about Dragon Kill Point systems.

    In some ways they simply formalise a 'storing' of RNG 'chance'.  Your chance of getting loot is still related to the number of fights you take part in, but can be saved up and deferred.

    To me it kind of removes a lot of the interest in exchange for speed of guild progression.

    I know that joining a guild and going to a raid and doing your bit but having *no chance whatsoever* at the main loot is not a good feeling, but I also know that joining a guild, going to a raid and getting awarded good loot in front of others that have been there a dozen times before doesn't feel good to them, either (no matter that it *is* fair).

    I also know that feeling you are 'stuck' with a guild, even though they have become aholes, because you have banked a lot of DKP and would have to start again if you moved is a bad feeling, but also someone getting good loot than abandoning a guild feels bad too.

    Again, there is good and bad in the system, *but* one thing I keep coming back to is: RNG *is* fair, no matter the good/bad feelings. Other system have good/bad feelings *and* are *not* essentially neutral and fair...  RNG wins...

    @disposalist, I have used the DKP system in many of my past guilds. I really do belive in it. I would love to chat with you about it, and discuss your reasoning behind saying its bad, while also trying to convince you that it isnt....would you like to chat in discord?

    Iksar said:

    Master looter works for raids because typically those aren't PUGs. This whole conversation is centered around pick up groups/random players together. 

     

    Iksar, "typically" you are correct, but my original statement referring to master looter was based upon the instance of a PICK UP RAID, once content has become trivial enough for random folks to accomplish it.

    Iksar said:

    Whomever receives the item is profiting at the expense of the group, whether it is now (they sell to buy something they need) or later (they equip now, sell the item they previously were wearing, then sell this new item when they find the next good option).

    I have to disagree with you here, everyone that joined said group, did so on their own accord. To say that one profited at anothers expense, is to imply exploitation, which cant happen when both parties are there voluntarily. And furthermore take into account the randomness of who could have won the item, then the exploited changes. Its likened to say if i win a poker hand, i have done so at the losers expense.

     

    Few rarely actually read all of the comments in posts like these, so i want to thank everyone that is particpating and fully reading them all. Thank you guys very much. I also want  to further clarify my thoughts.  I hope that others will read this, and contemplate it with an open mind. NO ONE has said that we should have a pure RNG auto roll system, disposalist has simply pointed out that it is the most fair option. I think EVERYONE here "wants" the same thing: a system for looting that promotes a sense of fairness, without taking away from the socially driven aspects. I further think the only way this can be achieved is to understand that a hard coded system will immediately become the standard, even if you could choose not to use it, AND that an environment where yes, ninja looting and loot whoring can and will be done, is the only true way to keep the social aspect alive, mainly because these events will be far more rare than a positive experience.

     


    This post was edited by EightBawl at October 15, 2020 2:01 AM PDT
    • 455 posts
    October 15, 2020 2:39 AM PDT

    chenzeme said: Now, I will say that no matter how I word my point of view across, those that want greed will not see it. By the very same token I cannot see the greed point of view, no matter how many times I re-read the pro arguments. Because of this polarisation, I would advise that the mechanics employed by the game have to cater for pro greed and for pro need players. Then each group leader can decide what they want from the group when it is formed. As long as it is obvious to players joining the group at the outset, this has to be the best option.

    EightBawl: On the contrary, I completely understand your point of view. it is one that i use to have myself. I just disagree with it now. simply because of my #2 above. I do agree with everyone that a system of need before greed should be in place, I just dont think it should be hard coded into the game. I think the players should handle it in game, socially, together - before the group starts, and any time a new member joins the group. As disposalist said in the past, the hard coding of any system will inherently be used as the norm, and i think we have established WHY that would be a bad thing. The second half of this statement i agree with. "Each group leader can decide what they want from the group......" i just dont want it to be hard coded.

    The system should cater for both views and enforce whichever is in play. If you trust everyone you come across to play by the social rules laid down at the start of the group, you will eventually be disappointed. If the system enforces the choice made, there is no argument. I dont see the reasoning for this reluctance. If you dont have some coded mechanic in place, then you cannot stop ninja looting. 


    This post was edited by chenzeme at October 15, 2020 2:39 AM PDT
    • 36 posts
    October 15, 2020 2:44 AM PDT
    Lazy.

    All group members make a random roll on major items. The winner of the roll decides what to do with it.
    • 455 posts
    October 15, 2020 2:49 AM PDT

    gamexilor1: Lazy.

    All group members make a random roll on major items. The winner of the roll decides what to do with it.

    Shees! Lazy is just a dumb statement! This is about enforcement not laziness. I for one have seen greed take over from playing fair and want to make sure that it cannot happen. 

    • 25 posts
    October 15, 2020 3:50 AM PDT

    chenzeme said:

    chenzeme said: Now, I will say that no matter how I word my point of view across, those that want greed will not see it. By the very same token I cannot see the greed point of view, no matter how many times I re-read the pro arguments. Because of this polarisation, I would advise that the mechanics employed by the game have to cater for pro greed and for pro need players. Then each group leader can decide what they want from the group when it is formed. As long as it is obvious to players joining the group at the outset, this has to be the best option.

    EightBawl: On the contrary, I completely understand your point of view. it is one that i use to have myself. I just disagree with it now. simply because of my #2 above. I do agree with everyone that a system of need before greed should be in place, I just dont think it should be hard coded into the game. I think the players should handle it in game, socially, together - before the group starts, and any time a new member joins the group. As disposalist said in the past, the hard coding of any system will inherently be used as the norm, and i think we have established WHY that would be a bad thing. The second half of this statement i agree with. "Each group leader can decide what they want from the group......" i just dont want it to be hard coded.

    The system should cater for both views and enforce whichever is in play. If you trust everyone you come across to play by the social rules laid down at the start of the group, you will eventually be disappointed. If the system enforces the choice made, there is no argument. I dont see the reasoning for this reluctance. If you dont have some coded mechanic in place, then you cannot stop ninja looting. 

     

    I trust everyone I play with, until they give me a reason not to. Then I just wont group with them again. Quite simple. My dissappointment or approval is not based soley upon reception of loot.

    I guess you were right, you will not see anothers point of view. The reluctance is typed out very clearly above where i and disposalist have both stated any hard coded system will become the standard even if one could choose not to use it, which would reduce any potential social interaction down to a simple button press. I also clearly stated that ninja looting, and loot whoring will happen without a hard coded system. I would suggest re-reading it, but as you so aptly stated, that wouldnt matter.

    • 2402 posts
    October 15, 2020 3:54 AM PDT

    EightBawl said:
    disposalist said:
    Iksar said:
    Master looter works for raids because typically those aren't PUGs. This whole conversation is centered around pick up groups/random players together.

    Actually, I think it applies to guilds too. Fair is fair no matter the situation.
    I'm still in two minds about Dragon Kill Point systems.
    In some ways they simply formalise a 'storing' of RNG 'chance'. Your chance of getting loot is still related to the number of fights you take part in, but can be saved up and deferred.
    To me it kind of removes a lot of the interest in exchange for speed of guild progression.
    I know that joining a guild and going to a raid and doing your bit but having *no chance whatsoever* at the main loot is not a good feeling, but I also know that joining a guild, going to a raid and getting awarded good loot in front of others that have been there a dozen times before doesn't feel good to them, either (no matter that it *is* fair).
    I also know that feeling you are 'stuck' with a guild, even though they have become aholes, because you have banked a lot of DKP and would have to start again if you moved is a bad feeling, but also someone getting good loot than abandoning a guild feels bad too.
    Again, there is good and bad in the system, *but* one thing I keep coming back to is: RNG *is* fair, no matter the good/bad feelings. Other system have good/bad feelings *and* are *not* essentially neutral and fair... RNG wins...

    @disposalist, I have used the DKP system in many of my past guilds. I really do belive in it. I would love to chat with you about it, and discuss your reasoning behind saying its bad, while also trying to convince you that it isnt....would you like to chat in discord?

    That would be fine, but I think it would be good to get the wider community involved as well. I'll make a new thread about DKP, I think. See you there!


    This post was edited by disposalist at October 15, 2020 3:57 AM PDT
    • 455 posts
    October 15, 2020 4:06 AM PDT

    Iksar: As for the ranger/wizard thing, you are making up stories with imagined circumstances. Who is to say that wizard hasn't also been after this bow for days? Maybe it is for an alt, a friend, or just holds a high market value and whatever wizard item they want is very expensive and out of reach to camp for their character for one reason or another. The point is it doesn't matter what reason anyone in a group has for being at a camp and wanting whatever loot. 

    It is a relevant possible scenario to put empahsis on why need is better than greed. My apologies if that was a little vague for you. As for the wizard wanting it for himself: greed; for an alt: log the alt in and get an equal opportunity; A friend; greed. High market value - (exactly my point and is self) greed. Need always first, greed opportunities after that.

    The point is that a character that can use the items immediately as an upgrade and will help the effectivness of the entire group is need-worthy, all other requirements are greed-worthy.

    EightBawl: I guess you were right, you will not see anothers point of view. 

    I guess you wont either. As I said, the system has to implement security so that ninja looting cannot take place.

    EightBawl: I trust everyone I play with, until they give me a reason not to. Then I just wont group with them again. Quite simple. My dissappointment or approval is not based soley upon reception of loot.

    Stop implying meaning where there isnt any. I too trust people until they have given me a reason not to. My point is that in regards to loot, when they break that trust, it is too late! My disappointment or approval is not based entirely on reception of loot either, again impying meaning where there isnt any. Twisting words and meanings is not productive.

    Here are my views in plain words:

    • Ninja looting can be stopped with the correct mechanisms.
    • My view is that Random and Need systems should be built into the game to allow both view points to be played within the game.
    • You get your favoured game style and I get mine. The difference is with in built mechanisms, loot cannot be ninja-looted.
    • If you want to play greed, be my guest I am not stopping you
    • If you want need, ditto
    • No other inference can or should be made.

     

     


    This post was edited by chenzeme at October 15, 2020 8:36 AM PDT
    • 2402 posts
    October 15, 2020 4:51 AM PDT

    I'm going to suggest a loot system that I feel might bring together Chenzeme and Eightbawl (and some others' feelings over this issue).

    There should be a Group Management Tool UI dialog, one part of which is where you choose a Loot Rule (other things like managing waiting lists and Looking-For-More messages would be good too, but that's another thread!)
    (I firmly believe that Random should be the default, but others could be listed/chosen as long as their shortcomings are noted. I suppose also None or Free-For-All should be an option)

    You could possibly also choose things like the rarity level at which the loot rule kicks in (if rarity is a thing in Patheon) to avoid loot rule involvement in every single dropped item.

    Players would be informed of the group loot rule when joining the group and it can't be changed without group consent.

    When loot drops, the loot system activates and the loot is allocated according to the rules (with possible UI dialogs to players if a Need/Greed choice is to be made, for example) and the 'winner' is announced in group chat ("Loot" would need to be a chat message classification like "Combat").

    Important bit: The loot stays on the corpse!

    That's it! Looting system done.

    The implications:

    Player Agency is maximised. They can ignore the system and ninja-loot. They can follow it strictly. They can discuss individual items. They can bargain and trade. They can have a master looter and hand it out later according to the Loot Log.

    'Realistic' 'physical' mechanics are maintained, eg. If you can't get to the corpse, you can't get the loot. Looting takes time and must be part of the group 'activities'.

    Social activity and reputational impact is maximised without compromising fairness. What is 'fair' is obvious, so player behaviour relative to that should be much less interpreted and ambiguous.

    Fairness is not prejudiced and players are not pressured since the loot system is signed-up to and automatic. If a player loots their loot, no one can argue that is 'wrong'. Other arrangements are the exception, not the rule (literally).

    What do we think?

    • 2402 posts
    October 15, 2020 5:13 AM PDT

    I think we understand each others' opinions, we just don't agree, and that is ok.

    chenzeme said:

    Ninja looting can be stopped with the correct mechanisms.

     

    Yes, but mechanisms like personal loot or autolooting or 'locked' loot remove a lot of player agency and social interaction and even some mechanical realism which some don't agree is worth it.

    I agree it would be best to eliminate it, but I'm not sure there is a method that is worth the loss in other areas.

    chenzeme said:

    My view is that Random and Need systems should be built into the game to allow both view points to be played within the game.

    You get our favoured game style and I get mine. The difference is with in built mechanisms, loot cannot be ninja-looted.

    Yes, but which is default and how others are made available is effectively VR 'endorsing' a 'correct' or 'fair' loot method and 99% of players will probably just use the default.

    I think there are fundamental questions of fairness attached to loot method, and we all have our 'favoured' style, but just making both 'available' is not a simple matter nor does it resolve the issue. 

    As for stopping ninja-looting, Free-For-All is a recognised looting 'rule' that lots favour.

    chenzeme said:

    If you want to play greed, be my guest I am not stopping you

    This is a fundamental of why this discussion is somethat heated. You assert that if people don't agree with your idea of 'need' then they must be 'greedy' and that is subjective at best.

    People have explained in several different ways why wanting a chance at 'the loot' they all fought for, no matter what it is, is not 'greed', but you persist in painting them 'greedy', which prompts antagonism.

    Let me try again.  No one 'needs' loot.  Just because a drop can be worn and is 'an upgrade' for you doesn't mean you 'need' that loot. You could live without it. You are suggesting that someone who cannot equip the loot at a particular camp should expect no loot at all?  But you should expect loot?  You deserve reward for your actions more than they do, whether immediately and directly or not.  Isn't that being 'greedy'?

    I hope you appreciate I'm not trying to be antogonistic. I'm trying to be devil's advocate to try help you see that your definition of 'need' isn't necessarily 'fair'. That something so subjective and interpretive shouldn't be a default or a basis for something so fundamental to the enjoyment of a game as loot is to an MMORPG.

    • 455 posts
    October 15, 2020 7:13 AM PDT

    disposalist: This is a fundamental of why this discussion is somethat heated. You assert that if people don't agree with your idea of 'need' then they must be 'greedy' and that is subjective at best. ... No one 'needs' loot.  Just because a drop can be worn and is 'an upgrade' for you doesn't mean you 'need' that loot.

    I fundementally disagree with you. If an item drops and it is an upgrade for someone then, to me, it makes sense that the people that can equip and use it, need it. Otherwise, by its very definition, it is a greed item. An item needed and equipped benefits the entire group at that point. Selling it benefits the individual. Of course you can live without it, but the item is still needed. Taking something that can be used by a group member is, in my opinion, greedy. 

     You are suggesting that someone who cannot equip the loot at a particular camp should expect no loot at all?

    At no point did I say that anyone should expect no loot at all. Nor did I suggest that if it is not for your class, you dont have a right to roll. Stop twisting words. I said that those it upgrades in a group should get a need roll over those that it doesnt AND if it isnt an item that is an upgrade to the people that can use it, then it is a greed roll for everyone

    I hope you appreciate I'm not trying to be antogonistic. 

    I think the twisting meanings is very antagonistic. 

     

     


    This post was edited by chenzeme at October 15, 2020 7:53 AM PDT
    • 2402 posts
    October 15, 2020 8:50 AM PDT

    chenzeme said:

    disposalist: This is a fundamental of why this discussion is somethat heated. You assert that if people don't agree with your idea of 'need' then they must be 'greedy' and that is subjective at best. ... No one 'needs' loot.  Just because a drop can be worn and is 'an upgrade' for you doesn't mean you 'need' that loot.

    I fundementally disagree with you. If an item drops and it is an upgrade for someone then, to me, it makes sense that the people that can equip and use it, need it. Otherwise, by its very definition, it is a greed item. An item needed and equipped benefits the entire group at that point. Selling it benefits the individual. Of course you can live without it, but the item is still needed. Taking something that can be used by a group member is, in my opinion, greedy. 

     You are suggesting that someone who cannot equip the loot at a particular camp should expect no loot at all?

    At no point did I say that anyone should expect no loot at all. Nor did I suggest that if it is not for your class, you dont have a right to roll. Stop twisting words. I said that those it upgrades in a group should get a need roll over those that it doesnt AND if it isnt an item that is an upgrade to the people that can use it, then it is a greed roll for everyone

    I hope you appreciate I'm not trying to be antogonistic. 

    I think the twisting meanings is very antagonistic. 

    Lol I'm not twisting your meaning, I'm attempting to understand and draw out some nuance.  "You are suggesting that someone who cannot equip the loot at a particular camp should expect no loot at all?" is a *question*. I'm proposing a logical conclusion to your comments in order to, yes, question your opinion, but also to prompt further discussion.  Sorry if that seemed antogonistic.

    Ok, so, of course, you are not suggesting someone who doesn't 'need' an item ('need' by your definition) should expect no loot, you are just expecting that everyone else who does 'need' the item should get loot before they do. That others deserve no chance at loot until after the 'needy' have gotten theirs.

    Sorry, but to *assume* that it is somehow your 'right' to get rewarded first just sounds like 'greed' by another name to me.

    Your comments suggest that simply by a character's class and/or lack of equipment, that they should get their reward before anyone else has even a chance?  In a time and loot limited game that will often effectively equate to others having no chance of decent reward that session.

    Does that sound fair?

    If it sounds fair to you *shrug* fine, I'm not going to argue it further - I think we've exhausted it.  Let's agree to disagree.

    • 2997 posts
    October 15, 2020 10:24 AM PDT

    Full circle to there is no need or greed, it is only want. You want that drop because it is an upgrade but you don't *need* it. I want that drop because it holds value to get me something else more suited to my character. There is no reason my wanting to improve my character should come second to your want to improve yours. 

    • 821 posts
    October 15, 2020 10:27 AM PDT

    If all loot goes to random people then almost no one (statistically speaking) will get upgrades from actually adventuring.  It'll all be done via trade.  

    Just seems wrong to me.  

    • 2997 posts
    October 15, 2020 10:35 AM PDT

    Ranarius said:

    If all loot goes to random people then almost no one (statistically speaking) will get upgrades from actually adventuring.  It'll all be done via trade.  

    Just seems wrong to me.  

    Maybe if static, friend, guild groups weren't a thing. And even in PUGs roughly 16-20%+ (not all PUG members would roll, some might roll in the favor of another to pass the item to them) of the time the items would land on someone who can immediately use them.

    One thing is it makes a very vibrant economy. Certainly had no problems with this in EQ. 


    This post was edited by Iksar at October 15, 2020 10:35 AM PDT
    • 821 posts
    October 15, 2020 11:02 AM PDT

    So....back to allowing groups to figure out loot systems on their own?  If static, friend, and guild groups are doing it then why not have PUGs do it too?  
    I've read a LOT of good arguments for some of the ideas in here, but I still vote for no loot systems coded into the game.