Forums » General Pantheon Discussion

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

    • 352 posts
    October 15, 2020 11:24 AM PDT

    I would prefer that there is no bolted on looting mechanism. I would prefer that it is up to the group members to do decide how to handle loot. Without being forced into a looting distribution mechanic.

     

    Standard looting options in groups I organize or join:

    Need before Greed, meaning if it is an immediate upgrade to a character that is present in the group, then it is Need. Anything else; gear for alts, loot to sell, not an actual upgrade, etc is then considered Greed.

    If no-one needs it as an upgrade for the character that they have present then it is open to anyone for a greed roll.

    Anything not worthy of equipping even for alts or if it is junk loot, then it was usually held by a master looter, who then would sell to a vendor and split coin at the end of the group session. Or if it were regular people you group with then it would goto auction and the proceeds would be split at a later time.

    This worked perfectly fine in any guild group, any friend group and any public group "PUG" that I ever joined in EQ1. I can count on one hand how many times I saw people ninja loot an item in a group on EQ1 over the course of 8 years.

    All of this forces social interaction. This is what filled the downtime between fights. That and teasing the ranger for dying every pull.


    This post was edited by arazons at October 15, 2020 11:30 AM PDT
    • 2402 posts
    October 15, 2020 12:34 PM PDT

    Ranarius said:

    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.  

    Except to have "no loot system" is to choose the "Free-For-All" loot system. VR *would* be choosing "a system" and would be effectively endorsing it.

    In the case of "no loot system" they would be endorsing ninja looting and squabbling hehe.

    • 799 posts
    October 15, 2020 12:40 PM PDT

    If you consider free for all a system, sure.  What would be considered "no system?"

    • 25 posts
    October 15, 2020 12:42 PM PDT

    @chenzeme, Ill propose a few scenarios for ya...

    Lets assume there are 2 mechanics hard coded into the game. One being the NBG system you desire, and the other being a Free-for-all system similar to one i suggest. We can also assume that neither will be default because lets say, the group leader will get a promt to select a loot system when the group is formed. Lets go further and say you are the group leader and have selected the NBG system. You and your partner advertise that you are looking for more members for a NBG group at X camp spot. X camp spot being the one that has an item that you "need/want". I ask to join your group but also ask if i can roll need on that item, because its very valuable, and i could use the money to buy a new shiny item for myself. Would you let me join, YES, because you "need" the help to kill the mobs to get said item. Would you let me roll need on it, NO, because in your mind your need to NOT pay for that item is more important than my need to pay for mine.

     

    (this is not something i would endorse, TRY to understand i agree with your sentiment that upgrades should go those who can use the item now, over someone who will sell it..the seller can roll on it next time it drops.... I AGREE WITH YOU!!! where i dont agree with you is having the system hard coded just to stop the chance of a ninja looter. I disagree BECAUSE the NBG hard coded system reduces the social interaction down to a single mouse click and i could click need anyway and be a kind of ninja loot if i won)

     

    Now lets assume there is NO hard coded loot system, and I am the group leader in an area that you want to join specifically because there is an item that is known to drop there that you "need/want". So you ask me to join my group, and I tell you, We are doing NBG loot and we already have another one of your class that is here for the same item, you can join, but he gets the item first, because he needs it too and has been here longer. After he gets one, we all roll on it because we have all been here longer than you and we feel we have earned the right to loot it, so you can roll with the rest of us after he gets his first. I have a feeling you would not join that group either - simply because you would not get the preferential treatment FIRST, or even second.

     

    This is where i made the infrence that the reception of loot is not the most important thing to me, but might be to you. (this is not an antagonistic statement, just trying to clarify where my thoughts came from)

     

    This last scenario, Lets assume there are 2 loot systems as in the first, and I and my guildmates have made a NBG group and need 1 more person to fill the group. One of our members (warrior) needs a new breastplate that costs 5k on the auction house. Lets say we are at a camp that drops a wizard robe, that you "need/want". Another one of our members is a wizzard also, and doesnt want the robe at all for whatever reason. But we all know it is worth 5k on the auction house. So we tell him to say he "needs the item. We do this to help our guildmate out and get the item so we can sell it for him to get his new BP...We have a plan, deceptive yes, but helpful to our guildmate.... So we advertise and you ask to join, And we tell you, we have a wizard in the group that needs it first. you can have the second one that drops. You may join you may not. Or even the group may break up after the first one drops and you are S.O.L either way.

     

    This is also something i would not endorse, but does happen. Do you see how the system IS flawed? it can be manipulated too easily. In this scenario and many others, any hard coded loot sytem is flawed in its "fairness". The ONLY way to make it truely fair is to have no system, and let the players in the group decide how to handle it, which in the absence of a hard coded system is most likely the standard.

    • 74 posts
    October 15, 2020 4:48 PM PDT

    disposalist said:

    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?

     

    This is pretty much what I expected in the first place and I support it as a compromise between most factions on the issue. It's either allow loot mechanics with buttons or leave it FFA with nothing but maybe a notification and *easier ninja looting. If you're going to have a loot mechanic you may as well have multiple options. I would point out that "Round Robin" is kinda close to the pure RNG in a lot of ways and has been in several MMOs, it was rarely used.

     

    Back to the NBG debate ethically... I think it is fair in that the people signing up for that FBSS camp KNOW that the melee are there for it first. I leveled my cleric 30s in pre-kunark EQ1 at that camp because it was good exp and I wanted to be in a dungeon, the challenge was fun at the time, it was pretty deep in, you had to break the room, etc etc. I never looted an FBSS while there on my cleric and was totally fine with it. I came back on my Warrior alt and grouped for weeks before I won a roll on one (against other melee) and never had a non-melee roll against me nor ninja loot it my entire time there. 

     

    People arguing that someone has to have the immediate benefit of rare drops to want to participate are missing a piece of the social puzzle and the other reasons to group like Exp, coin, making friends to group with later, and fun. I think having a social norm accepted by most players that we are here to camp XYZ named is fine. Many dungeons in Pantheon may have other named you can move to next for the next group of classes too we don't know.

     

    To me it is Fun to target a named for a piece of loot. This is a lost art in modern speed run MMO matched up instances with no talking and auto loot. We should be making random friends in PUGs that turn in to guildies. We should be saying "Hey any chance you would  help me camp my item next time?"

     

    Edit: I just feel like a lot of the comments are about absolutes, fairness, black and white accounting of things. It is far more FUN to be going after self-made goals (quests) for items that people want and doing it organically. It is boring to consider every good item as plat that you will buy your items with. There is emotion and humanism here to be had, not just a numbers game.


    This post was edited by GeneralReb at October 15, 2020 4:53 PM PDT
    • 352 posts
    October 15, 2020 5:42 PM PDT

    EightBawl said:

    ...I disagree BECAUSE the NBG hard coded system reduces the social interaction down to a single mouse click and i could click need anyway and be a kind of ninja loot if i won...

     

    This, so many times over.

    Noone talks in groups anymore, beyond the bare minimum it takes to rush through some speedy dungeon crawl...

    They dont care to actually have a deep social experience where the game was designed in such a way as to force you to be reliant on others. Everyone is just perpetually passing each other in group after group, day after day... on some daily, weekly, overarching story task... Everyone just hits "need" because its "fair" in the sense that everyone that participated gets a crack at it, and its the norm because its the hardcoded ruleset. Which is a fair enough of a loot system, if the game is almost entirely "loot" oriented and there are worthwhile items dropping off every kill. And this is where many games get it wrong and expect you to derive much of your pleasure of playing the game by hitting up the steady flow of gear upgrades to give you some sense of gratification.

    That is what we call a gear treadmill. And using loot in this manner, as a carrot, is a horrible and lazy way to provide progression for players.

    Gear should have greater meaning, and to give it greater meaning we must make it valuable to players. The only real way to give it value to players is by stamping a tangible time commitment towards is acquisition along with meaningful risks and consequences... The most valuable commodity any of us have to offer in our lives is our time. Looting should be an inter-player-agency oriented experience. Talk about loot rules when you join a group or when you create a group. Hell even create a group and run your own loot rules (Seen many styles; Need Before Greed, Round Robin, Random Every Piece, Master Looter w/ Split, etc...).

    I guess my point is, lets leave this one open ended enough where we are not limiting ourselves to an oversimplified ui element. 

    That is what Brad's vision was for EQ, that is what it was with Vanguard, and I believe it is what it was with Pantheon. A living breathing world where much of what you did was very much player-agency dependent and where there were tangible consequences for mistakes anywhere along the way, shared consequences too. Oversimplifing everything for players is counter to that process. Making players work it out on their own, forged strong and loyal communities... 

     


    This post was edited by arazons at October 15, 2020 5:57 PM PDT
    • 25 posts
    October 15, 2020 7:30 PM PDT

    Arazons, thank you, I feel like someone actually read all of my post. 

    • 63 posts
    October 15, 2020 7:44 PM PDT

    Unnecessary,

     

    If all items are tradeable than I need everything. Because I can trade or sell what I "don't need" to get the gear I do need.

     

     

    • 352 posts
    October 15, 2020 8:32 PM PDT

    disposalist said:

    Ranarius said:

    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.  

    Except to have "no loot system" is to choose the "Free-For-All" loot system. VR *would* be choosing "a system" and would be effectively endorsing it.

    In the case of "no loot system" they would be endorsing ninja looting and squabbling hehe.

    I believe the absense of a "builtin" ruleset allows the group to decide how they want to handle it without restricting it in any way. I know its unthinkable, its kind of like the wild wild west. And it may seem like it is overcomplicating what may be considered a QoL mechanic to some.

    But in reality, nipping all these potentially socially rich interactions dimishes the social aspect of the game. In the absense of a hardcoded loot ruleset, the community as a whole will then settle on some accepted norm for variety of grouping situations (raid/group), and it will be up to the group leader to enforce it. Community will matter if they do this right and require grouping for real progress. Getting blacklisted because your a ninja looter is just not something that is easy to overcome. 

    If ninja looting were ever to become a rampant issue, or the concern is such that it could, I think it would be prudent to bolt on an option for a group/raid leader where they should be able to lock looting to leader distributed only or completely unlock it to FFA (and should probably be there to accommodate some raid point system). Then the leader can then force adherence to whatever ruleset they want to run in their party. 

    • 444 posts
    October 16, 2020 2:24 AM PDT

    I dont have any caveats with my definition for Need Before Greed. It is a standard definition that has been in place since I started in EQ and have never had anyone have issues with it. My definifion is: at the time of the loot drop, if it is an upgrade for one or more members of the party and will be used immediately, then it is a need roll only for those people that need it; if fails any of the above criteria or no one wants to need it then it is a greed roll. A greed roll means that everyone can roll if they wish to. This is stated up front to anyone joining the party and it is up to that person joining to accept or not. 

    Now to specifically answer your direct questions EightBawl.

    EightBawl: ...I ask to join your group but also ask if i can roll need on that item, because its very valuable, and i could use the money to buy a new shiny item for myself. Would you let me join, YES, because you "need" the help to kill the mobs to get said item. Would you let me roll need on it, NO, because in your mind your need to NOT pay for that item is more important than my need to pay for mine.

    I would not stop you from joining my party. I would simply advise how the rules for loot were to be handled and that they were inflexible. Then its down to you to accept or not join. I dont consider selling an item to be needful or immediately helpful to the party.

    EightBawl: Now lets assume there is NO hard coded loot system, and I am the group leader in an area that you want to join specifically because there is an item that is known to drop there that you "need/want". So you ask me to join my group, and I tell you, We are doing NBG loot and we already have another one of your class that is here for the same item, you can join, but he gets the item first, because he needs it too and has been here longer. After he gets one, we all roll on it because we have all been here longer than you and we feel we have earned the right to loot it, so you can roll with the rest of us after he gets his first. I have a feeling you would not join that group either - simply because you would not get the preferential treatment FIRST, or even second.

    I would be happy with need before greed and I totally get that first in group gets first shout for needed items, that is fine by me. I would join as long as the group was not going to disband immediately after getting that item, but I dont see a problem with that system, again it is being used immediately to the benefit of the group. I would consider joining; I dont generally employ that mechanic, but under certain scenarios it is perfectly acceptable.

    EightBawl: This last scenario, Lets assume there are 2 loot systems as in the first, and I and my guildmates have made a NBG group and need 1 more person to fill the group. One of our members (warrior) needs a new breastplate that costs 5k on the auction house. Lets say we are at a camp that drops a wizard robe, that you "need/want". Another one of our members is a wizzard also, and doesnt want the robe at all for whatever reason. But we all know it is worth 5k on the auction house. So we tell him to say he "needs the item. We do this to help our guildmate out and get the item so we can sell it for him to get his new BP...We have a plan, deceptive yes, but helpful to our guildmate.... So we advertise and you ask to join, And we tell you, we have a wizard in the group that needs it first. you can have the second one that drops. You may join you may not. Or even the group may break up after the first one drops and you are S.O.L either way.

    Guild rules and wishes should be made clear to someone not from your guild before joining the party. If you do state the intention that high value items are to go to guild mates first, then I personally wouldnt join as I think that you are trying to camouflage a greed action as need. I do not consider selling an item to be needful, buying a breast plate at a later point will not help the group now. If the wizard does not want the item then it should be a greed roll for everyone, equally. You could continually say that the warrior wants to buy boots at 3k and a helm at 4k so no one else gets a look in. If the warrior needs the breast plate, then I would suggest that the warrior joins a group that is camping the mob that drops it.

    The above scenario is pure greed and is taking advantage of other players. You, yourself even recognise that it is "deceptive". This is exactly why I say that loot systems should be handled by game mechanics.

    Can I also point out, that I am not saying that when an item drops for a wizard that the item immediately becomes a need item for wizards (or any role). I have stated multiple times that it is a need item if it is usable AND it is an upgrade AND it can be used immediately for the benefit of the group. Otherwise it is greed. 

     

     

     

     

     


    This post was edited by chenzeme at October 16, 2020 2:36 AM PDT
    • 2402 posts
    October 16, 2020 9:04 AM PDT

    chenzeme said:

    EightBawl: ...I ask to join your group but also ask if i can roll need on that item, because its very valuable, and i could use the money to buy a new shiny item for myself. Would you let me join, YES, because you "need" the help to kill the mobs to get said item. Would you let me roll need on it, NO, because in your mind your need to NOT pay for that item is more important than my need to pay for mine.

    I would not stop you from joining my party. I would simply advise how the rules for loot were to be handled and that they were inflexible. Then its down to you to accept or not join. I dont consider selling an item to be needful or immediately helpful to the party.

    But you are, effectively, excluding him, because his concept of 'need' differs wildly from yours and means he will have to wait for up to 5 other people to get what they want before he is even allowed a chance at it. And even then it would be a 'greed' roll between 6, no?  Because when 5 people who did 'need' it have got it, the 6th still doesn't 'need' it - they are all just looting for greed?

    I'm sure most people would say that on the 6th go the guy that doesn't have one deserves it even though they can't use it... Or would they? *shrug*

    chenzeme said:

    EightBawl: Now lets assume there is NO hard coded loot system, and I am the group leader in an area that you want to join specifically because there is an item that is known to drop there that you "need/want". So you ask me to join my group, and I tell you, We are doing NBG loot and we already have another one of your class that is here for the same item, you can join, but he gets the item first, because he needs it too and has been here longer. After he gets one, we all roll on it because we have all been here longer than you and we feel we have earned the right to loot it, so you can roll with the rest of us after he gets his first. I have a feeling you would not join that group either - simply because you would not get the preferential treatment FIRST, or even second.

    I would be happy with need before greed and I totally get that first in group gets first shout for needed items, that is fine by me. I would join as long as the group was not going to disband immediately after getting that item, but I dont see a problem with that system, again it is being used immediately to the benefit of the group. I would consider joining; I dont generally employ that mechanic, but under certain scenarios it is perfectly acceptable.

    "as long as the group was not going to disband immediately after getting that item" - And there is a regular thing that Need/Greed falls down on. The person that 'needs' an item is awarded the item and suddenly their internet goes wrong or a personal emergency comes up... Or whatever else excuse to cut and run with no real reputation consequences. Happened *regularly* in EQ. Can happen with Random Roll too, but at least then it was neutral and impartial all the time, so no one has been cheated. People can drop in and out with no effect on the fairness, because everyone always gets a roll on the reward for each and every fight they are in. You can be lucky or unlucky, but it can't be unfair.

    chenzeme said:

    EightBawl: This last scenario, Lets assume there are 2 loot systems as in the first, and I and my guildmates have made a NBG group and need 1 more person to fill the group. One of our members (warrior) needs a new breastplate that costs 5k on the auction house. Lets say we are at a camp that drops a wizard robe, that you "need/want". Another one of our members is a wizzard also, and doesnt want the robe at all for whatever reason. But we all know it is worth 5k on the auction house. So we tell him to say he "needs the item. We do this to help our guildmate out and get the item so we can sell it for him to get his new BP...We have a plan, deceptive yes, but helpful to our guildmate.... So we advertise and you ask to join, And we tell you, we have a wizard in the group that needs it first. you can have the second one that drops. You may join you may not. Or even the group may break up after the first one drops and you are S.O.L either way.

    Guild rules and wishes should be made clear to someone not from your guild before joining the party. If you do state the intention that high value items are to go to guild mates first, then I personally wouldnt join as I think that you are trying to camouflage a greed action as need. I do not consider selling an item to be needful, buying a breast plate at a later point will not help the group now. If the wizard does not want the item then it should be a greed roll for everyone, equally. You could continually say that the warrior wants to buy boots at 3k and a helm at 4k so no one else gets a look in. If the warrior needs the breast plate, then I would suggest that the warrior joins a group that is camping the mob that drops it.

    The above scenario is pure greed and is taking advantage of other players. You, yourself even recognise that it is "deceptive". This is exactly why I say that loot systems should be handled by game mechanics.

    Can I also point out, that I am not saying that when an item drops for a wizard that the item immediately becomes a need item for wizards (or any role). I have stated multiple times that it is a need item if it is usable AND it is an upgrade AND it can be used immediately for the benefit of the group. Otherwise it is greed. 

    The scenario given (and there are more potential abuses) *is* bad behaviour and *is* greedy, yes, but the thing is *you can't prove it* and often times *you won't even know*. Need/Greed can be 'gamed', even when automated, and with no social consequences because you won't know at all or can't really be sure or, worse, the majority of the community generally *accepts* (or at least tolerates) what we all know is actually 'bad' behaviour because it is 'within the rules' and 'everyone does it'.

    Having *no* rules would be better than having rules that cannot be enforced. At least there would be player agency, social interest and more obvious consequences.

    I have to say I also don't get this 'of immediate benefit to the group' thing, either, sorry. I, of course, understand the concept, but with gear being a long-term prospect in Pantheon and there being about 20 pieces of gear on each person, the chances of one item making any significant, immediate impact on a group is negligable. Certainly not significant enough to be a defining factor in something as fundamental as looting.

    • 444 posts
    October 16, 2020 9:39 AM PDT

    But you are, effectively, excluding him, because his concept of 'need' differs wildly from yours and means he will have to wait for up to 5 other people to get what they want before he is even allowed a chance at it. And even then it would be a 'greed' roll between 6, no?  Because when 5 people who did 'need' it have got it, the 6th still doesn't 'need' it - they are all just looting for greed?

    Badly argued semantics! Greed is wanting an item to sell. Need is using a item immediately. I am excluding anyone who cannot use an item (including myself) from a loot roll unless no one wants it. That is all. If you do not like my implementation of a Need Before Greed which has been in mmos for 21 years then do not join my group.

    Having *no* rules would be better than having rules that cannot be enforced. At least there would be player agency, social interest and more obvious consequences.

    You take one example that is forced (and not even put forward by myself) as the reason for not having rules? Need before Greed CAN and HAS been enforced in a number of games with little or no problem. Having enforced rules is part of life. They are never perfect, but they are always better than the chaos that ensues without them. Some people think it is fine to take advantage of situations. If they can and think they can get away with it, they will. The more that do, the less social interest people have in those people. If enough people abuse a system, there are no consequences.

    I have to say I also don't get this 'of immediate benefit to the group' thing, either, sorry. I, of course, understand the concept, but with gear being a long-term prospect in Pantheon and there being about 20 pieces of gear on each person, the chances of one item making any significant, immediate impact on a group is negligable. 

    Its english, plain english and the meaning is plain. Also, Pantheon has stated, all upgrades will be meaningful. They will not be negligable, therefor they will benefit the group, immediately! 

    The only conclusion I can come to for not wanting a built in system is to be able to change the rules at a drop of a hat to your own particular benefit.

     

     


    This post was edited by chenzeme at October 16, 2020 9:41 AM PDT
    • 2973 posts
    October 16, 2020 12:44 PM PDT

    At the end of the day I can manage even if the below NBG is in the game (still hope it is not hard coded at all), and I have no shame in saying I will exploit it every chance I get by tricking groups into thinking I needed an item by equiping something lesser (Fun Fact: Can not exploit a want/pass system). I really don't want to have to follow specific paths to upgrade my characters gear, especially when such a system also hinders the player trade economy. Everyone going to camps they have a very high chance of getting what they want due to some oddly framed "need" entitlement sounds terrible.

    chenzeme said:

    I dont have any caveats with my definition for Need Before Greed. It is a standard definition that has been in place since I started in EQ and have never had anyone have issues with it. My definifion is: at the time of the loot drop, if it is an upgrade for one or more members of the party and will be used immediately, then it is a need roll only for those people that need it...

    EightBawl: ...I ask to join your group but also ask if i can roll need on that item, because its very valuable, and i could use the money to buy a new shiny item for myself. Would you let me join, YES, because you "need" the help to kill the mobs to get said item. Would you let me roll need on it, NO, because in your mind your need to NOT pay for that item is more important than my need to pay for mine.

    I would not stop you from joining my party. I would simply advise how the rules for loot were to be handled and that they were inflexible. Then its down to you to accept or not join. I dont consider selling an item to be needful or immediately helpful to the party.

    Such a weird assessment of need that ignores so much of the game and the characters. A person can "need" a valuable item over others in a group just because it is an upgrade (however slight) even if they are mostly decked out in gear and the rest of the group might essentially be dressed in rags. Especially when this is applied to random strangers that band together for a few hours. Is that upgrade likely to really help the group in any meaningful way equal to the potential thousands of plat/gold value being given to someone you may rarely see and never group with again? No.

    And forcing the hand of random players into helping one get an item they want with little to nothing in return seems pretty dirty to me. I certainly don't want to join a PUG where the leader is someone who wants to enrich himself at the expense of others, because the bottom line is that taking that rare drop for any reason is at the expense of all those who helped earn it. This again leads players of certain classes into seeking far more specific camps to upgrade their gear (and group leaders to deny others who might roll against them with a need claim) instead of leaving them content to find any group where they can and being able to have opportunity to make progress toward item(s) they desire. 


    This post was edited by Iksar at October 16, 2020 12:47 PM PDT
    • 858 posts
    October 16, 2020 10:01 PM PDT

    I am a NB4G personality and that is how i try to play, the RNG way Dispo is saying is the fairest rule, but it isnt what the majority want or so it seems in this thread. But in the context of fair it is definitely the fairest for all parties.

    We can have the RNG rules facilitating the loot and the NB4G is a cultural construct that exists for players to choose to be part of or not.  The 2 can exist together quite easily. 

    Even with a group who insists on a strict RNG policy, members of the group can form their own private mini NB4G within the group and as a result boost their own chances without changing the chance to win from anyone elses RNG experience (outside of the little NB4G "syndicate"). 

    So it makes sense to do a plain RNG loot as the underlying system (even though i want to do NB4G). If communication is one of those factors they really want to drive deep into the game, then as a multi pronged approach not automating NB4G should be a way to encourage that to some degree.

    • 394 posts
    October 17, 2020 5:15 PM PDT

    After a win, maybe the loot table displays something different for each group member and the need and greed is equal for all participants

    • 25 posts
    October 17, 2020 5:19 PM PDT

    chenzeme said:

    The only conclusion I can come to for not wanting a built in system is to be able to change the rules at a drop of a hat to your own particular benefit.

     

    I knew it would come to this eventually, I just hoped it wouldnt. Chenzeme, I dont think its fair of you to insinuate that anyone here is advocating for the lack of a hard coded loot system in exchange for the ability to manipulate others experiences for their own gain. I think what we are trying to impress upon you, and the devs, is the negative impact that "hard coding" it into the game would have. While I think almost everyone here has the same viewpoint as you when it comes to NBG (i would bet EVERYONE here would pass on an item for anyone else if it were a recognizable upgrade), I think what you are failing to understand is that the rest of us dont want it hard coded into the game. We want the ability of that part of the game to be a social discussion - even if it comes with a few bad apples that will ninja, or exploit it. We also believe that it is a necessity to facilitate a healthy social environment.


    This post was edited by EightBawl at October 18, 2020 2:06 AM PDT
    • 805 posts
    October 17, 2020 10:21 PM PDT

    Redundant.

    I'll circle around on the replies, but my kids' waking up.

    Redudant as you don't need such a system in the game. Let the players solve it themselves. Leave them the choice to act accordingly, by default.

    Orient your game towards desirable player attitudes and you'll get a lot further. And you might have a lower degree of toxicity and the frequency of it's occurance within the culture of your games' specific playercommunity

     


    This post was edited by Barin999 at October 18, 2020 4:55 AM PDT
    • 25 posts
    October 18, 2020 2:15 AM PDT

    unfair, antiquated, old, expoitable, naïve, disputable, misuse, indifferent, misleading, easy, subjective, asinine, optional, neither, depends, futile, irrelevant, unworkable, NEEDED, deception, stupid, unnecessary, lazy, redundant, 

     

    This is a list of all the one word answeres used thus far....I think there is an overwhealming view to be expressed here. Only 1 of them is for the idea....So going forward, i dont think i need to express my thoughts on it  further, I would think that the masses agree.

    • 444 posts
    October 18, 2020 3:12 AM PDT

    Unfair, greedy, exploitative, toxic, misuse, selfish, self-indulgent, stupid, anti-social, etc. can all be levelled at those willing to exploit a system at the expense of the very people they are playing the game with. That is why rules need to be enforced so that people wanting to exploit systems, don't get the chance. Rules and enforcement are a parts of every day life and should be in game too.

    Anyone can list words that are the antagonistic opposites of a point of view, it doesn't add to your argument. You ignore what you don't like, twist meanings and spout fake statements as truth.

     


    This post was edited by chenzeme at October 18, 2020 5:23 AM PDT
    • 805 posts
    October 18, 2020 4:43 AM PDT

    "disposalist:   prone to problems and….An option to 'pass' is all you need."

     It’s part of the game, where if you just kill and loot without comparing, that you might miss out an upgrade or you end up with an imbalanced gear set up. That this can happen in a game is a good thing. This showcases that there is no aim to get everyone on the same track, the same highway. If you design a system where it’s either Need or Pass, you end up with a shorter pathway from newb to optimized character. By enabling those “suboptimal loots”, you’re increasing the length of time that a player needs in order to have the “best of the best to their abilities/playstyle”. This can be seen as a desirable side effect, for both community and devs.

    Having wizards loot chestplates, well that’s just part of what makes up a community. It’s player behaviour. Why remove that from the game? You’re turning the lootsystem into an industrialized automated mechanic. You don’t need the make a choice about what to loot or when, VR has designed the system, so that you will have the optimal choice. To facilitation of choice within the game where possible should be encouraged by design, but not be automated.

    I like how it’s now tbh, loot is on the floor. You want to know what it is? Have a look. Don’t like it, leave it for someone else. You could add in a final touch, where you randomize after X time, where everyone has had the time to look at the loot or even pick up the loot.

    A simplified loot design can be a deliberate choice of the devs. To encourage player interaction, stimulating immerging player behaviour and could also be part of community policing. Reputations, playstyles, guilds can be impacted by this design. It can be quite simple, by default everything is random, free for all. You can interact with others to manage the loot. And as a result, your behaviour towards those players will evolve. Viewing this from the greater scheme, it doesn’t leave an empty gap. If there are no other options, you stimulate the behaviour of players and community within those perimeters. Which are broader with more room for individual choices than in other games.

    Let’s be real here. There is no dying need to design a need/greed automated system. There just isn’t. You need to look at player behaviour and envision where you want to go with that behaviour or what do you want to stimulate in the long term and as best you can.

    • 805 posts
    October 18, 2020 4:44 AM PDT

    @JonWane  "…saving VR from ticket times and disputes.  (IT WILL HAPPEN REGARDLESS…"

    Correct. No matter what you put in front of a large community, these things will occur. Therefore, I favour a simplified design. Where you can’t really turn back time or get things gifted from GM’s. Only you can try to solve the dispute with other players through mature behaviour, if there is no acceptable accord, you move to the only solution. It’s up to you to pick yourself up, call it what it is: a game and continue enjoying yourself. Adjust your behaviour towards players or playstyles that have done you wrong in the past.


    This post was edited by Barin999 at October 18, 2020 4:46 AM PDT
    • 805 posts
    October 18, 2020 4:45 AM PDT

    @counterfleche

    You’re meta data design sounds nice. Sometimes however, complexity is not required. If you happen to be in a kind group, that says: "You’re a new player, you can have all the loot." According to your suggestion, At the end, they’ll still get their cut, even though they didn’t want to. They wanted to make this new player as rich as they are. So you’d have to adjust your design, to allow such gifting behaviour. So you’re increasing your complexity once again.

    Your wording suggestion makes also sense. Again, if you’re at the point where people are stumbling over choice of words in order to be upset or pleased with the loot result...Where lies the real problem? You’re taking on the symptoms of the disease and not the disease itself. (figure of speech) By not having these words or phrases in the game, you're bypassing a forseeable issue that originates from a root cause: playerbehaviour.


    This post was edited by Barin999 at October 18, 2020 4:49 AM PDT
    • 444 posts
    October 18, 2020 5:09 AM PDT

    A system needs to be in place that caters to every point of view. The group leader selects from Free for all, greed, need before greed. This is standard and allows the leader to select the appropriate system for the group. If it is free for all, the system does not interfere. If greed is selected, everyone gets roll or pass options. If need is selected then class appropriate characters are given a roll or pass option. If all pass then everyone gets a greed roll. Enforcement when the option selected requires it.

    The party plays how it wants. Simple. Efficient. Everyone catered for AND already in play in mmos now!


    This post was edited by chenzeme at October 18, 2020 5:29 AM PDT
    • 50 posts
    October 19, 2020 7:35 PM PDT

    Want

     

    But what I really want is a system that is not a hassle. I really like how Black Desert Online's loot system works. Pets loot for you. And if you are in a group, one option is that you can have the loot automatically sold on the market with the proceeds split equally among the group members. There are other options too. For example, another option is that the pets for different group members will take turns looting.


    This post was edited by Hauskat at October 19, 2020 7:36 PM PDT
    • 36 posts
    October 20, 2020 11:39 AM PDT

    chenzeme said:

    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. 



    What kind of malcontent is addressing me with gibberish such as this?  Are you trying to tell me that you want codified need or greed mechanics built into the game, but you think random dices rolls are greedy?  Dumb doesn't even begin to describe that kind of contradiction.