Gammelsmurf said:Greetings Gamers
The situation is as follows : you are in a full group, its going well xp wise but 1, 2 or 3 of the groupmembers are very efficient looters, so the rest gets no loot.
Are you happy with that? Will you stay and be satisfied by the fact that its an efficient group and that xp is rolling in nicely, or will you leave?
For me, any type of greed lessens the game, it wont give me a pleasent memory of the playsession, perhaps plenty xp, but nothing more. And ill rather have a slower xp rate with people that are not so greedy that they just have to loot everything for themselves. So i would leave.
I don't play with people I don't enjoy playing with. Period. If someone is a bit unpleasant to be around, for whatever reason, I weigh the pros and cons and make a decision. I might think about how it will impact the other folks in the group as well, but ultimately I have simple rule I follow - I don't negotiate with terrorists. That being said, I have been in groups with an agreement "I get all of this material, or all of this type of loot, if you want me to be in your group". And if the group is good with that, then play on.
In your scenario, I would mention it to the players and go from there. I stick up for myself, and for others who may be to shy or non confrontational. I have no problem walking away and finding players that respect me.
Questaar said:I want zero ninja looting. No one can loot until everyone in the group has no aggro. Anything looted shows up in game texts. NBG can be fair but sometimes more than one player can use the loot. Then /ran 1 100 works.
I want zero ninja looting in the groups I'm in, but I absolutely want the option for players to ninja loot (whatever that means depending on context). I ABSOLUTELY do not want the game to dictate to the players what right and wrong is in the framework of loot sharing. I absolutely do not want the GMs to entertain "my group lied to me and/or ninja looted X".
I would like to see various options for loot distribution for the group leader to set, but I do not want to be policed.
Need before Greed is the bread and butter for a random PuG for me. When someon breaks the moral/ethical code, the group then decides how to police that player.
Revener said:Alot of games have a need for greed system when rolling for loot.
Best if it can be set by the group/raid leader, too just NBG with normal random if no one hits need, leader loot only or just random.
A lot of games have loot that works fundamentally differently than an open world game that has almost entirely tradable/non-bound itemization. It's not a universally applicable solution.
Greed is the only way to have a fair share of tradeable gear in MMO's. If anything is tradeable, any need is potentially a supergreed solution for money even if that's a item you already have, have in your bank or don't plan using.
While rolls are not really... objective or allways fair, it's the only way to split things without argueing or risking do have lootwhorish behaviours tied to it. Sell & split is another solution but require a good trust and a competent seller to match decent goals.
There will zone designed to have more drops for each of the class roles & styles, if things works NBG but 80% of the loots are caster/mage (tower of the reckless magician seems like it might be that way), you will never get tanks and heals aboard and most groups will only carry wizards, summoners and enchanters and you will have a very low interest in non casting classes.
You could argue that shuffling loots even if totally out of pace with the dungeon would work, and it would... for some time.
But to keep players interested in going into dungeons they need nothing, must be done using the selling stick.
That doesn't mean you can't instantly BUY an item that dropped and someone had, probably with a small discount due to the lack of need to search for a buyer, but that also means if the item drops AGAIN you are still right to roll on it and sell this one to cover your losses.
It all creates more intricate player interactions than strictly doing NBG and ending with some dungeons or named farm undoable due to primordial classes not beeing interested at.
Iksar said:Revener said:Alot of games have a need for greed system when rolling for loot.
Best if it can be set by the group/raid leader, too just NBG with normal random if no one hits need, leader loot only or just random.A lot of games have loot that works fundamentally differently than an open world game that has almost entirely tradable/non-bound itemization. It's not a universally applicable solution.
------------
@Gammelsmurf did you play EQ2 with the same name?
Loot whores... if I'm the healer I accidently "forget" to heal them and let them die! Flog them on the forums for their greed and send messages out to all guild leaders lol . In every game there's loot hungry people and I've always been NBG on items that are usable. It's funny seeing how much that has changed over the last 20 years of playing MMO's, so I try to group with like-minded players. I'll leave the group if its not handled. No time for that BS anymore.
That's one of the main reasons why I'm more inclined to join random groups, to problem solve in group chat and tells. The more creativity required, the better. If I wanted all of the problems I was confronted with to only come from the NPCs, I would opt for an RPG instead. Disagreements are opportunities for a counterpoint, for humor, reduce tensions. It's text-based crowd control, which on occasion is evenmore powerful than spell-based CC.
Really though, there's a degree of challenge in these social interactions that can be fun. When two or more players try to take lead. When the more rigid personalities can't get along with each other, or agree on loot, but still refuse to disband because the xp gains are too good. When the new player has no idea what they're doing and each veteran gets/needs to guide them around a bit, until they are comfortable with the nuances of the zone/camp, if for no other reason than to avoid having them train/wipe the group again. Random groups can keep the rust of habit from accumulating. Not knowing every other player's "traits" and "dispositions" can keep you on your toes, always expecting the unexpected.
Games can't directly indicate whether we ourselves as players have the right amount social skills in any given situation, but the other players won't hesitate to make that known. MMOs used to be very social games. The more moments we have where compromise benefits us over time and where we find our play styles adjusting to one another, the more the game will feel like an actual world.
Of course soloing is an alternative to random groups, with few if any unexpected problems involving loot, but then it's been said that soloing will have problems all its own. That's a good thing, because hey, you get all of the loot but it comes with added risks. One of the biggest risks that comes to mind–the soloist dies to adds before being able to loot and the body poofs.
In a way, the question of open loot is similar to naked corpse runs–whether it creates enough challenge without being overly tedious. VR came up with a more engaging compromise that kept the interdependence that arose from corpse runs and trimmed away the fat; maybe a similar compromise will present itself here as the obvious choice.
Kittik said:I'm hoping for a loot system likes EQ2 does. Group leader is able to set the loot rules (and typically it's Need before Greed) and when loot pops up, you hit need or greed. Other group members can see what you're choosing so, if you're a jerk and are always hitting Need, you'll quickly find yourself groupless.
Agreed, there is no reason to not have such a system. EQ2's loot system was quite flexible. For random groups, you would usually just use Need-Before-Greed and keep each other honest (and it could be set for rarity level, so gold would be evenly split, trash items round-robin distributed, and say uncommon or higher would be rolled Need-Before-Greed). But there were also options for Round-Robin, Leader-Designated-Loot, or Free-For-All so you can handle it depending on who you're playing with. Usually the only people I see advocating against these options (not requirements, options) are people who are loot ninjas and enjoy swiping everything.
Especially as someone who primarily tanks, no, I won't be leading the group and dealing with everything that goes with that just so you can swipe everything possible before I get a chance to orient myself. That's not fun gameplay. And not having such a system just leads to people disengaging from the fight to loot what's been killed, resulting in wipes or other annoying things.
I will say something, and ask if I can loot some. If loot hasn't been discussed I will feel uncomfortable bringing up the subject, but I have learned its ok to do so and not looked down upon if asked, even by good people. The response from everyone, including those that have been doing all the looting, will determine how I feel about them. If the looters say nothing, that will speak volumes to me. I will stay if nothing is going on but leave the first chance I get. Otherwise, when in Rome do as the Romans do.
Regarding being allowed to check automatic need loot rolls, I think its a good idea. Dont have to worry about it and loot gets automatically, randomly, shuffled into bags. If there is one thing someone particularly wanted and they say something, I'm all for handing it over if I have it and dont need it.
Regarding Need before greed. I have heard good arguments against this that made sense but have not deterred my stance. For instance, If I am a caster and a nice sword drops that I cannot use, but is an upgrade for the warrior, My understanding of Need Before Greed means the warrior gets the sword. HOWEVER, the warrior can then offer the sword he was using to the remaining members of the group to roll on- for greed. That way, the warrior gets the upgrade and 5 instead of 6 will be rolling on the warriors previous sword for greed. The only drawback is the warrior could be cheesy and give up a semi-decent sword he had in his bags to roll instead of the one he was previously using. In either case, it boils down to character and in either case, I can't use the sword so no skin off my nose if I win the secondary sword or not.
Revener said:
Yeah but item being tradeable and non bound or not have nothing to do with a fair lootsystem.
A fair loot system is simple want/pass. Everyone in the party put in the effort to kill whatever creature it was that dropped a thing of value (and in a tradable system this item retains value for long periods of time) so all should have equal chance to obtain said item, whether it is to immediately equip or trade for something usable for ones class. One's immediate want should not block others out from their wants.
Vanilla WoW's looting system of Need vs. Greed/Master Looter/Free for All worked pretty well back in the day, and I don't see why it wouldn't work now. If someone's being a jerk about loot, you kick them from the party, and tell others to avoid that person. Reputation will (hopefully) matter in Pantheon, and I believe that the majority of people will be careful not to tarnish theirs.
I personally would prefer open looting like original EQ. Looting by group members should show up in the text window so you can see who is looting what and coin should auto split (with an option to turn that off in case monks or other classes have wt limit restrictions). If I see someone that is constantly looting and not giving everyone a chance or looting items inappropriate for their class that others in the group could use I would say something and if it wasn't resolved I would note their name and not group with them again. I am not a fan of need/greed in games as it solves nothing unless everyone rolls need all of the time as ninja looters will still wait until everyone rolls and then need on it anyways.
Daloskar
Byproducts said: They believe the negative "social interaction" is important.
Allowing negative social interactions is vital to the success of Pantheon. Without the negative experiences as a contrast, we appreciate the positive ones less or not at all.
It is desirableto include, as much as possible, the full scope of real world social complexity into the game. To smooth out the social experience with a server side loot system is to reduce that complexity. Reduced complexity means a less engaging game, even if only by degree. With a high skill cap, it necessarily follows that socially talented individuals will have the advantage. My talent is very much on the analytical side and not the social side. I beseech the developers, please do not to hobble me---by robbing me of the opportunity to practice my negotiation skills---with a server side loot system.
(spelling and quotation attribution corrected)
I was always having a "good" time with a Need-before-greed ruleset in place. Coinsplit on. Greed is like a random shuffle, so, if you don't need an item press "Greed". If you don't want to have the items/trash in inventory press "Pass". Need on items if needed. "Need" should always only be allowed if your class supports this item (armor, weapons, class specific items), otherwise you wouldnt be able to press "Need" at all. If really could use it for an Alt or whatever, get your fingers on the grp chat and ASK FOR IT. Maybe you lucky to get it. As in a social focused game like Pantheon, i pretty sure that the stingy ppl will get sorted out from the community.
I like to see, that the Loot-function will have a lot setup possibilities when to roll or not to roll. Set to common, mundane, rare, UR etc... Can set up a "round-robin" rotation on lower stuff as well. Nothing fancy, lot of games did an good job on it. Vanguard had a good loot system in place (for me).
With a good and easy system in place you really cut downtimes in a run.
IMO:
If designed and implemented appropriately, there is no economic harm from resource acquisition, regardless of the source or quantity.
If you have a proper, modern, and logical resource generation system (including the scope of: group-obtained-loot) that is designed to work with your proper, modern, and logical economic system, then how much loot players get doesn't matter in the slightest.
So far, neither of the above is true, for Pantheon.
vjek said:IMO:
If designed and implemented appropriately, there is no economic harm from resource acquisition, regardless of the source or quantity.
If you have a proper, modern, and logical resource generation system (including the scope of: group-obtained-loot) that is designed to work with your proper, modern, and logical economic system, then how much loot players get doesn't matter in the slightest.
So far, neither of the above is true, for Pantheon.
And what does this look like exactly?
CelevinMoongleam said:Jothany said: They believe the negative "social interaction" is important.I beseech the developers, please do not to hobble me---by robbing me of the opportunity to practice my negotiation skills---with a server side loot system.
Two points. First, you are in error with that quote. I did not say that anywhere on this thread. (These forums aren't exactly the best, and it's easy to get posts and threads mixed up if you have several open at once.)
Second, VR has worked in many areas to give players multiple choices. All of the loot systems they build into the game will be optional. As someone who has followed the game for years, I can't imagine them giving us multiple systems to choose from but NOT offering 'none of the above', i.e. unregulated looting by anyone in the group that kills the mob. You should be just fine.
Iksar said:And what does this look like exactly?
IMO:
Exactly? It requires changing their public design goals from an "everyone is always rich" model to something not that.
As that's not the case, nor will it likely ever be given the past seven years, there's an enormous range of potential solutions they will likely never use.
Among them, some principles and/or guidelines are:
- Have more sinks than taps.
- Have exactly the same amount of sinks compared to taps, in quantity and/or magnitude.
- NPCs don't have infinite/any coin.
- NPCs don't buy infinite/any amount of items.
- PCs can't sell any, some, most or all of their loot, ever, to NPCs for coin/currency.
- No generated, harvested, salvaged, or similarly created resources have any currency value of any kind, ever.
- Enemy NPCs don't drop coin/currency, ever.
- Enemy NPCs don't drop immediately equippable, finished, or useable items, ever, aside from consumables.
Pick one of those, and you have a good starting point for a proper, modern, and logical economic design/discussion.
Greed kills the fun factor period for me. Be it in xp groups or raids. I hope VR has tools / options when it comes to loot. In a game like Pantheon. It is all about teams working together. So the loot needs to be need before greed. I have been in to many guild raids where officers steal from other members. They hide behind junk like " to cover guild cost" and so on. While they walk around rich in the game and the other members are poor. I'm sick of it.
No VR can not stop it all. I just have a philosophy that Developers need to do what they can and not do nothing and just open the flood gates. Like don't waste time creating vendor only trash items. Items that drop need to have a purpose. Be it for gear or a quest item and so on. If a gear item drops and nobody in the group can use it have an option to turn it into coins that automaticly get distributed among the member in the group or raid.
Jothany said:CelevinMoongleam said:Byproducts said: They believe the negative "social interaction" is important.I beseech the developers, please do not to hobble me---by robbing me of the opportunity to practice my negotiation skills---with a server side loot system.
You should be just fine.
Whether or not I should be just fine is non sequiter and a subtle ad hominem. What do you know of the ethics that inform my position?
We dissagree. That is no reason for me to proscribe to you what you should or should not prefer.
(attribution corrected)
vjek said:I see merit in these approaches.
- Have more sinks than taps.
- Have exactly the same amount of sinks compared to taps, in quantity and/or magnitude.
- NPCs don't have infinite/any coin.
- NPCs don't buy infinite/any amount of items.
- PCs can't sell any, some, most or all of their loot, ever, to NPCs for coin/currency.
vjek said:I might see the merit in these approaches if I better understood your position. It is unclear to me what makes for a proper economic design or a logical one. Modern makes me think of the buy order sell order system found in EVE, which does not translate well into a high fantasy environment. Perhaps you mean something else by modern?
- No generated, harvested, salvaged, or similarly created resources have any currency value of any kind, ever.
- Enemy NPCs don't drop coin/currency, ever.
- Enemy NPCs don't drop immediately equippable, finished, or useable items, ever, aside from consumables.
(cleaned up white space and spelling)