Permanent Loot Allocation ... for .. why?

"

ScrotieMcB a écrit :

"

thepmrc a écrit :

Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

So, would a person who supports other players right to play how they prefer be the bigot? Or would it be the people who feel that everyone should be forced to play how THEY prefer to play? Hmm, I think it is clear who the real bigots are here.

If I was advocating a pure return to SA, without any form of matchmaking system, yes, I would be worse. But I'm not, and I'm not.

I've been suggesting some form of matchmaking system -- perhaps not the most effective matchmaking systems, but systems nevertheless -- since my first post on the matter, and continuously throughout. It's not my fault you continually ignore this fact; your prejudice blinds you.

You have been advocating SA as the only loot option with 'reputation points'. I have not been ignoring that fact. You don't want PA to exist because you feel that your preferred system is better. You are convinced that your opinion is correct and everyone else is wrong. This would make you a bigot. I feel that both sides have merit and they should coexist. This is the exact opposite of a bigot.

If I am prejudice against anything it is bigotry.

"

Ten_of_Swords a écrit :

FFA: is an irrelevant and useless mode for all but friendly groups who race.
SA: has some merit in that it keeps people focused and close to the battle, but requires much more work then PA
PA: strips out all social aspects (cooperation problems) and is much safer and easier to play.

Hmm, bias much? FFA is actually awesome if you are playing with other people that are looking to play that way. Personally I would never play FFA with friends (outside of possibly a race). The FACT is that all three modes have merit and different people enjoy the different modes for different reasons.

"

thepmrc a écrit :

I feel that both sides have merit and they should coexist. This is the exact opposite of a bigot.

That's an ironic thing to say, because there are far more than just two sides in this fight. It's like someone being prejudiced against third-party politics in the US, then when someone call him a bigot he says "No; I may be a Republican, but I see the good in Democrats."

But this is just a digression, and not at all productive. It was unnecessarily inflammatory and I take it back.

What we need a proper matchmaking system allowing a continuum of options, not 3 static options. Which is something you haven't responded to yet.

"

ScrotieMcB a écrit :

"

thepmrc a écrit :

I feel that both sides have merit and they should coexist. This is the exact opposite of a bigot.

That's an ironic thing to say, because there are far more than just two sides in this fight. It's like someone being prejudiced against third-party politics in the US, then when someone call him a bigot he says "No; I may be a Republican, but I see the good in Democrats."

But this is just a digression, and not at all productive. It was unnecessarily inflammatory and I take it back.

What we need a proper matchmaking system allowing a continuum of options, not 3 static options. Which is something you haven't responded to yet.

Essentially there are two sides to this argument. The people like myself who support options, and the people such as yourself that feel your preferred vision of a looting system should be mandated to be the only way to play. If you break it down on a granular level, sure you can find more complexity to the debate. However, the basis of the debate is people complaining about other players being able to play PA when they don't want them to have that option.

Why would I respond to a comment about matchmaking? A continuum of options? So if someone wants to play PA it matches them with other players that want to play PA? If they want to play FFA it matches them with other players that want to play FFA? How exactly do you propose that this matchmaking system match these people? Some details would be necessary to warrant any sort of response or discussion. As it stands a matchmaking system would be fine, a player simply chooses their preferred looting option and they get paired with like minded people.... but this is exactly what we currently have, you just have to look for the match yourself rather than the game doing it for you.

As far as more than 3 options, what is between PA and SA exactly? What is between SA and FFA? What additional options are you suggesting we need?

Unbelievable, I read all the only-one-loot-options-lovers so called "opinion" and i'm amazed of the huge qquing and crying and purely bad reasoning and 100% awkward attitude they have!

Options that are not options, my way or the highway, ninjaing but not with proffesional ninjas, karma, voting, matchmaking and all the stupid nonsense in a simple game ... guess what, game developers should be making games not all the bulshit some of you think are "solutions" to some illusionary problems.

jebus

"

ScrotieMcB a écrit :

What we need a proper matchmaking system allowing a continuum of options, not 3 static options. Which is something you haven't responded to yet.

Your suggestion only solves anyhting if you ignore half the argument against competetive looting. But that's exactly what you are doing, so no surprise there.

"

thepmrc a écrit :

Why would I respond to a comment about matchmaking? A continuum of options? So if someone wants to play PA it matches them with other players that want to play PA? If they want to play FFA it matches them with other players that want to play FFA? How exactly do you propose that this matchmaking system match these people? Some details would be necessary to warrant any sort of response or discussion. As it stands a matchmaking system would be fine, a player simply chooses their preferred looting option and they get paired with like minded people.... but this is exactly what we currently have, you just have to look for the match yourself rather than the game doing it for you.

First off, if someone says "there should be a system for evading attacks," that doesn't mean you can just go up to them and say "design an evasion system."

But let's try anyway, who cares if my design isn't perfect. Let's say the game allocates loot by name, but doesn't enforce it at all; so things essentially drop FFA, but the name of the fair recipient is always attached.

The game keeps track of two metrics for each character (not account), both of only grow with time. Whenever something drops with someone else's name on it, the first metric is incremented; the amount of increment is based on the probability of the drop (for example, if there's a 1% chance to drop Glorious Plate and a 1% chance of it being unique, a Kaom's is worth 10000 points here). The second metric only goes up when you take something that isn't allocated to you, using the same point system. The game then uses these to form a ratio -- essentially what value of loot you take from other players, a kind of loot tension score.

This ratio is then used in two ways. First, when you use the party board to search for parties, those with the closest match to your own loot tension score are sorted closest to the top. You're not prevented from joining any party you want, but the best fits are given priority, and you need to either scroll down a lot or friends-list someone to go way off your tension score. Second, a party leader can always see your score before deciding whether to let you into the party or not; as a reminder, the average score for the party is also displayed, so the party leader can see the difference.

Note that it's by character, not by account. If you want to make a character "good" who always uses the suggested allocation, then reroll as a "bad guy" who ninjas all the time, that kind of roleplay is supported.

"

thepmrc a écrit :

As far as more than 3 options, what is between PA and SA exactly? What is between SA and FFA? What additional options are you suggesting we need?

Let's say you have this guy who's really frustrated with the colors of sockets on his gear. He's pretty pro-allocation, but he wants to scavenge some Chromatics; he might ninja them, but right now he's just hoping to pick up what others won't use and try for the vendor formula, and otherwise hes a straight-shooter. That is a far cry from someone who's standard policy is to give someone their timer, then pack-rat everything he sees.

"

Sickness a écrit :

"

ScrotieMcB a écrit :

What we need a proper matchmaking system allowing a continuum of options, not 3 static options. Which is something you haven't responded to yet.

Your suggestion only solves anyhting if you ignore half the argument against competetive looting. But that's exactly what you are doing, so no surprise there.

What half?

Why I think Permanent Loot Allocation has greater benefits/costs:

1) Great efficiency: Instead of always keeping your eyes peeled and having most of your attention going to wards sniping loot, you're more concentrated in terms of combat and therefore overall, your contribution towards your group is greater than if you were on Short Allocation.
-I find myself constantly distracted, sometimes even close to dying to snipe that piece of loot

2) Less Grieving: Overall this provides a more positive environment to players in public groups and provides more incentive for public group play, which was one of the primary reasons this was implemented according to GGG. Players can be free to focus on the combat instead of flaming and being distracted by being distraught about someone stealing their loot. Less reports, less chance for players to commit abusive behavior = less work for GGG support team in trying to ban/punish/regulate users and more time in improving the game.

Solution to all your friends being offline and you're forced into pub groups?

I can relate to this, happens to me and everyone else who plays this game that runs maps.

You can either run your own party and use Short Allocation, or make more friends that play in different timezones.

"

nynyny a écrit :

Its not about satisfying people, its about them abandoning one of their own principles. Something they always considered core of the game in closed beta.

Its sad seeing them taking the casual playerbases d*** after 5 months already.

Can you give me one single quote encapsulating your message of "FUCK THE PLAYERS, THIS IS ANARCHY!"

I think you cannot.

Now of course, I don't want to put words in GGG's mouth. they wanted a dark, cutthroat environment, for sure.

However, they have always loved and welcomed player feedback and taken that into account every single tiny step of the way. I know I love them for it, and you should to.

They didn't elect to remove free for all or short allocation loot at all. instead, they offered new options.

You know what a lot of people choosing those options are? Happy people. 90% of the players liking to use the new choice is great!

I know I'll play some FFA games because ninjaing loot is a huge fucking rush, and suddenly even the ranged characters are digging right the hell into the fray, point blank without the keystone and all!

But sometimes, I want to lazily smoke or not get super into it, and maybe I would like my loot. Maybe I get burned on a short alloc ninja bodyblocking the fist chain I see in anarchy. Then I might want perm for a while, because I'd be pissed.


You know what this is? Options.

Do you have a problem with players having options, for real? Especially if, by your own admission, 90% of players are adopting those options?

What if you were on the other side of it; I see you posted in onslaught trading. what if they decided to do something to onslaught that ruined it for you: say, in an insane example, added lag to increase difficulty? Or say, x50 monster health and damage in maps? I mean shit, that'd be an onslaught, right?

Now, would you think OH THATS FUCKING HARDCORE, I WANT TO DO THAT NOW BECAUSE I HAVE A HIGHER RISK AND ITS MORE CUTTHROAT AND BADASS AND EXILE-EY, or would you run off to the forums and say that maybe you weren't happy about it? And lets say they gave you the option, per your suggestion, to not have x50 monster health/damage maps, would that make you mad, or happy?


Options, man. You can either lead the pack towards FFA, or you can suck it up and play solo.

Some people just don't like ninjas. If you REALLY want to grief and enjoy FFA, D2 is still around. Ninja some tacobaals all night long!

I didnt play the game because i hated so much, that everyone is a thief(yes you can call tham ninja or something funny but they are thiefs).
I couldnt pick up rares because i tried to kill the enemies first...after that i said okay i quit, i want to play a game, but almost ended up hitting my keyboard because of these theifs.

I came back when i read about PA. Its great, now i can play in groups again.