Permanent Loot Allocation ... for .. why?

A fair and balanced poll will never happen but I really doubt GGG would have given us looting options if it wasn't desired by the majority.

"

iamstryker a écrit :

A fair and balanced poll will never happen but I really doubt GGG would have given us looting options if it wasn't desired by the majority.

SA had issues that are not fundamental to its core concept; it wasn't the core idea that was bad, it was the lack of an additional system layered over that made it bad.

"Loot options" has issues which are fundamental to its core concept; the core idea is rotten, but it might be a better temporary situation than the old SA was.

So if you throw around an improvement, even if it's a lazy, non-optimized improvement, in a survey against nothing, yes, it's going to win. The danger is in saying "good enough" and failing to improve the system further.

Current events example: Global chat. I just agreed with Chris that implementing private chat as quickly as possible would be a great quick-fix to the splintered global chat issue. That doesn't mean that we should stop there; later we need to revisit global chat later and make it actually usable.

"

ScrotieMcB a écrit :

"Loot options" has issues which are fundamental to its core concept; the core idea is rotten, but it might be a better temporary situation than the old SA was.

The suggestions I have heard you give still would strip away what players like about loot options which is that you can play completely non competitively and never ever have to think about anyone you play with taking something extremely valuable from you.

This is why I do not think loot options will ever be drastically changed. I do not think loot options was presented as a temporary fix I think PA will be around for the lifespan of the game. We'll see if I am right.

"

iamstryker a écrit :

"

ScrotieMcB a écrit :

"Loot options" has issues which are fundamental to its core concept; the core idea is rotten, but it might be a better temporary situation than the old SA was.

The suggestions I have heard you give still would strip away what players like about loot options which is that you can play completely non competitively and never ever have to think about anyone you play with taking something extremely valuable from you.

That would be like removing the death penalty from Standard, then saying that it's what players like, which is that you can play completely non-hesitantly and never ever have to think about anything you do taking valuable experience from you.

To be honest, in short allocation i don't contribute, i focus my efforts on grabbing loot, but in permanent allocation i actually care about finishing the fight before running into fire and attempting to pick up an item that I don't deserve in the first place.

"

nynyny a écrit :

I was pretty sceptical when I first saw the new options GGG added to the loot system, and it turns out that I was for a reason. Not only does it slow down the map clearing speed of most groups since there are a lot of people who tend to play extremely safe now, like for example stay completely out of the bosses range and dont attack him more than once since they know that noone can snatch their loot anyway.

This has nothing to do with PA vs SA. Even in SA I could stay out of the boss's range and rush in to grab the stuff allocated to me when s/he goes down. Meanwhile in SA I could also run ahead, ninja every chest, kill some low-hanging fruit, etc.. PA prevents that and doesn't really create any other issues.

"

nynyny a écrit :

Before implementing it the devs should have though about the consequences. It was obvious that as soon as this kind of option is available 90% of the groups will us it, and if you ask me that simply isnt a good sign. Giving people an easy way out to avoid actual competition will always make them choose said way.

If 90% of people want it and it doesn't break the game (like for example "no death penalty" would), it's probably a good idea. You certainly can't use those (made up?) numbers to explain why it's a bad one!

"

nynyny a écrit :

I understand why GGG would want to allocate currency and rares, hell to some extend even why they deem it necessary for 4Links/5Links/6Links, but why Portal and Wisdom Scrolls? And most of all, why high level whites?

Please elaborate - why is it acceptable to allocate currency but not high-level whites? Why do you care about wisdoms and portals?

"

nynyny a écrit :

To me it looks like they took it "right up the ass". Completely disregarding everything they said about their ideas before, what they want loot to be seen as, that they want the whole process to be a competition. You taking out the competition for extremely valuable items is cool with me, after all there are a lot of people who have internet problem or tend to desynch and therefore would lose a lot of their loot otherwise. But allocating high level white, the only thing you could compete over at this point? The casual playerbase pretty much made them abandon one of their basic principles within 6 months, do I actually want to know what else will happen?

Much as I hate to see them used derogatorily, at least try not to confuse "casual" with "carebear".

"

nynyny a écrit :

Before someone jumps in and posts a sentence like "you dont have to play in pub groups" you should consider that sometimes youre maybe in the mood to map while none of your friends are online, meaning you have to either solo or group up with pubs. Pubbing right now means accepting the fact that the loot is perma allocated, you dont really have a choice, especially if your build isnt capable of soloing (or it simply being extremely inefficient).

You can still make your own public party.

"

nynyny a écrit :

In closed beta the devs always stated how they looked at loot, it was supposed to be a competition. Them changing their oppinion so radically actually makes me wonder what will be next.

I don't think GGG has changed their mind about what they want, but maybe they've come to terms with reality.

I think you misunderstood why people play this game, maybe some play it for the "hardcore" experience, but with so few decent ARPG'S on the market that idea should be put second to developing a strong and long lasting ARPG.

FFA/short allocation isn't "competitive" because while others are trying to clear the instance the useless freeloaders sit on loot waiting for it to be available. The game is based on killing monsters for loot, not sitting on grayed out text for it which is what people like the OP are in fact trying to justify.

People who prefer perma are the people being reasonable and goal oriented. People who want to force a stupid demonstrably non beneficial play style on everyone else should stop thinking that devs first ideas are final and are always the best.

Edit: Forgot that now in Onslaught using non efficient clearing techniques make it much more dangerous now in cruel/merciless, which is all ffa/short allocation forces on players who want to leave with some loot and not die before lvl 60.

"

crofe a écrit :

FFA/short allocation isn't "competitive" because while others are trying to clear the instance the useless freeloaders sit on loot waiting for it to be available. The game is based on killing monsters for loot, not sitting on grayed out text for it which is what people like the OP are in fact trying to justify.

I don't know what game you're playing, but I've seen lots of people on PA waiting for their party members to leave the instance to free up an item they want so they can snatch it.

Here's the straight dope: SA allows players to "push" the party by causing loot drops to happen at Location X, which motivates the rest of the party to move to Location X, lest they lose their chance at loot drops. FFA isn't as good at this, because the good stuff's gone before they get there; PA fails at this utterly. And in no case is this kind of "pushing" mandatory, it has to be initiated by someone in the party, and it can be resisted by the stubborn, so it never has a 100% success rate.

"

ScrotieMcB a écrit :

"

iamstryker a écrit :

"

ScrotieMcB a écrit :

"Loot options" has issues which are fundamental to its core concept; the core idea is rotten, but it might be a better temporary situation than the old SA was.

The suggestions I have heard you give still would strip away what players like about loot options which is that you can play completely non competitively and never ever have to think about anyone you play with taking something extremely valuable from you.

That would be like removing the death penalty from Standard, then saying that it's what players like, which is that you can play completely non-hesitantly and never ever have to think about anything you do taking valuable experience from you.

I completely disagree that the two are at all comparable. The problem is for you competitive looting really adds a lot to the game. For others it adds literally nothing. The death penalty isn't comparable because dieing has to be something that all players are trying to avoid. If death has no meaning at all then we may as well all be invincible. Dieing is uncomfortable in nearly every video game. Its intrinsic to the game itself. Competitive looting is ABSOLUTELY NOT a core part of the game. Its an added feature that only some people like and need to make it fun.

"

iamstryker a écrit :

I completely disagree that the two are at all comparable. The problem is for you competitive looting really adds a lot to the game. For others it adds literally nothing. The death penalty isn't comparable because dieing has to be something that all players are trying to avoid. If death has no meaning at all then we may as well all be invincible. Dieing is uncomfortable in nearly every video game. Its intrinsic to the game itself. Competitive looting is ABSOLUTELY NOT a core part of the game. Its an added feature that only some people like and need to make it fun.

So basically other people's preferences are individual, but your preferences are universal?