I would prefer FFA over anything, but even I understand the CHOICE is there. If you don't like it, don't play in PA groups. Not that difficult of a concept to grasp, bud.
Really the problem I have is what next, the crying train is going to turn this game into d3. How did we get to this point where we lost on the loot battle. Whats next, the drop rate? 6L's made easier? I see the whining shifted to the next mechanic they want nerfed/made easier. And really to what end. Because at the end of the day, those gamers will come, finish the easy mode game and then leave. While the rest of us, who supported the game's original vision to pick up the pieces. Thats what makes me mad. You have a bunch of entitled gamers demanding easier this, easier that and when they get it they complain about endgame and then leave. This is the repeated cycle over and over.
GGG should already know that this is the direction they are headed for everytime they bend their rule set.
From a thread that shouldn't exist, because this is the only authorized loot allocation discussion thread (edit: was? I swear that sticky was up earlier today):
"
Evlesoa a écrit :
"
nynyny a écrit :
I was pretty skeptical 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.
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 use 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.
It's pretty simple: it's a choice. You got friends who do drugs, and friends who drink. Big fucking deal. If your friends (the players) choose to do drugs, you don't have to hang out with them. Don't you get it through that thickness of yours that you are given a choice? What, you want to eradicate alcohol and drugs because you don't like that there is a choice having to do those things? What are you trying to play, the next Hitler? You're impeding on my freedoms of choosing what kind of party I want to join, and if you don't like it, I didn't force you to join, yet you're trying to REMOVE the option altogether. What is wrong with you? Go play solo, go do something else. Ask your friends to play free for all, but don't come here and try to take other people's freedom away, and stop crying, for the love of the game.
CHOICE. Make it, but don't take it away from others. Snob.
"If you ask me it isn't a good sign" -- guess what? No one asked you. There are lots of people who support it, myself included.
What the "loot options" proponents fail to understand is that they are the enemies of choice, not the friends of it.
Yes, if you have friends who drink or use drugs, you don't have to hang out with them. Precisely our point. Instead, "loot options" compel them to hang out with you (what other options do they have with everyone choosing "permanent"?), while their activity is continuously sanctioned, as if alcohol and drugs were eradicated from the face of the earth.
The idea behind the old system was to give the player real dilemmas, real choices. The decision to ninja loot for a quick gain, or not ninja loot in order to maintain honor in the eyes of the group, was a choice; now choice is gone. The decision to allow a player into your party, based on whether you trust or distrust them, is now irrelevant, thus no longer a choice; there is no trust to betray. Okay, so maybe the old system had trouble making those choices relevant... who cares? The point is that it was trying to implement true choice. It just needed some help.
Instead, it got destruction.
A choice on whether or not to destroy choices -- with a clear bias towards destroying them -- is not an invitation to choose. It's an invitation to prevent choice, an invitation to determinism. Frankly, it's kind of sad that both the players and GGG aren't able to see through the bandying around of the word "options" and realize what those options really mean.
The defect in the old system was not the lack of choice, but the need to frequently make blind choices. RandomPlayer wants to join the party; should we allow him or not? Admittedly, under the old system this was a major problem, and I agree that it needed to be addressed somehow... which is why I believe the correct choice at this point is to remove "loot options" while simultaneously implementing a Reddit-style "karma" voting system for accounts. (Obviously bot protection would be implemented: for example, no votes until one character on the account is level 25, and banned accounts have all of their votes revoked.)
This karma system might not be as good as actual experience with the player, but it would give party leaders something to go off of, and give possible ninjas something to fear in terms of reprisal. RandomPlayer has negative karma? The party leader might allow it, might not; it depends on how forgiving that player is feeling. Choice. The chance to grab someone else's unique? I could ninja it, but then I'd get downvotes and it might be hard for me to find a good party. Choice.
That is a choice mechanic. What we have now is a no-choice mechanic.
However, instead of salvaging a strong mechanic that actually made you feel like an exiled criminal on an island full of exiled criminals... at the urging of the players, GGG completely scrapped it, refusing to treat its problems and killing it off instead. Thus yuwy is correct about one thing: GGG had a moral failure here. They failed to stick to their guns; they caved. Yes, the loot system had issues; yes, those issues demanded resolution. But there is a fundamental difference between repairing a broken part and replacing it, between standing up for what you believe enough to fix it properly and selling it out for an entirely different vision. If anything, that's when sticking to your guns is more important than ever.
Pretty good explanation why options arent always a good thing.
Dernière édition par nynyny#3398, le 16 juin 2013 à 13:50:56
Thats nothing bad, most likely thats the reason why they decided to "Hey, we most likely wont make a better game than Blizzards Diablo3 but we can try it." made the game in the first place.
Thats funniest think i have read in a long while, it's not like making a better game than D3 is something hard.
Do you realize that you have the option to choose short allocation of FFA? Or are you just being willfully ignorant just so you can qq about something not going your way?
It's funny how you just cry and cry without giving an actual argument other than: "I want it this way."
The main point was that the developers jumped ship, abandoning their own ideals. And thats not debatable, its a fact.
Not it's not a fact. In fact this is the first time I've played the game where I was actually able to use FFA (which is their vision). When I started open beta back in april of last year they had just implemented the allocation timer.
Now, I can play FFA and true FFA which is the vision of the devs. I have made several ffa groups and they have all filled up. You're making mountains out of molehills.
Really the problem I have is what next, the crying train is going to turn this game into d3. How did we get to this point where we lost on the loot battle. Whats next, the drop rate? 6L's made easier? I see the whining shifted to the next mechanic they want nerfed/made easier. And really to what end. Because at the end of the day, those gamers will come, finish the easy mode game and then leave. While the rest of us, who supported the game's original vision to pick up the pieces. Thats what makes me mad. You have a bunch of entitled gamers demanding easier this, easier that and when they get it they complain about endgame and then leave. This is the repeated cycle over and over.
GGG should already know that this is the direction they are headed for everytime they bend their rule set.
From a thread that shouldn't exist, because this is the only authorized loot allocation discussion thread (edit: was? I swear that sticky was up earlier today):
"
Evlesoa a écrit :
"
nynyny a écrit :
I was pretty skeptical 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.
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 use 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.
It's pretty simple: it's a choice. You got friends who do drugs, and friends who drink. Big fucking deal. If your friends (the players) choose to do drugs, you don't have to hang out with them. Don't you get it through that thickness of yours that you are given a choice? What, you want to eradicate alcohol and drugs because you don't like that there is a choice having to do those things? What are you trying to play, the next Hitler? You're impeding on my freedoms of choosing what kind of party I want to join, and if you don't like it, I didn't force you to join, yet you're trying to REMOVE the option altogether. What is wrong with you? Go play solo, go do something else. Ask your friends to play free for all, but don't come here and try to take other people's freedom away, and stop crying, for the love of the game.
CHOICE. Make it, but don't take it away from others. Snob.
"If you ask me it isn't a good sign" -- guess what? No one asked you. There are lots of people who support it, myself included.
What the "loot options" proponents fail to understand is that they are the enemies of choice, not the friends of it.
Yes, if you have friends who drink or use drugs, you don't have to hang out with them. Precisely our point. Instead, "loot options" compel them to hang out with you (what other options do they have with everyone choosing "permanent"?), while their activity is continuously sanctioned, as if alcohol and drugs were eradicated from the face of the earth.
The idea behind the old system was to give the player real dilemmas, real choices. The decision to ninja loot for a quick gain, or not ninja loot in order to maintain honor in the eyes of the group, was a choice; now choice is gone. The decision to allow a player into your party, based on whether you trust or distrust them, is now irrelevant, thus no longer a choice; there is no trust to betray. Okay, so maybe the old system had trouble making those choices relevant... who cares? The point is that it was trying to implement true choice. It just needed some help.
Instead, it got destruction.
A choice on whether or not to destroy choices -- with a clear bias towards destroying them -- is not an invitation to choose. It's an invitation to prevent choice, an invitation to determinism. Frankly, it's kind of sad that both the players and GGG aren't able to see through the bandying around of the word "options" and realize what those options really mean.
The defect in the old system was not the lack of choice, but the need to frequently make blind choices. RandomPlayer wants to join the party; should we allow him or not? Admittedly, under the old system this was a major problem, and I agree that it needed to be addressed somehow... which is why I believe the correct choice at this point is to remove "loot options" while simultaneously implementing a Reddit-style "karma" voting system for accounts. (Obviously bot protection would be implemented: for example, no votes until one character on the account is level 25, and banned accounts have all of their votes revoked.)
This karma system might not be as good as actual experience with the player, but it would give party leaders something to go off of, and give possible ninjas something to fear in terms of reprisal. RandomPlayer has negative karma? The party leader might allow it, might not; it depends on how forgiving that player is feeling. Choice. The chance to grab someone else's unique? I could ninja it, but then I'd get downvotes and it might be hard for me to find a good party. Choice.
That is a choice mechanic. What we have now is a no-choice mechanic.
However, instead of salvaging a strong mechanic that actually made you feel like an exiled criminal on an island full of exiled criminals... at the urging of the players, GGG completely scrapped it, refusing to treat its problems and killing it off instead. Thus yuwy is correct about one thing: GGG had a moral failure here. They failed to stick to their guns; they caved. Yes, the loot system had issues; yes, those issues demanded resolution. But there is a fundamental difference between repairing a broken part and replacing it, between standing up for what you believe enough to fix it properly and selling it out for an entirely different vision. If anything, that's when sticking to your guns is more important than ever.
Some comments to this "explanation".
"
Yes, if you have friends who drink or use drugs, you don't have to hang out with them. Precisely our point. Instead, "loot options" compel them to hang out with you (what other options do they have with everyone choosing "permanent"?), while their activity is continuously sanctioned, as if alcohol and drugs were eradicated from the face of the earth.
First of all this assumes that everybody uses permanent, as some users have stated in this thread, it is possible find a gmae with FFA loot. Second I fail to see how this is an argument as without loot option the situation is completly vice versa. People don't want to play with FFA loot but have to, because "what other options do you have with"... there not being any options.
"
The idea behind the old system was to give the player real dilemmas, real choices. The decision to ninja loot for a quick gain, or not ninja loot in order to maintain honor in the eyes of the group, was a choice; now choice is gone. The decision to allow a player into your party, based on whether you trust or distrust them, is now irrelevant, thus no longer a choice; there is no trust to betray. Okay, so maybe the old system had trouble making those choices relevant... who cares? The point is that it was trying to implement true choice. It just needed some help.
This is the whole point.. it failed. Normally you don't really care about what a public party thinks of you... there is no dilemma.. you see an exalted orb, hell you'll get it, no matter if the random public party thinks you are an asshole for doing so.
The proposed karma system is not really helping either imho. First of all it is vulnerable to abuses and cyber bullying people. Second all it really does is mark "ninja looters" which will then probably never get into a public group again, because once you get a bad rep, people will generaly dismiss your group request.
"
However, instead of salvaging a strong mechanic that actually made you feel like an exiled criminal on an island full of exiled criminals... at the urging of the players, GGG completely scrapped it, refusing to treat its problems and killing it off instead.
No it didn't! Sorry if this might be an issue that we just feel different about, but the only way that this helps to the immersion is if we can actually kill people when they steal our stuff. If someone is greedy in a group of exiles... he would probably get punished by killing him or challenging him over the loot. THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE HERE. So someone snatching a unique item and then laughing in chat is not helping the immersion, it is completly killnig it, because you'd probably react something like "okay this is fucking retarded!"
Btw. I always proposed to have loot options in all leagues, except cut-throat where you could acutally challenge people over loot.
"
Thus yuwy is correct about one thing: GGG had a moral failure here. They failed to stick to their guns; they caved.
Again I disagree. There are a ton of actual arguments FOR instanced loot, but I think these have been said 960+ pages long before.
GGG was actually listening to a majority of their players here, and while I agree that there are sometimes decisions where people fail to see the hidden drawback, this is not one of them.
Yeah, the guy is acting like perma is mandatory. And it's not.
We must be very proud of having a developers like GGG. In which other game the devs listen to the customers, and more important, with to them the choice to choose the loot system?
Not in many.
In majority of ARPGs, there are free for all systems, and you live with that. Or there are perma separated system, and you live with that.
This got the options, fgs. Poeple can't stop complaining, it doesn't matter how good the devs implement the things out there.
Just to have the option to choose the system... this is fantastic.
Thus yuwy is correct about one thing: GGG had a moral failure here. They failed to stick to their guns; they caved.
When you claim that changing a setting in a video game is a moral issue, you've lost any sense of credibility your poor argument may have had left. Forget murder and theft, the real moral failure is game changing an aspect of video game design. The horror!
Also, "sticking to your guns", is only admirable when those "guns" were worth sticking too in the first place. This simply wasn't the case here. GGG realized that not everyone wants to play the game the way that they personally do, so they opened up options. That's not caving, that's called being humble.
The "options are anti-choice" argument is so mind-numbingly idiotic it's sad that anyone has to point out it's irrationality. Having 3 allocation options offers more choices. All the risk/reward choices the short allocation option presents? News flash! They're still in the game whenever you play short allocation games. Holy shit! That's insane! Also, those risk/reward choices are never present if/when you play solo, so does that mean that letting people play solo was stealing their precious choices? This argument is completely logically inept and anyone swayed by it has serious brain failures going on.
You mentioned the "disadvantage" of people chosing a safer playstyle. Actually that was something what I absolutly despised about FFA loot:
That you HAVE TO play a risky and actually stupid playstyle which does not fit your character.
Dive enemies as ranged? Seriously??
Its GOOD that this behaviour is not encouraged anymore. Now people can focus on PLAYING PROPERLY when they are in a party and do not give in to their greed.
I was always heavily against FFA loot and wanted permanent/instanced loot and for this I had many reasons and arguments.
But after experience the differnt options by my self I discovered a new advantage of permanent loot:
1, parties stay closer together
2, they might interact with each other because would give item away
Personally I pick up 4 links and drop them on the ground if I do not need them.
Permanent loot is a lot better!
PS.: The OP is just another dude who wants to make himself look important with his irrational opinion.
