Permanent Loot Allocation ... for .. why?

"

Mammatus a écrit :

Get the feeling the op is only interested in profiting from others 'incompetence'.

Option A: a game system that gives higher rewards to players playing the game competently and taking more risks.

Option B: a game system that hands out rewards completely randomly.

Which of these systems will encourage better gameplay? Which of these systems will discourage people from paying attention? Which of these systems will make competent players unhappier? Which of these systems will make incompetent players happier?

i dont understand. if you dont like it, dont choose it? join groups with ffa loot, problem solved?

"

HeroOfExile a écrit :

i dont understand.

Have you tried reading dozens of posts written on the subject?

"

exit_zero a écrit :

"

Mammatus a écrit :

Get the feeling the op is only interested in profiting from others 'incompetence'.

Option A: a game system that gives higher rewards to players playing the game competently and taking more risks.

Option B: a game system that hands out rewards completely randomly.

Which of these systems will encourage better gameplay? Which of these systems will discourage people from paying attention? Which of these systems will make competent players unhappier? Which of these systems will make incompetent players happier?

Option A does not give rewards based on competence but rather playing the game in a rather unnatural way. No one can choose to play as if they are playing single player. They can't simply focus on the monsters and survive to get loot as is natural. They have to constantly move up to the monsters as close as possible and stare at their feet waiting for a decent item to drop. This is not playing the game better but playing the game completely different. Sort of like how hardcore players play the same game very differently.

Random is fair and people are fine with that. FFA is unfair and unnecessary.

The simple answer.

GGG added loot options because the vast majority of players don't like 'loot tension'. It frustrated them and turned people away from Coop play. It is literally that simple. Most people wanted loot options, GGG gave the players what they want.

perm allocation is what people want you wouldn't want anyone stealing your drops so it just makes sense.... to many times have i had my drops stole because it was on timer and the damn timer is way to short... it just gets anoyeing

Even the permanent allocation is wrong for some items, i had potential good stuff ninja'd even with it.
Drops should be completely allocated for each one and others's ppl drops should be completely invisible !

no need to mention this may improve alot the visibility, and ranger characters may have not to go in melee to get a chance to get the loot. And if people are not fighting they may get kicked easy.

Hey, the "no more loot threads" sticky is gone!

"

iamstryker a écrit :

"

exit_zero a écrit :

Option A: a game system that gives higher rewards to players playing the game competently and taking more risks.

Option B: a game system that hands out rewards completely randomly.

Which of these systems will encourage better gameplay? Which of these systems will discourage people from paying attention? Which of these systems will make competent players unhappier? Which of these systems will make incompetent players happier?

Option A does not give rewards based on competence but rather playing the game in a rather unnatural way. No one can choose to play as if they are playing single player. They can't simply focus on the monsters and survive to get loot as is natural... This is not playing the game better but playing the game completely different.

At worst, this is being plain dismissive, and at best it requires much more elaboration.

You can't just go and take a gameplay element and label it "unnatural" -- what's unnatural about ostracized criminals fighting over loot -- as well as not based on skill -- if it's not based on skill, then why is it that some people ninja much more loot than others? Should we also make your party members invisible so that it feels even more like single player, because single and multi aren't allowed to be different experiences? Why shouldn't it be completely different?

At present, this just seems like moralizing, which is just... insane. It would be like criticizing Call of Duty because, my word, they're shooting people!

Also, excellent post, x0.

"

iamstryker a écrit :

Random is fair and people are fine with that.

"

thepmrc a écrit :

GGG added loot options because the vast majority of players don't like 'loot tension'. It frustrated them and turned people away from Coop play. It is literally that simple. Most people wanted loot options, GGG gave the players what they want.

If we took a poll of open beta testers right now, they'd favor a D3-style auction house. I know it's hard to believe. Go check it out, come back.

Asking a bunch of people in a Skinner box what they want, and trusting it on blind faith without injecting your own game-developer wisdom and sensibilities, is a recipe for disaster. This should not be a fucking democracy.

"

ScrotieMcB a écrit :

Should we also make your party members invisible so that it feels even more like single player, because single and multi aren't allowed to be different experiences? Why shouldn't it be completely different?

Without loot competition (like when your playing with actual friends), there is no difference between single player and multiplayer other than there's people next to you also slaying the monsters and picking up loot. Thats the way many players like it, to just play the game normally with some other people around to help/chat/trade/show off/whatever. The game tried to force a big difference that really only happened in public games, Which IMO felt unnatural.

"

ScrotieMcB a écrit :

Asking a bunch of people in a Skinner box what they want, and trusting it on blind faith without injecting your own game-developer wisdom and sensibilities, is a recipe for disaster. This should not be a fucking democracy.

They did inject their opinions for a long time and decided it wasn't worth it in the long run. Its not your decision or my decision whether or not they make decisions based on feedback. Its their game and its their decision.

"

ScrotieMcB a écrit :

If we took a poll of open beta testers right now, they'd favor a D3-style auction house. I know it's hard to believe. Go check it out, come back.

Maybe that's because trading right now in PoE really really sucks. I'm betting GGG has big plans to make it better and will then evaluate the response. Less people will ask for an AH if they at least somewhat are ok with the current trading.

"

iamstryker a écrit :

Random is fair and people are fine with that.

I don't know why anyone would be playing PoE if they didn't view RNG as fair.

"

iamstryker a écrit :

Without loot competition (like when your playing with actual friends), there is no difference between single player and multiplayer other than there's people next to you also slaying the monsters and picking up loot. Thats the way many players like it

Do you mean by forcing other players to play with you as if they're your actual friends? Or do you mean making and playing with friends, at which point the loot options aren't necessary at all?

"

iamstryker a écrit :

Its not your decision or my decision whether or not they make decisions based on feedback. Its their game and its their decision.

Semantic point to you, good sir. I guess instead of democracy, I should have meant that they're a company that's letting populist factors way too heavily on their decision-making.

"

iamstryker a écrit :

Maybe that's because trading right now in PoE really really sucks. I'm betting GGG has big plans to make it better and will then evaluate the response. Less people will ask for an AH if they at least somewhat are ok with the current trading.

I genuinely had faith that GGG would not resort to populist decision-making when it came to the loot system, and instead think of something new and novel and better. And to be honest, I'm not going to let a single incident budge me completely from the faith. But still, the wariness is increased; there is potential threat in all the AH QQ. (I've been trying to steer them in a more moderate direction myself.)

"

iamstryker a écrit :

Gee, that reminds me of movie villain logic

I don't know why anyone would be playing PoE if they didn't view RNG as fair.

ROFL. There were plenty of good responses from you to that one -- it was just an irresistible joke to me -- but that wasn't one of them. Read the forums lately?