0.10.3c Patch Notes

"

Rufus82 wrote:

"

Phaeded wrote:

I believe, and have always believed (and experienced), that choices make for happy players. I think GGG et al are being too rigid in their cutthroat mentality (read some of the early opinions on this matter which Chris posted).

Research actually suggests too many choices make people unhappy, mainly choices without consequences.

I think a feature that lets party leaders set the rules, with total FFA having IQ & IR, to pure instanced incurring a penalty to drop rates.

This would make the "cut-throat" style more appealing.

Research shows letting people play a game in PVE in a way that forces and rewards cooperation is what people want. People want a game with a hard PVE challenge that forces cooperation or fail.

Most people just want 1 choice THIS ONE. Having 2 modes is not confusing.

That is why Ultima Onlne, Dark Age of Camelot and Eve were not as popular as Everquest and World of Warcraft (back when it was hard, not the ez mode it is now). Most people deal with human conflict all day they come home to make friends and play with (not against) people.

You can make a PVE game hard as hell (Vanilla Fear or Hate come to mind in EQ). The question is what is the challenge the mobs or the players.

3 words:

CONFIGURABLE


ITEM



FILTER !!!!

"

rrtson wrote:

New scenario (3-person party):

1) Loot drops for Person A (off-screen).
2) Person A and B don't see the loot that dropped for Person A.
3) Person C is on-screen, sees the loot drop, but isn't sure who it's for.
4) Awkward moment when Person A and B are standing there deciding who should get the Lioneye's Glare (or insert your valuable item of choice) that just dropped.

New system pretty much encourages everyone to stand as close to the mobs as possible and rush in to pick up their loot, even in a friends-only party.

Totally agree with this, removing the names just makes it strange when you're playing with friends who don't ninja each other's loot. Something drops, and if the person isn't there to grab it in time, then you let them know they left something behind.

Without the names, you have no idea who the item is supposed to belong to.

"

Rufus82 wrote:

Research actually suggests too many choices make people unhappy, mainly choices without consequences.

Too many choices vs. too few. I agree that too many choices can be bad but having no choice is worse IMHO. That's the Sally vs. Vinny dichotomy. Sally wishes the menu had unlimited variations and Vinny wishes there were more than 3 items on the diner menu.

"

Rufus82 wrote:

I think a feature that lets party leaders set the rules, with total FFA having IQ & IR, to pure instanced incurring a penalty to drop rates.

I completely disagree with that sort of approach. I don't believe that players should be penalized for having slow pings or for playing ranged vs. melee classes and vice versa, or even that they should be penalized for not having "fun" in the current loot system. Party leaders should simply be able to set the loot rules, period. Forcing players to play in one system or the other won't solve anything. By changing the IIR/IIQ rules based on the loot rules you'd be forcing people to play in the system with the higher IIR/IIQ. The logic behind this is simple: ARPG is all about the loot. That's why most players keep coming back and devoting ricockulous hours to this game. Leveling and finding better gear. If you say there is an advantage to getting better gear by playing one way or the other, the choice is pretty much removed. It's like the choice between eating rice cakes and carrot juice for every meal or eating gourmet food. Both will sustain you but one is far more "fun" than the other.

"

rrtson wrote:

Before the new loot system, my friends and I had this sort of unspoken "loot system" that was agreed upon between all of us: We would kill all mobs first before going to pick up our loot (to eliminate risk of loot-grab deaths). We would always respect loot and call out whose loot was whose. Simple and effective.

Old scenario (3-person party):

1) Loot drops for Person A (off-screen).
2) Person A and B don't see the loot that dropped for Person A.
3) Person C is on-screen and sees the loot drop, then proceeds to let Person A know.
4) Happy ending.

New scenario (3-person party):

1) Loot drops for Person A (off-screen).
2) Person A and B don't see the loot that dropped for Person A.
3) Person C is on-screen, sees the loot drop, but isn't sure who it's for.
4) Awkward moment when Person A and B are standing there deciding who should get the Lioneye's Glare (or insert your valuable item of choice) that just dropped.

New system pretty much encourages everyone to stand as close to the mobs as possible and rush in to pick up their loot, even in a friends-only party.

New system promotes letting others play and watch for pretty yellows to drop so you pick them up while aggroing as little as possible.

"

Phaeded wrote:

Spoiler

I completely disagree with that sort of approach. I don't believe that players should be penalized for having slow pings or for playing ranged vs. melee classes and vice versa, or even that they should be penalized for not having "fun" in the current loot system. Party leaders should simply be able to set the loot rules, period. Forcing players to play in one system or the other won't solve anything. By changing the IIR/IIQ rules based on the loot rules you'd be forcing people to play in the system with the higher IIR/IIQ. The logic behind this is simple: ARPG is all about the loot. That's why most players keep coming back and devoting ricockulous hours to this game. Leveling and finding better gear. If you say there is an advantage to getting better gear by playing one way or the other, the choice is pretty much removed. It's like the choice between eating rice cakes and carrot juice for every meal or eating gourmet food. Both will sustain you but one is far more "fun" than the other.

I believe players who play an easier version of the game with players who play a harder version of the game should be penalized for it to balance it out.

Or we can separate by league, like we do with HC and Perma-Death.

"

TremorAcePV wrote:

"

Phaeded wrote:

It's obviously a big enough issue that it deserves more than one second of attention and that's all they gave it in this patch. That's disappointing.

That's probably really unfair to say. They started a loot thread that got to over 800+ pages about a year ago. Based on what this patch did, some feedback from that was listened to and utilized.

I don't think so...that thread was HUGE before OB was released. Something like 500 hundred pages, but don't quote me. This has been a complaint for a really long time.

"

TremorAcePV wrote:

I believe players who play an easier version of the game with players who play a harder version of the game should be penalized for it to balance it out.

Or we can separate by league, like we do with HC and Perma-Death.

Once again I think you're missing the point. It's not like having these different rules will mean there are more items in the economy which would require different leagues to keep the economy "clean"...only that they'll be distributed differently. It won't affect the economy and it won't affect FFA players. If you have a theory that postulates how assigned loot would have a negative impact on the game or the economy I'd love to hear it. I can't think of a single negative side effect other than it would show that some players (a lot actually) would prefer to play with assigned loot instead of FFA (or ridiculously short timers) which would prove that Chris's assumption about the "excitement" of nearly FFA loot was wrong.

First off, i have to admit i don't care too heavily about how the loot system works for random groups, because when i play random groups it's always FFA, even if it's named silly things like "no ninja" those groups usually also have plenty of FFA-looting going on. This i can live with, it makes it fun and exciting when something nice drops for you because you have to hurry to get it.

Now though, those of us who play together in steady groups, with friendly looting can no longer tell someone who didn't notice that there was loot dropping for them, because the names are removed.

Timers i don't give a fuck about either.. but at the very least, there needs to be a way for the party members to tell for whom an item dropped.

The other issue this is going to cause is that those people who do public maps won't be doing those much longer since they can't anymore tell when someone loots a map against their common "map->maker" rules, so of course everyone joining those groups will just grab the maps that drop if they can since there's no name on them..

Heck, it doesn't even have to be names, it could be numbers 1-6 with a small number label on each party member in the group UI, a coloured dot, ABCDEF, or some other way of identifying the 'allocatee' of the item drop.

It could be made a configurable option like some have mentioned yes, but then an important factor would be to display the loot settings of publicly listed groups so people know what they're joining up for in random groups :)

[edit]Warning, joke: If you're intent on keeping this system, maybe consider making it more obstructive even ; instead of showing what dropped, just label all currency with the brownish "???" and all yellow/unique drops also with "???", and make the pickup-location different from the label display location so players run around confuzzled as to what on earth they're picking up, and where it's actually lying on the ground - granted, this is a bit of a harsh joke, but it's in direct extrapolation with the removal of allocated names being shown :p [/edit]

we want a choice between the old loot system and new on party creation. (as in when you create a party you can choose to have names visible or not)

this would give the best of both worlds in that friends only parties would have names and random ffa groups could keep using the new system.

this would be the best solution imo.

also, this

"

Leeway wrote:

put names back on loot = great patch