0.10.3c Patch Notes

With the new loot mechanics just introduced it would be fantastic if you guys could implement an in game d20 for rolling on party loot.

I play weekly with a group of 6 friends and we don't ninja each other and we also roll on top notch white items. The old system with the name on the timer allowed us to direct off screen players to their drops. That is no longer an option and the amount of gear we will be muling around for an end of session roll off is going to be oppressive and confusing.

An in game d20 would perfectly solve this issue. "Hey look...a granite flask! Everybody roll. Player X takes it with an 18." We already do this but it takes place on a die rolling website. It would be nice to accomplish this on the battlefield.

I have no idea how difficult this would be to code or implement. Just trying to offer an idea on how to enhance a particular playstyle for an already amazing game. Thanks for all you do!

"

Thaelyn wrote:

"

tashi wrote:

I don't see why people are saying that there is no way to make everyone happy here. Just give us some options, please.

I absolutely enjoy this game and I think it could be even harder. I enjoy developing your character, fighting the monsters. I, personally, don't enjoy fighting over loot, though. So it would be totally cool if we could just have options for instanced loot etc.

That way everyone can have it their way. Like right now, I mostly play solo to have it my way ;)

Even with options, not everyone will be happy. There will be those who can't be happy unless they know someone else isn't. That's the thing I just can't wrap my head around when it comes to the arguments from those who love FFA loot. I can't fathom any reason to be against party options apart from an insistence that someone who disagrees with you be denied their preference, even if allowing their preference does absolutely nothing to prevent you from playing the way you prefer.

So if GGG decides to make those happy who just want others to be unhappy, then I must say that I was very wrong about this company. The only reason why you would be against group options is because you think: "Oh no... when all the people who don't want to take more than their fair share are in one group, that means that only jackasses like me will still be in FFA groups so I won't get more than my fair share anymore."

"

MercurialMaven wrote:

"

AceNightfire wrote:

"

oXu wrote:

EDIT: actually, why are we talking about timers? The main issue is removing names from loot. I dont care about a descending line, wtf :D. Just put the names back

The BEST THING they could do is REMOVING the names. thousands of players every day opened threads or posted about "OMG PEOPLE LOOT MY STUFF". People didn't understand that the names on the items doesn't mean the item belongs to them. Without the names, it is much more obvious that it isn't their item.

Removing the names was an excellent change for an FFA loot system. In basically every way, this patch improves the FFA looting experience. So why are we unhappy? We want a COOPERATIVE loot system, and this patch does two things:

1. It makes it much harder for friendly players to loot cooperatively than before. This is a significant REGRESSION, even for people who liked the previous system.
2. It can be construed as a sign that GGG will never give those of us unhappy with the current and previous systems what we want, which is a true cooperative loot system. This is a major morale blow to anyone who was hoping GGG would listen to our concerns.

The devs have their vision and they don't want cooperative loots. Everyone here thinks it's "their" game and therefore thinks the game has to be changed how they want it. But in fact, the devs wanted to create a game where people group up together, but still feel some hostility between them. That's exactly why they made it FFA and why they removed the names now, because there are no "your items", because the item is yours, when you picked it up (otherwise it's everyones item).

i dont care if the chicken like to find out whos got the fastest beak to pick the corn, as long as the warriors are left alone to find out whos got the strongest sword or the hardest helmet.

as a warrior i dont like to watch out for the chicken between my feet, trying to steal the warriors prey. why do warriors have to care about chicken at all, besides the taste ?

let there be a league for each, the chicken and the warriors !

"

AceNightfire wrote:

Everyone here thinks it's "their" game and therefore thinks the game has to be changed how they want it. But in fact, the devs wanted to create a game where people group up together, but still feel some hostility between them. That's exactly why they made it FFA and why they removed the names now, because there are no "your items", because the item is yours, when you picked it up (otherwise it's everyones item).

However there's a problem with such mentality. It reminds people of something along the lines of:



I don't mind developer vision of a game, but it should open to the player deciding how it is they wish to play though it. Do I want to play on easy difficulty? Or perhaps the impossible difficulty that could take nearly a year just to finally beat a single playthrough? Ironman/hardcore mode?

Etc.

You may disagree with what I am saying, but it is my opinion.

"

Ashen_Shugar_IV wrote:

"

mushioov wrote:

"

yhateful wrote:

GGG has a vision of a hardcore game experience. Evidently, loot drop is an important aspect of this experience, at least according to them and most of the core players.

Ask yourselves this. Does GGG NEED to appeal to a wider playerbase by changing the loot system and possibly alienating part of their intended audience?

Start talking about business, maximizing profits, whatever, but the actual answer would be "Nope", since hardcore players are picky and don't want a game that even offers carebear alternatives (see what Trammel did to Ultima Online). This is a niche game, for a niche market. I'm pretty sure it will sustain itself off that audience, without the need to water down their concept.

Nothing will satisfy everyone, but basically satisfying people who have a problem with FFA or responding to even the current loot timer is not, and should not be a priority for GGG. Sorry.

Absolutely great post yhateful. I agree 100%.

I've said it before and I'm saying it again: Do _not_ cater to the casuals, go with your Vision GGG. You can not _ever_ satisfy both groups. Ultimately all things considered the only path that's right, is yours. Don't sacrifice what is core to cater those who really don't care about this game, who only care about their instant-gratification needs. You know we hardcore players see past that. We found your game because we looked for that kind. Meta-options aren't in your vision and that's the way it should be.

What planet are you on? If GGG didn't NEED to appeal to a wider player-base why bother with them and the challenges they introduce in the first place?

They could have just kept their small, tight-knit, hardcore community. Problem solved!
Wait a minute, the solution was there all along?! Fantastic, let us review:

• GGG's rarefied hardcore player-base will be their sole benefactors
.

To whom does this sound appealing? It is a lose/lose scenario.
If you're telling me this group of people can achieve and sustain that outcome I want to meet them! They would be a categorically altruistic community! (If you're not following, read: Impossible)

Furthermore, you reveal yourselves to be patently short-sighted in your support of GGG's "vision" at this juncture (not to target GGG, they take feedback for a good reason). Consider a future patch which divides the community. How will it feel to potentially have your own words thrown back in your face by someone more "core", or by GGG themselves?

They say a good compromise leaves all party's dissatisfied. Given that criterion has been met here, it certainly seems to be the case.
I think the problem is that this compromise is not necessary. Simply enable player's to play pure FFA, and enable player's to play "gentlemen's rules". There is no reason the two must be mutually exclusive.

Outstanding post, Ashen. Agree 100%.

"

shinino wrote:

How is FFA 'hardcore'?

From what I've experienced, all FFA is about is playing as cut-throat as possible and being essentially a griefer.

It emphasizes running around and hitting the chests and breakables instead of staying with your group to kill monsters in many cases.

To an extent, it prioritizes melee over ranged.

It also makes a lot of people prefer playing solo (just like they did in Diablo 2) for precisely that reason.

I don't mind 'hardcore' playing.

I do mind dealing with people who are following the Greater Internet F***wad Theory (http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19). That's not hardcore. What that is is dealing with immature idiots.

I enjoy the game, and I play in Hardcore. I don't suffer idiots, though. Please give me the option to actually play co-op without having to deal with it. Thanks.

This is exactly right - big round of applause!

The loot system is not "hardcore", it just promotes asinine immature behavior as stated above and limits the ability for the whole player base to enjoy the game. I can certainly play hardcore and have done so many times since the mid 90's when D2 first went live. The fact is, playing "clicky" games has no resemblance whatsoever to "hardcore" gaming. Any monkey can click a mouse button real fast - it takes intelligence and an intimate mastery of game mechanics to be a true "hardcore" player. The fact is: an easy fix for the problem is to provide options - I like the one that offered 3 choices: FFA, named loot on timers, and assigned loot with the ability of the group leader to choose the setting.

Everyone gets their flavor of cake with icing on top and ice cream on the side. This in no way changes enjoyment for the ninjas or the "niche" crowd except for giving them less of an opportunity to snatch-and-grab because there are less "rubes" for them to take advantage of. Well, then again, it wont limit this "hardcore" action that much at all - because those of us who have the biggest gripe with the current loot system don't group with strangers or choose to play solo. Thus we effectively avoid the ninja-hogs by instituting our own mechanic. I changed to playing this way in D2 for the same reasons as well. Yes, I played hardcore there... or wait, maybe it wasn't hardcore... but I thought it was... that red nameplate meant something, didn't it?

By expanding the options the game gains a happier and wider player base and generates more revenue. Everyone wins without a major change of "hardcore" game play for the "niche-ers"... or is it "niche-ees"?

"

mibuwolf wrote:

I don't mind developer vision of a game, but it should open to the player deciding how it is they wish to play though it. Do I want to play on easy difficulty? Or perhaps the impossible difficulty that could take nearly a year just to finally beat a single playthrough? Ironman/hardcore mode?

Etc.

You may disagree with what I am saying, but it is my opinion.

This is the same disgusting attitude you had with TL2 on their forums.
What I told you then and what I tell you know remains: More "options" != Better.
That's your opinion, fine.

If the devs have their vision, you play according to their rules, not your with own set of rules. GGG wants to have us ALL on the same ground, with same rules.
I find it difficult to comprehend that you don't comprehend this, as you don't seem to be otherwise that stupid.

"

PapaChulo wrote:

With the new loot mechanics just introduced it would be fantastic if you guys could implement an in game d20 for rolling on party loot.

I play weekly with a group of 6 friends and we don't ninja each other and we also roll on top notch white items. The old system with the name on the timer allowed us to direct off screen players to their drops. That is no longer an option and the amount of gear we will be muling around for an end of session roll off is going to be oppressive and confusing.

An in game d20 would perfectly solve this issue. "Hey look...a granite flask! Everybody roll. Player X takes it with an 18." We already do this but it takes place on a die rolling website. It would be nice to accomplish this on the battlefield.

I have no idea how difficult this would be to code or implement. Just trying to offer an idea on how to enhance a particular playstyle for an already amazing game. Thanks for all you do!

This is why i dont like this patch.. b4 i could at least tell friends "hey here s an alch for u" or such things! I dont understand why u make such changes...
now u made an even crap loot system worse as it was b4...Honest people who share loot fair as it drops and watch for names will not rly care if u get ur own loot visible to u only as long as the can trade anything...the only people who like this system will be ninja's who get more loot this way then b4 by taking shit from other ppl when theyre offscreen.. specially in public matches where u dont know ppl.. wait I never play public coz of this crap system..^^ think about it...

"

mushioov wrote:

This is the same disgusting attitude you had with TL2 on their forums.
What I told you then and what I tell you know remains: More "options" != Better.
That's your opinion, fine.

If the devs have their vision, you play according to their rules, not your with own set of rules. GGG wants to have us ALL on the same ground, with same rules.
I find it difficult to comprehend that you don't comprehend this, as you don't seem to be otherwise that stupid.

I do comprehend 'this'. Derp. What I merely suggest is that GGG shouldn't be making a game that tells people how they should have fun. This cutthroat feeling their game is trying to achieve fails hard. What I mean about it is that for everyone it should feel cutthroat, however the problem is this:

A. I can't kill the players at all. I shouldn't be 'trusting' any of my fellow exiles. I can pvp in an arena of sorts, but I can never just go 'kill' them. Why would I want to? Because maybe my exile (templar) wishes to kill all witches because of their misdeeds or who knows what. Why also is it that I can kill fellow party members just by choosing differently with Oak for example? Then when you leave Oak's Encampment you are no longer obliged to kill the betrayers of Oak or vice versa? Really? Cutthroat my ass is all I say to this.

B. This cutthroat behavior they had in mind with the loot system only exists in selective parties. Also, parties that have trustworthy players, whether it's your friends or family you are playing with won't be having this cutthroat behavior that they intended. So, basically only random groups have a forced cutthroat ruleset in which not everyone wants to play that way, but then again they don't want to have to find 30+ friends just so when they are always on they could party up with them for a fair/fun experience for them.

C. Changing the way looting works to allow various settings would be able to open up how people play. Examples include: True FFA, FFA with nametags, FFA without nametags, FFA with adjustable timer, instanced looting, etc etc. In other words, not every loot system is without a flaw, but having the choice to pick which one the group leader would be ideal.

I have stated that GGG is free to do whatever it is they wish to do with their game, but I am failing to agree with their cutthroat vision. It is just not cutthroat and I cannot defend that argument. I like the exile idea itself, but I'm not feeling competition. I'm not feeling that my fellow players are against me at all. I never feel on edge. I never feel that I'm in control of my exile. My exile only has one path and that's to loot everything I can and survive with others. Wow. My exile is so badass.

Disclaimer: You can choose the path of playing solo, but seeing as party gives 250% BONUS quantity and it makes the game a bit easier to handle to boot is very hard to pass up. In fact, I would argue that the only thing stopping me from playing solo is the quantity bonus. I honestly don't have problems picking up loot, so it's a non-issue for someone like myself.






Sidenote: I'm having a hard time thinking of an instance where more options would NOT be better than having one option to accomplish a certain task.

Maybe in a linear story where you have one ending. Then you wouldn't need/have options available to you then, but otherwise...?