Fulton said:jfrombaugh said:SoWplz said:Come on now. Cheering on ninja looting. That was a system that only benafited the jerk offs in the game.
I wasn't trying to cheer on ninja looting. I simply felt like it might add to the overall old-school feel of the game if the original EQ1 system was brought back.
Actually Ninja looting was more than that. As in EQ1 there was no group-only mechanic to looting. ANYONE could walk up and loot, which was dangerous when your group was killing several mobs at once, to have someone sneak up and loot before you were finished.
At the shortest. That timer was 7.5 minutes iirc. This was quite a long time and hardly ever happened. Later on the timer was updated to 15 mins. Most ninja looting occurred in group or raid from my experience.
vjek said:Porygon said: There are pros and cons to every looting system. And ninja looting can occur in everyone one of them. ...Except personal loot. Which is a justification and a reason why all modern MMO's use it, now.
You're 100% correct. However personal loot makes raiding so informal. Like, you're not raiding for your guildmates.. you're just raiding for yourself.
There are so many better ways to do it, when you compare the two extremes. I am happy when other people get upgrades. That's awesome. Nothing makes me happier than being able to play my role and my team, group, or guild wins. I don't particularly care what gear other people get, so that's why I favor personal loot over competitive loot, for my guildmates.
Yet, raiding month after month and seeing gear drop that no-one can use, or worse yet, watching bots and alts getting geared because 24-72 people are chasing a 1% drop rate? Not cool. Not fun. It's just... primitive, by today's available solutions.
I hope VR comes up with a better solution, something like being able to consume raid drops for sacrifice buffs (guild/raid-wide, ideally) that are so good, they make sacrificing the gear a foregone conclusion, rather than giving it to a bot/alt.
Having raided where there is personal loot, I would much rather have a chance at an upgrade each time, and/or have the ability to take my personal loot and/or personally salvage it for rare crafting mats, sacrifice it at an altar for a very powerful long-lasting buff, donate/sacrifice it to the guild for any of the above, or any other thing rather than getting nothing. Any of the above removes any hint of informal, turning it into a co-op reward, for those folks that want to be generous.
Given the choice between getting something for my team and getting nothing? I'll take something.Given the choice between the option of being generous, and not having the option? I'll take the option. :)
I've been in guilds where alt/bot loot didnt exist. Others where you could spend your mains dkp if the item was rotting. Its not the same everywhere. But I do agree, when you are only farming content for 1 or 2 items that are rare drops, that's not fun. Some mechanic, like you said to turn useless gear into something not terrible.
But I'm not gonna hold my breath.
So here is the thing. Typically the community policed its self. If someone ninja looted as a whole the community black listed them. They weren't allowed in groups and if that guild didn't handle them the entire guild would end up with a bad reputation. If when people from that guild tried to move on to another guild they found it difficult because of the reputation. This wasn't a perfect system but it worked. It didn't just regulate ninja looting it regulated kill stealing, training, and general ass hattery.
Now... the servers were able to police themsevles because server transfers and name changes didn't exist. Once server transfer were finally added you transfered naked, so you had to go to a guild willing to take and gear you. Leveling was extremely slow, so rerolling wasn't an option. The games features allowed us to regulate the people on our server because they often had hundreds of hours invested in a character and didn't want to start over.
If you can change names and servers as easily as current MMO's you wont be able to do that. You are going to need a system to ensure people behave. Sure 99% of the server population may be good people but if you get stuck with that one ninja/troll its going to ruin your experience. If its while you're leveling up you may end up being stuck in the same leveling range with them for a long period of time.
You can't just pick a loot system without taking into account how other aspects of the game affect player behaviour.
In EQ we had main looters that then would loot all . Then run to vender and sell items not needed bu group members . Problem being a main looter members of a group leave at diff times . So u had two options : Guess about how much to give a leaving player aas they log or run bakc over to vender every time a member of group left . U as main looter also NEED to remember how much Platy u started with befor the loot was sold ort even trhe first mob was killed for the fair split .
I would like to see the Plat $$ be split in all groups when a corpse is looted being a caster of ranged melee will nto have the option of looting often.
I also would like the class option for loot to be a OPTION for groups , if u can use it u can then roll . If a person thinks a class member dose not need a item and is of the class just ask to see the item item's said player has . That should take care of all the spats in group .
Questions to ask mail leader is: how many open bag slots do u have if not very many then have a secondary looter onj longer runs .
If the options r not set by Devs main looter can also show good items that may be needed by others in group at which point they may roll on them .
Thanks for your time till next time. take care of each other and be safe Bo o/
I grew up with letting the community sort it out, and the majority of the time it worked.
Ive seen the looting mechanism in EQ now with their advanced loot system and although the micromanagement to that degree is impressive, its just too damn much. I would like to believe the community will be able to regulate themselves and work that out but until I am in game experiencing what the community is actually like, even in a vintage model (I like to say vintage because it makes me feel classy) MMO I am at a point where I no longer have enough faith in the human species in an online environment and think some sort of micromanagemnt system would be a benefit.
The Group leader decision should only be available when everyone in the group is in the same guild, otherwise is should be instanced loot or personalized loot.
PUG group leaders have a tendency to be malicious, and likewise Ive seen on many occasion that being the odd man out (running with a guild not your own), Your not getting any loot, some tell you this upfront, some don't.
HemlockReaper said:The Group leader decision should only be available when everyone in the group is in the same guild, otherwise is should be instanced loot or personalized loot.
PUG group leaders have a tendency to be malicious, and likewise Ive seen on many occasion that being the odd man out (running with a guild not your own), Your not getting any loot, some tell you this upfront, some don't.
Why would you need to go to such extremes? Simply allow the player to see what loot rule is set in the group and they can choose to be a part of that group or not. There is no need to insert social engineering designs to force players to "play nice". Leave them the tools and let them decide for themselves.
((PUG group leaders have a tendency to be malicious, and likewise Ive seen on many occasion that being the odd man out (running with a guild not your own), Your not getting any loot, some tell you this upfront, some don't.))
Often this is true - but it means that group members need to pay attention to what the group leader selects, it doesn't mean that the game should force a default looting rule on the group.
A more reasonable suggestion would be that any looting rule needs to be voted on by the group, just as in most MMOs the group leader cannot arbitrarily boot someone - it has to be voted on.
This is a group centric Game, So I feel its “reasonable” to encourage players to find a guild they like. Restricting loot choice to Guilds greatly reduces the chance of players experiencing tyranny from group leaders, and gives one more reason to find a guild.
Voting is a poor substitution, its very common to be the only player not among Friends, it still allows players to be kicked just after killing the boss, or the rules changed at the last moment, its easy to get a majority vote when 3 of the 4 players are working together.
This is also a PVE game and not to my understanding, expected to provide the simulated experience of Thieves, Bandits and Scum found in some PVP games. The only reason to support the option for devious behavior is the intention of said behavior unthwarted from guild rule.
It’s easier to find a unicorn farting rainbows than to find a pure heart.
Just my opinion on the matter.
HemlockReaper said:This is a group centric Game, So I feel its “reasonable” to encourage players to find a guild they like. Restricting loot choice to Guilds greatly reduces the chance of players experiencing tyranny from group leaders, and gives one more reason to find a guild.
Voting is a poor substitution, its very common to be the only player not among Friends, it still allows players to be kicked just after killing the boss, or the rules changed at the last moment, its easy to get a majority vote when 3 of the 4 players are working together.
This is also a PVE game and not to my understanding, expected to provide the simulated experience of Thieves, Bandits and Scum found in some PVP games. The only reason to support the option for devious behavior is the intention of said behavior unthwarted from guild rule.
It’s easier to find a unicorn farting rainbows than to find a pure heart.
Just my opinion on the matter.
So allowing people to choose who they group with, to be individually responsible for what they will accept is tyrannical, but forcing everyone to join a guild to be able to use certain looting rules is not?
Also, you do realize that your solution doesn’t stop the problem. There are numerous incidents where guild members have stolen, cheated, and restricted players from gear/money/items in a “tyrannical” manner, so I don’t see how the guild requirement will change anything.
Would it not be better to allow the individual to make the decision as to what loot rules they will accept and who they will group with? There are a lot of people who aren’t in guilds, but are friends with others who have no issues with using such loot rules. Are they to be denied because some will not take responsibility in choosing for themselves?
Tanix said:HemlockReaper said:This is a group centric Game, So I feel its “reasonable” to encourage players to find a guild they like. Restricting loot choice to Guilds greatly reduces the chance of players experiencing tyranny from group leaders, and gives one more reason to find a guild.
Voting is a poor substitution, its very common to be the only player not among Friends, it still allows players to be kicked just after killing the boss, or the rules changed at the last moment, its easy to get a majority vote when 3 of the 4 players are working together.
This is also a PVE game and not to my understanding, expected to provide the simulated experience of Thieves, Bandits and Scum found in some PVP games. The only reason to support the option for devious behavior is the intention of said behavior unthwarted from guild rule.
It’s easier to find a unicorn farting rainbows than to find a pure heart.
Just my opinion on the matter.
So allowing people to choose who they group with, to be individually responsible for what they will accept is tyrannical, but forcing everyone to join a guild to be able to use certain looting rules is not?
Also, you do realize that your solution doesn’t stop the problem. There are numerous incidents where guild members have stolen, cheated, and restricted players from gear/money/items in a “tyrannical” manner, so I don’t see how the guild requirement will change anything.
Would it not be better to allow the individual to make the decision as to what loot rules they will accept and who they will group with? There are a lot of people who aren’t in guilds, but are friends with others who have no issues with using such loot rules. Are they to be denied because some will not take responsibility in choosing for themselves?
Anything less than a fair system would be open to tyranny. The only guaranteed fair loot distribution system is instanced, meaning loot drooped for a each player specifically. This doesn't prevent a group of friends from giving it to the leader or chosen individual for some other distribution method, unless it was Bind on Pickup, and that would likely only be for epic/ endgame gear where you would be in a guild anyway.
It’s about making sure someone looking for a group isn't having to spend hours looking for one that offers agreeable chances at loot, or having to give up on loot entirely just for a chance to complete the dungeon or quests. Some people don't have large lists of friends, or the ability to play more than a couple hours a day, some are “casuals”.
The only alliterative would be to lock the loot method once chosen, and ability to kick anyone to a unanimous vote, this way if 1-3 players want to kick the someone after defeating the boss they can be the ones to forfeit the loot.
Guilds are a different matter, many often have their own distribution methods, DKP and Loot council for example, and this stuff is normally listed somewhere in a charter or forums ect... This is were player responsibility is more at play, it’s up to the player to find a guild that fits them, and if a guild lies or has members who defraud others, that news will spread and its much harder for guilds to lose a bad reputation than it is for individual players.
This is just my opinion though.
HemlockReaper said:
Tanix said:
HemlockReaper said:
This is a group centric Game, So I feel its “reasonable” to encourage players to find a guild they like. Restricting loot choice to Guilds greatly reduces the chance of players experiencing tyranny from group leaders, and gives one more reason to find a guild.
Voting is a poor substitution, its very common to be the only player not among Friends, it still allows players to be kicked just after killing the boss, or the rules changed at the last moment, its easy to get a majority vote when 3 of the 4 players are working together.
This is also a PVE game and not to my understanding, expected to provide the simulated experience of Thieves, Bandits and Scum found in some PVP games. The only reason to support the option for devious behavior is the intention of said behavior unthwarted from guild rule.
It’s easier to find a unicorn farting rainbows than to find a pure heart.
Just my opinion on the matter.
So allowing people to choose who they group with, to be individually responsible for what they will accept is tyrannical, but forcing everyone to join a guild to be able to use certain looting rules is not?
Also, you do realize that your solution doesn’t stop the problem. There are numerous incidents where guild members have stolen, cheated, and restricted players from gear/money/items in a “tyrannical” manner, so I don’t see how the guild requirement will change anything.
Would it not be better to allow the individual to make the decision as to what loot rules they will accept and who they will group with? There are a lot of people who aren’t in guilds, but are friends with others who have no issues with using such loot rules. Are they to be denied because some will not take responsibility in choosing for themselves?
Anything less than a fair system would be open to tyranny. The only guaranteed fair loot distribution system is instanced, meaning loot drooped for a each player specifically. This doesn't prevent a group of friends from giving it to the leader or chosen individual for some other distribution method, unless it was Bind on Pickup, and that would likely only be for epic/ endgame gear where you would be in a guild anyway.
Forcing people and not allowing them to choose for themselves is tyranny. All you are doing is making a subjective determination and proclaiming it "fair" and justified in your absolute declaration of allowance.
HemlockReaper said:
It’s about making sure someone looking for a group isn't having to spend hours looking for one that offers agreeable chances at loot, or having to give up on loot entirely just for a chance to complete the dungeon or quests. Some people don't have large lists of friends, or the ability to play more than a couple hours a day, some are “casuals”.
Shouldn't that be the choice of the individuals who choose to form the group? What makes your absolute declaration more valid than their own assessment and acceptance?
HemlockReaper said:
The only alliterative would be to lock the loot method once chosen, and ability to kick anyone to a unanimous vote, this way if 1-3 players want to kick the someone after defeating the boss they can be the ones to forfeit the loot.
The alternative is to allow people to choose for themselves, where the group itself agrees to terms it will accept and then each chooses to be a part of the group that makes a decision or not. Anything else is just forcing people for the sake of ones idealistic interpretation of what fair is.
HemlockReaper said:
Guilds are a different matter, many often have their own distribution methods, DKP and Loot council for example, and this stuff is normally listed somewhere in a charter or forums ect... This is were player responsibility is more at play, it’s up to the player to find a guild that fits them, and if a guild lies or has members who defraud others, that news will spread and its much harder for guilds to lose a bad reputation than it is for individual players.
This is just my opinion though.
A person can easily ask the loot rules before joining the group and then decide. You seem to be applying a double standard for guilds over individual players. Player responsibility exists in both realms, and it is up to the individual to decide what is best for them, not someone else who thinks they know better and dictates a forced resolution. That would in fact be "tyrannical"
I'm for any system that eliminates ninja looting.
I believe its safe to assume loot will be rare in this game, or I hope it is atleast. If that's the case the game can't automate a Need/Greed system based on what classes can use the items. It needs to be up to the group. If I'm an Enchanter and no gear drops for me in a specific zone, why would I go to that zone to level? If there is another zone that drops caster gear why wouldn't I level in that area? The same can be said for a melee class. If I'm in a zone that doesn't drop any gear I can use I want the ability to roll on it so I can sell it later and but useful items or spells, assuming we have to buy spells.
I think the best solution is to set a item threshold. Any item with "stats" can be set as rare or something and you can then pick how rare items are handled. All money can just be split and "trash" items that everyone will likely vendor, or even crafting items, could be round robin or free for all. Let the group decide, then set a window, that automaticallly does this.
You have 2 categories with two options each.
Rare items:
Need Before Greed (can only roll need if you can wear)
Greed (Anyone Can Roll)
Grey Items: (think vendor/crafting items)
Round Robin
Free for all
The group can then pick which they want. Everyone knows how loot is being split and there is no awkwardness about "is it my turn to loot the diamond or someone elses"
I’m not against player choice, I support player choice when that choice doesn't impact other players. The lawless system your labeling as “player choice” has been done for decades in countless MMO’s, and its always lead to
1.Group leaders kicking the rest of the group right after a boss kill
2.The leader changing the Loot method after the boss kill to “leader loots only”
These behaviors are prevalent in PUG’s, and much less likely to affect Guilded players. Remove the chances of these type of malicious behaviors, then I'm all for player choice.
That can be as I suggested, instanced loot, changes made by unanimous vote or something else. PUG’s are temporary formations and need some type of “law” to prevent abuse, Guilds on the other hand are organizations that can manage themselves.
Additionally,I wouldn't’ want someone in the group to skip some dialog and cause the whole group to Skip and miss out on mission details because that player choice impacts the group. Player choice ends when the group needs begin.
Now about double standards,
https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/10488/-/post-create/quote_id/202941
Tanix said:The point of forcing people to read is not because the story is garbage, it is because it is a component of gaming. That is, the player must then critically read, pull out all the relevant information that will allow them to further a query an obtain more information concerning the quest (an element of adventure questing of old where the player had to figure out what to do next, what was relevant or important. Whether they "like" the story is irrelevant, the game play is what I am talking about, that the player in this case will be required to figure out what is needed for the quest while the quest "highlights" just dumbly point the player to the objectives without thought.
Tanix said:So again, my game play point forces people to play a game rather than simply click through everything and whether they like the quest or not is entirely subjective to which you can not solve the issue by simply saying "write better quests".
HemlockReaper said:I’m not against player choice, I support player choice when that choice doesn't impact other players. The lawless system your labeling as “player choice” has been done for decades in countless MMO’s, and its always lead to
1.Group leaders kicking the rest of the group right after a boss kill
2.The leader changing the Loot method after the boss kill to “leader loots only”These behaviors are prevalent in PUG’s, and much less likely to affect Guilded players. Remove the chances of these type of malicious behaviors, then I'm all for player choice.
That can be as I suggested, instanced loot, changes made by unanimous vote or something else. PUG’s are temporary formations and need some type of “law” to prevent abuse, Guilds on the other hand are organizations that can manage themselves.
Additionally,I wouldn't’ want someone in the group to skip some dialog and cause the whole group to Skip and miss out on mission details because that player choice impacts the group. Player choice ends when the group needs begin.
People can manage themselves. You as an individual have the responsiblity to decide who you will group with and why, just as you as an individual have a responsibilty to choose what guild you will join an why.
There is no difference here. You just excuse the guilds behavior (which by the way guilds have had huge problems with this, with entire guild banks being emptied out by the leaders). So this idea that somehow by reserving the rights to a guild will stop this is not a well supported premise.
Also consider that Pantheon will be driven by social responsibilty. If a player ninjja loots, people will black list them, and eventually they will not be able to find a group. You can't stop the behavior, even with your solution, but with social systems, you can reduce it with black lists and social pressure.
This way, individuals can choose for themselves how they would like to run a group and people can decide for themsleves. If people don't want that responsibilty, they should look at sticking with single player games, not social ones. You can't code out such poor behavior, it will always exist, you can simply let people be responsible for themselves.
HemlockReaper said:Now about double standards,
https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/10488/-/post-create/quote_id/202941Tanix said:The point of forcing people to read is not because the story is garbage, it is because it is a component of gaming. That is, the player must then critically read, pull out all the relevant information that will allow them to further a query an obtain more information concerning the quest (an element of adventure questing of old where the player had to figure out what to do next, what was relevant or important. Whether they "like" the story is irrelevant, the game play is what I am talking about, that the player in this case will be required to figure out what is needed for the quest while the quest "highlights" just dumbly point the player to the objectives without thought.
Tanix said:So again, my game play point forces people to play a game rather than simply click through everything and whether they like the quest or not is entirely subjective to which you can not solve the issue by simply saying "write better quests".
Apples to oranges really.
You were trying to socially engineer interactions between people based on an assumption that some will act badly, so you need to force everyone to a standard to save everyone from such behavior. My example is more in the spirit of game play, requiring people to play the game rather than ignore it (it is no different than requiring someone to defeat a boss to win the encounter rather than giving them the option to instant kill the boss and loot).
I think we are at the end of our discussion though as it seems there will be no understanding made.
Good day!
No group should ever have a loot system forced upon them. If you dont agree with the loot system of a group, leave that group. That's like saying all guilds are required to use a dkp system... if you dont like the way some guilds disperse loot... dont raid with them.
If you dont like how some group leaders handle loot... well then form all of your groups yourself. This seems like a silly arguement.
It seems that some of the issues that people have with NBG (Need Before Greed) are:
- People define "Need" differently. Some people define it as a Need to upgrade their gear; others that they Need the item for an alt or to give to a guildie; and some feel that they Need the item so that they can sell it and buy something that they really want.
- There is also a feeling that two weeks after receiving a Needed item, a character will acquire an upgrade to the original item and then be able to sell the original item for a sizeable amount of gold.
- It was also mentioned that some people thought that NBG with BOP (Bind on Pickup) items was fine because of the binding.
Therefore, let me suggest a "Modified NBG" method:
- Characters can ONLY select "Need" on items that their race and class can use or is part of a quest that they are on.
- If an item is acquired via a "Need" roll, the item becomes "Need Bound". Need Bound items can't be traded to other alts or players. Need Bound items can't be sold to vendors as they have zero value. Need Bound items can't be salvaged to create crafting items. Thus, the ONLY thing that you can do with a Need Bound item is use it or destroy it (to get the inventory slot back).
- IF VR implemends an item upgrade proceedure (via questing or crafting), then upgrading a Need Bound item would create an upgraded Need Bound item.
- An item acquired via a "Greed" roll would be freely tradeable or sellable, unless it is a BOP item to begin with.
Thus, characters that truely needed an item would be able to acquire the item, but not be able to profit from it then or at a later date. Characters who want the item to be tradeable, will be able to "Greed" the item and do with it what they wish.
Laeril said:It seems that some of the issues that people have with NBG (Need Before Greed) are:
- People define "Need" differently. Some people define it as a Need to upgrade their gear; others that they Need the item for an alt or to give to a guildie; and some feel that they Need the item so that they can sell it and buy something that they really want.
- There is also a feeling that two weeks after receiving a Needed item, a character will acquire an upgrade to the original item and then be able to sell the original item for a sizeable amount of gold.
- It was also mentioned that some people thought that NBG with BOP (Bind on Pickup) items was fine because of the binding.
Therefore, let me suggest a "Modified NBG" method:
- Characters can ONLY select "Need" on items that their race and class can use or is part of a quest that they are on.
- If an item is acquired via a "Need" roll, the item becomes "Need Bound". Need Bound items can't be traded to other alts or players. Need Bound items can't be sold to vendors as they have zero value. Need Bound items can't be salvaged to create crafting items. Thus, the ONLY thing that you can do with a Need Bound item is use it or destroy it (to get the inventory slot back).
- IF VR implemends an item upgrade proceedure (via questing or crafting), then upgrading a Need Bound item would create an upgraded Need Bound item.
- An item acquired via a "Greed" roll would be freely tradeable or sellable, unless it is a BOP item to begin with.
Thus, characters that truely needed an item would be able to acquire the item, but not be able to profit from it then or at a later date. Characters who want the item to be tradeable, will be able to "Greed" the item and do with it what they wish.
Interesting opinion, it does solve a lot of problems people were mentioning and to a point I kind of like it, but I also have never seen it used. But by simply just reading it i think it could actually work.
I'd be happy with a simple NBG rolling system and just explain what "need" means before any one loots anything, if they dont like the loot rules they can find another group. no fuss. I think the group leader should pick what sort of loot system they want to run, and its up to the group members if they want to join that group.
Allowing need rolls only if the character rolling can actually use the item is not uncommon in MMOs - and works well.
Binding the item on pick-up and preventing destruction to get salvage items is also good.
Preventing sale to NPCs is less important if NPC prices are relatively trivial but this too is good.
dorotea said:Allowing need rolls only if the character rolling can actually use the item is not uncommon in MMOs - and works well.
This works well in MMOs where items are heavily class specific and there isn't much freedom in choice regardless.
In Pantheon this wouldn't really work out so well in general because (for example) warriors can equip all weapon and armor types, which would allow them to need almost anything. And due to different abilities favoring different stats for each class who is to say the warrior (or any other class who might fluxuate between armor/weapon types) doesn't need those leather dex/agi bracers for a build?