KingDDD wrote: » Mdini wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » The everyone gets a trophy crowd is gonna be disappointed. As long as intrepid enforces in chat agreed upon loot rules it'll be fine. Don't play with people you don't trust or better yet join a guild. There's a fundamentally flawed assumption that's it either '90% of the party gets nothing' and 'anyone who breathes near the boss gets super good loot'. Having tiered loot like already mentioned is the best way to ensure no one is walking away with nothing to show as long as they've contributed enough for whatever merit threshold is put in place, similar to the mob tagging system. Tier 1: The basic crafting materials based on Gatherer ranks, personal loot and only useful after entering the player crafting networks. Default: Common quality in small amounts, quality and amount adjusted based on specific Gathering levels and perk selections Tier 2: General recipes and craft plans based on Crafting rank, % based drop and useless without the materials Tier 3: Full gear, rare enchantment stones, trophy item, etc etc, the Rares: Bid system. I don't think Lootmaster has any place in a healthy game climate. It's far too easily misused and there's no recourse for shitty behavior. (Just look at EQ to see how useless a social blackslist would be). If people want one person handing out loot, then that can happen organically after looting occurs with everyone willingly giving up their drops to be handed out. And if they don't want to do that? Well, sounds like the guild did a bad job inspiring guild loyalty. In a game where they want a high amount of socializing and the politicking that comes with it, they shouldn't be using a loot system that enables risk-free bad behavior with high probability of nothing awarded for taking on difficult content. It a recipe for a barren PvE landscape where no one wants to bother trying to enter into it. Mdini wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » The everyone gets a trophy crowd is gonna be disappointed. As long as intrepid enforces in chat agreed upon loot rules it'll be fine. Don't play with people you don't trust or better yet join a guild. So me taking 2ish hours of my time to prep for a fight and being a key asset in winning that fight would still constitute "a everyone gets a trophy" mindset? You are not using that terminology correctly. No, it will not be fine. This game will be limited to guilds already formed in other MMOs transfering over. Which is fine if this game can survive with only those numbers. Players like me, and the majority of the thread, know that taking loot power out of other players hands and into the game itself is what is best for a healthy and good community. Why? Because at the end of the day if everyone in a group invested a significant amount of time and effort, they actually do deserve to be rewarded, by the game and not some sweat. Games with these mechanics have the healthiest communities. Games without have garbage communities from a Macro scale. If your in the sweaty guild, especially at the top, its probably great and all the lackeys have Stockholm syndrome from fiending over loot, so it probably all feels great to them too. Outside of that, garbage. The only reason the old style MMOs survived is because that's all we had. That isn't the case anymore. New players WILL get frustrated and WILL leave the second they need to answer to some other player for loot and gear. Someone else said something that this game is more focused on social implications or something? Guess what, I'm not going to want to attribute to anything if I need to ask for it from another player and run the risk of not getting what I want due to another players decision. Especially after I already committed a lot of my time and effort into a fight or event. I earned it, and so did everyone else. At the end of the day, Intrepid can do what they see fit but I won't play it and that is OK. However, loot systems are important and other players, especially new ones, will also not tolerate it. Join a guild you like. If is guild is "toxic" leave it and start your own. Taking power away from players is not what this game is about. You act like two hours of prep is really difficult, try spending months on building a node only for the bad men to come and burn it down. I have ran guilds in EQ1, EQ2, Dark Ages of Cam, FF11, FF14. Making decisions on loot distribution was always a thing. I always wanted to be fair and took the input of everyone involved but there is hardly ever a decision that leaves everyone feeling good about it. That's why as a leader I feel it is fair to take the power out of my hands. My best experience running raids and dungeons was ff14 because I could leave it up to a need/greed system. Although I would prefer it be more like GW2 or ESO where I and no one else has no say on who is going to be rewarded and how. Ultimately, this allows everyone involved to focus on the content which is where the effort should be made. Not forcing players to create artificial social power structures that will only lead to people feeling frustrated = not fun. While logistics are an obvious hurdle to running a guild, the actual hardest thing is building a culture where players don't feel like that and members buy into the concept of guild>self. A guild with a successfully implemented culture doesn't have the issues you described.
Mdini wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » The everyone gets a trophy crowd is gonna be disappointed. As long as intrepid enforces in chat agreed upon loot rules it'll be fine. Don't play with people you don't trust or better yet join a guild. There's a fundamentally flawed assumption that's it either '90% of the party gets nothing' and 'anyone who breathes near the boss gets super good loot'. Having tiered loot like already mentioned is the best way to ensure no one is walking away with nothing to show as long as they've contributed enough for whatever merit threshold is put in place, similar to the mob tagging system. Tier 1: The basic crafting materials based on Gatherer ranks, personal loot and only useful after entering the player crafting networks. Default: Common quality in small amounts, quality and amount adjusted based on specific Gathering levels and perk selections Tier 2: General recipes and craft plans based on Crafting rank, % based drop and useless without the materials Tier 3: Full gear, rare enchantment stones, trophy item, etc etc, the Rares: Bid system. I don't think Lootmaster has any place in a healthy game climate. It's far too easily misused and there's no recourse for shitty behavior. (Just look at EQ to see how useless a social blackslist would be). If people want one person handing out loot, then that can happen organically after looting occurs with everyone willingly giving up their drops to be handed out. And if they don't want to do that? Well, sounds like the guild did a bad job inspiring guild loyalty. In a game where they want a high amount of socializing and the politicking that comes with it, they shouldn't be using a loot system that enables risk-free bad behavior with high probability of nothing awarded for taking on difficult content. It a recipe for a barren PvE landscape where no one wants to bother trying to enter into it. Mdini wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » The everyone gets a trophy crowd is gonna be disappointed. As long as intrepid enforces in chat agreed upon loot rules it'll be fine. Don't play with people you don't trust or better yet join a guild. So me taking 2ish hours of my time to prep for a fight and being a key asset in winning that fight would still constitute "a everyone gets a trophy" mindset? You are not using that terminology correctly. No, it will not be fine. This game will be limited to guilds already formed in other MMOs transfering over. Which is fine if this game can survive with only those numbers. Players like me, and the majority of the thread, know that taking loot power out of other players hands and into the game itself is what is best for a healthy and good community. Why? Because at the end of the day if everyone in a group invested a significant amount of time and effort, they actually do deserve to be rewarded, by the game and not some sweat. Games with these mechanics have the healthiest communities. Games without have garbage communities from a Macro scale. If your in the sweaty guild, especially at the top, its probably great and all the lackeys have Stockholm syndrome from fiending over loot, so it probably all feels great to them too. Outside of that, garbage. The only reason the old style MMOs survived is because that's all we had. That isn't the case anymore. New players WILL get frustrated and WILL leave the second they need to answer to some other player for loot and gear. Someone else said something that this game is more focused on social implications or something? Guess what, I'm not going to want to attribute to anything if I need to ask for it from another player and run the risk of not getting what I want due to another players decision. Especially after I already committed a lot of my time and effort into a fight or event. I earned it, and so did everyone else. At the end of the day, Intrepid can do what they see fit but I won't play it and that is OK. However, loot systems are important and other players, especially new ones, will also not tolerate it. Join a guild you like. If is guild is "toxic" leave it and start your own. Taking power away from players is not what this game is about. You act like two hours of prep is really difficult, try spending months on building a node only for the bad men to come and burn it down. I have ran guilds in EQ1, EQ2, Dark Ages of Cam, FF11, FF14. Making decisions on loot distribution was always a thing. I always wanted to be fair and took the input of everyone involved but there is hardly ever a decision that leaves everyone feeling good about it. That's why as a leader I feel it is fair to take the power out of my hands. My best experience running raids and dungeons was ff14 because I could leave it up to a need/greed system. Although I would prefer it be more like GW2 or ESO where I and no one else has no say on who is going to be rewarded and how. Ultimately, this allows everyone involved to focus on the content which is where the effort should be made. Not forcing players to create artificial social power structures that will only lead to people feeling frustrated = not fun.
KingDDD wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » The everyone gets a trophy crowd is gonna be disappointed. As long as intrepid enforces in chat agreed upon loot rules it'll be fine. Don't play with people you don't trust or better yet join a guild. There's a fundamentally flawed assumption that's it either '90% of the party gets nothing' and 'anyone who breathes near the boss gets super good loot'. Having tiered loot like already mentioned is the best way to ensure no one is walking away with nothing to show as long as they've contributed enough for whatever merit threshold is put in place, similar to the mob tagging system. Tier 1: The basic crafting materials based on Gatherer ranks, personal loot and only useful after entering the player crafting networks. Default: Common quality in small amounts, quality and amount adjusted based on specific Gathering levels and perk selections Tier 2: General recipes and craft plans based on Crafting rank, % based drop and useless without the materials Tier 3: Full gear, rare enchantment stones, trophy item, etc etc, the Rares: Bid system. I don't think Lootmaster has any place in a healthy game climate. It's far too easily misused and there's no recourse for shitty behavior. (Just look at EQ to see how useless a social blackslist would be). If people want one person handing out loot, then that can happen organically after looting occurs with everyone willingly giving up their drops to be handed out. And if they don't want to do that? Well, sounds like the guild did a bad job inspiring guild loyalty. In a game where they want a high amount of socializing and the politicking that comes with it, they shouldn't be using a loot system that enables risk-free bad behavior with high probability of nothing awarded for taking on difficult content. It a recipe for a barren PvE landscape where no one wants to bother trying to enter into it. Mdini wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » The everyone gets a trophy crowd is gonna be disappointed. As long as intrepid enforces in chat agreed upon loot rules it'll be fine. Don't play with people you don't trust or better yet join a guild. So me taking 2ish hours of my time to prep for a fight and being a key asset in winning that fight would still constitute "a everyone gets a trophy" mindset? You are not using that terminology correctly. No, it will not be fine. This game will be limited to guilds already formed in other MMOs transfering over. Which is fine if this game can survive with only those numbers. Players like me, and the majority of the thread, know that taking loot power out of other players hands and into the game itself is what is best for a healthy and good community. Why? Because at the end of the day if everyone in a group invested a significant amount of time and effort, they actually do deserve to be rewarded, by the game and not some sweat. Games with these mechanics have the healthiest communities. Games without have garbage communities from a Macro scale. If your in the sweaty guild, especially at the top, its probably great and all the lackeys have Stockholm syndrome from fiending over loot, so it probably all feels great to them too. Outside of that, garbage. The only reason the old style MMOs survived is because that's all we had. That isn't the case anymore. New players WILL get frustrated and WILL leave the second they need to answer to some other player for loot and gear. Someone else said something that this game is more focused on social implications or something? Guess what, I'm not going to want to attribute to anything if I need to ask for it from another player and run the risk of not getting what I want due to another players decision. Especially after I already committed a lot of my time and effort into a fight or event. I earned it, and so did everyone else. At the end of the day, Intrepid can do what they see fit but I won't play it and that is OK. However, loot systems are important and other players, especially new ones, will also not tolerate it. Join a guild you like. If is guild is "toxic" leave it and start your own. Taking power away from players is not what this game is about. You act like two hours of prep is really difficult, try spending months on building a node only for the bad men to come and burn it down.
Caeryl wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » The everyone gets a trophy crowd is gonna be disappointed. As long as intrepid enforces in chat agreed upon loot rules it'll be fine. Don't play with people you don't trust or better yet join a guild. There's a fundamentally flawed assumption that's it either '90% of the party gets nothing' and 'anyone who breathes near the boss gets super good loot'. Having tiered loot like already mentioned is the best way to ensure no one is walking away with nothing to show as long as they've contributed enough for whatever merit threshold is put in place, similar to the mob tagging system. Tier 1: The basic crafting materials based on Gatherer ranks, personal loot and only useful after entering the player crafting networks. Default: Common quality in small amounts, quality and amount adjusted based on specific Gathering levels and perk selections Tier 2: General recipes and craft plans based on Crafting rank, % based drop and useless without the materials Tier 3: Full gear, rare enchantment stones, trophy item, etc etc, the Rares: Bid system. I don't think Lootmaster has any place in a healthy game climate. It's far too easily misused and there's no recourse for shitty behavior. (Just look at EQ to see how useless a social blackslist would be). If people want one person handing out loot, then that can happen organically after looting occurs with everyone willingly giving up their drops to be handed out. And if they don't want to do that? Well, sounds like the guild did a bad job inspiring guild loyalty. In a game where they want a high amount of socializing and the politicking that comes with it, they shouldn't be using a loot system that enables risk-free bad behavior with high probability of nothing awarded for taking on difficult content. It a recipe for a barren PvE landscape where no one wants to bother trying to enter into it.
KingDDD wrote: » The everyone gets a trophy crowd is gonna be disappointed. As long as intrepid enforces in chat agreed upon loot rules it'll be fine. Don't play with people you don't trust or better yet join a guild.
Mdini wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » The everyone gets a trophy crowd is gonna be disappointed. As long as intrepid enforces in chat agreed upon loot rules it'll be fine. Don't play with people you don't trust or better yet join a guild. So me taking 2ish hours of my time to prep for a fight and being a key asset in winning that fight would still constitute "a everyone gets a trophy" mindset? You are not using that terminology correctly. No, it will not be fine. This game will be limited to guilds already formed in other MMOs transfering over. Which is fine if this game can survive with only those numbers. Players like me, and the majority of the thread, know that taking loot power out of other players hands and into the game itself is what is best for a healthy and good community. Why? Because at the end of the day if everyone in a group invested a significant amount of time and effort, they actually do deserve to be rewarded, by the game and not some sweat. Games with these mechanics have the healthiest communities. Games without have garbage communities from a Macro scale. If your in the sweaty guild, especially at the top, its probably great and all the lackeys have Stockholm syndrome from fiending over loot, so it probably all feels great to them too. Outside of that, garbage. The only reason the old style MMOs survived is because that's all we had. That isn't the case anymore. New players WILL get frustrated and WILL leave the second they need to answer to some other player for loot and gear. Someone else said something that this game is more focused on social implications or something? Guess what, I'm not going to want to attribute to anything if I need to ask for it from another player and run the risk of not getting what I want due to another players decision. Especially after I already committed a lot of my time and effort into a fight or event. I earned it, and so did everyone else. At the end of the day, Intrepid can do what they see fit but I won't play it and that is OK. However, loot systems are important and other players, especially new ones, will also not tolerate it.
Caeryl wrote: » Also, I much prefer systems that reward my group for doggedly fighting off competition than a system that rewards zerging, because as it's currently set up, as long as your guild has lead in the groups, you have no reason at all not to invite every single person you can to that 40-man raid. If you're getting just those 4 drops either way, why not bring 200 people? Why bother taking it on with less when there aren't any consequences to bringing double or triple or ten times what the content was designed around?
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Also, I much prefer systems that reward my group for doggedly fighting off competition than a system that rewards zerging, because as it's currently set up, as long as your guild has lead in the groups, you have no reason at all not to invite every single person you can to that 40-man raid. If you're getting just those 4 drops either way, why not bring 200 people? Why bother taking it on with less when there aren't any consequences to bringing double or triple or ten times what the content was designed around? I'm not sure I understand the logic of this argument? How does loot have anything to do with protection of content? Everyone in the raid getting something would still require 200 people to come if your enemies had 200 of their own people to fight you with.
Caeryl wrote: » But I was talking about the current setup supporting zerging, because there is no change in the reward structure whether you have 40 people or 200 people. Currently it’s always better to bring as many people as you possibly can, because equipment gain is a static value.
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » And in my 12 years of playing the game I've barely ever seen guilds that would fuck over people as much as all yall are scared shitless of. You know why? Because L2 is a party game, where your party is pretty much your family, so you have the same people playing with you day in day out. And then those parties join each other in guild families, where everyone holds each other responsible for good culture and fairness. And if someone was such a dick that they fucked people over on loot - they'd be known across the entire server and barely anyone would even agree to guild up with them. Yall seem to come from places where "pugs" was a normal thing and where everyone only thought about their own loot and success, so not getting a piece of drop EVEN ONCE meant that you got "fucked over". This is why I called yall modern gamers. And if you're all supposedly "vets" and you still want an "everyone gets something" system - well, as the classic phrase goes... this game is not for you
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » But I was talking about the current setup supporting zerging, because there is no change in the reward structure whether you have 40 people or 200 people. Currently it’s always better to bring as many people as you possibly can, because equipment gain is a static value. You do realize that the raid number of 40 is static, right? So even if your suggestion was implemented, people would still bring 200 people to defend their loot, but they'd still only get loot for the 40. Nothing changes in this regard. This is one of the examples Steven used for "zerging won't really work in Ashes". Rewards are limited so bringing more people to a boss farm would mean that you've ultimately wasted their time, cause they could've been farming something else in the meantime. Except in your suggestion people would 100% bring more people to defend their loot, cause now all 40 raiders would be getting something. So, if anything, it's your suggestion that's promoting zerging, cause there's obviously more reward in it than in the current design.
Caeryl wrote: » Reducing the reward potential when you either bring a zerg of allies or neglect to wipe a zerg of enemies means you’re discouraged from the passive gameplay and overloading the boss into irrelevance.
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Reducing the reward potential when you either bring a zerg of allies or neglect to wipe a zerg of enemies means you’re discouraged from the passive gameplay and overloading the boss into irrelevance. I'm just saying that your argument of "fewer people getting loot would lead to zerging" doesn't work, because bosses will be zerged no matter what, because you'll need a zerg to defend the loot from others who'll bring a zerg to get the loot. 40 people is the max number of players that can have the rights for the loot, but the amount of loot doesn't impact that. And the amount of loot definitely doesn't influence the zerging of any given content.
Caeryl wrote: » If loot is variable, and you’re penalized for going overkill on your group size or not fighting off other groups aggressively enough, then you now have a direct reason not to have 200 people fighting the dragon. That zerg you might have had now has to split up its focus if it wants to maximize rewards and do so intelligently.
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » If loot is variable, and you’re penalized for going overkill on your group size or not fighting off other groups aggressively enough, then you now have a direct reason not to have 200 people fighting the dragon. That zerg you might have had now has to split up its focus if it wants to maximize rewards and do so intelligently. I feel like I'm misunderstanding your point here completely. When I'm saying "everyone will bring a zerg" I mean "that zerg will be used to kill any enemies, while the 40-man group fights the boss". You seem to be talking about the same thing, but somehow think that giving everyone in the raid loot changes people's desire/requirement to bring said zerg? Are you suggesting that if a boss was hit by more than 40 people its loot is now decreased? Cause that won't work in an open world game like Ashes.
Caeryl wrote: » Again, merit loot is there to give contributors a basic (or less common depending on gathering ranks) consolation prize, worth not-much on its own but enough to get them coming back to try again, or something a close group might pull together to collectively get someone an upgrade.
Caeryl wrote: » In the simplest example of implementation: Merit threshold is 5% max hp damage done to the boss (random arbitrary stat ofc), so if you split damage evenly between 20 dps, they all get a merit pull. If you split it evenly between 40 dps, none of them get a merit pull. So every player engaged with the boss would be affecting your group’s chances of getting a merit pull, on top of non-allied players contesting your group’s chance to tag for the group loot, which is always guaranteed to drop for the winning group.
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Again, merit loot is there to give contributors a basic (or less common depending on gathering ranks) consolation prize, worth not-much on its own but enough to get them coming back to try again, or something a close group might pull together to collectively get someone an upgrade. Ok, but then I gotta clear up this point for myself. What did you mean by this then? Caeryl wrote: » Also, I much prefer systems that reward my group for doggedly fighting off competition than a system that rewards zerging, because as it's currently set up, as long as your guild has lead in the groups, you have no reason at all not to invite every single person you can to that 40-man raid. If you're getting just those 4 drops either way, why not bring 200 people? Why bother taking it on with less when there aren't any consequences to bringing double or triple or ten times what the content was designed around? How does "40 people that got merit for being the 40 people that fought the boss" encourage less zerging than "40 people that killed the boss got its loot, which is limited to just a few items"? Especially in the context of this Caeryl wrote: » If loot is variable, and you’re penalized for going overkill on your group size or not fighting off other groups aggressively enough, then you now have a direct reason not to have 200 people fighting the dragon. That zerg you might have had now has to split up its focus if it wants to maximize rewards and do so intelligently. In both situations the raid requires 40 people to kill it (i.e. it's tuned towards that number). In both cases the players bring more people to the location because they know there's gonna be pvp fights over the boss. In both cases the 40 people kill the boss. In one case the boss simply drops some loot, in the other case the boss gives every one of those 40 some little piece of loot. Where does the zerging requirement change there? Where does the penalization for bringing more people come in? Or how does variability of loot matter here?
Caeryl wrote: » Because it’s never going to be just 40 people hitting the boss when there’s no reason not to have your own group of 200 people hitting the boss. I’m saying currently you’re rewarded for zerging the boss itself because your group leads will always get the maximum loot possible regardless with no drawbacks to an inflated group size and tagging is based primarily on total party damage % which is also bolstered by having plain ol’ more people than the other guy.
Caeryl wrote: » If the only way to maximize rewards is to aggressively fight people off and carefully consider your group size, now you’re reducing your gains by having a massive group attack the dragon or allowing other groups to do so without aggressively contesting.
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » In the simplest example of implementation: Merit threshold is 5% max hp damage done to the boss (random arbitrary stat ofc), so if you split damage evenly between 20 dps, they all get a merit pull. If you split it evenly between 40 dps, none of them get a merit pull. So every player engaged with the boss would be affecting your group’s chances of getting a merit pull, on top of non-allied players contesting your group’s chance to tag for the group loot, which is always guaranteed to drop for the winning group. Ok, so maybe this is the source of misunderstanding? You're talking about a completely different approach to the entire looting system, where even random people outside of the raid that has the looting rights can get loot, as long as those randos do enough dmg (or other class' equivalent)? Cause I've been talking about loot size, in the context of the looting rights that are currently planned.
Caeryl wrote: » Nope. If they’re not in the group that got the tag for looting rights, then they shouldn’t get a loot pull. They lost.
The core 40-man raid would still do the majority of dmg and they'd win the looting rights, so they'd all get their little piece of loot (again, in your suggestion)
Caeryl wrote: » Players outside of that group don’t get a pull, because their group lost anyway. They wouldn’t get drops in the current system or one with merit loot (unless the tagged group abandons the corpse or gets PK’d off of it I guess, since Stephen mentioned if would eventually become a free for all after some amount of time)
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Players outside of that group don’t get a pull, because their group lost anyway. They wouldn’t get drops in the current system or one with merit loot (unless the tagged group abandons the corpse or gets PK’d off of it I guess, since Stephen mentioned if would eventually become a free for all after some amount of time) Then how does the non-merit system encourage zerging more? The premise is the exact same. The result is the same (that is, the 40-man raid gets the loot). The actions of players are the same. Everything except for the size of loot is the same, but you're saying that less loot somehow encourages more zerg, while to me it's obvious that a bigger reward (i.e. everyone in the raid getting something) would imply a bigger impetus for zerging, because more people would want to get that big reward.
