Never had a problem with old loot systems. In a heavily cooperative game, being a dick comes with consequences. Automating the process just removes one more reason for interaction.
I remember plenty of times when people gamed those mechanics. Such as 5 guildies all rolling on it then giving it to the one that needs it - leaving you with a 1:6 chance of winning anything because they always all roll against you. And what chance is there of any consequence then? Not much unless the server is willing to blackball an entire guild. Not likely. I often hear about consequences but in my experience that was a rarity.
That scenario doesn't change your odds even if everyone was still rolling for themselves. You still have a 1 in 6 chance of winning the item.
No, if only 1 other person needed it I should have had a 50% chance. 1 in 6 is much worse.
Or look at it this way: If everyone, including me, has a 33% chance of actually needing the next drop but they all roll on it anyway then for the next drop I have a (33%)(17%) = 6% chance of getting an item. If people only rolled need on what they really needed then Id have a (33%)(50%)= 17% chance. The odds absolutely do change.
If everyone except 2 people already won the item then they shouldn't be rolling and that should be explicitly stated in the group rules otherwise too bad.
They could have the same item or they could have better or the item could be wrong for their class, but in any case if they arent going to personally wear it they should not be rolling.
While I've never fully fleshed it out, I like the idea of a points system per dungeon, and / or boss, that the game keeps track of for everyone (i.e. you can use your points in a PUG just as well as you can in a static). Points would be awared for each boss kill (assuming you weren't decorating the floor / locked out for more than half the fight), or for progress between significant dungeon milestones.
When loot drops, and assuming you have at least 1 point, you can either Need, Greed, or Pass... - If you Need, and have more points than anyone else who selected Need, you get the item, but go back to 0 points for that boss / dungeon. Ties are decided by a roll. - If you Greed, it's a 1-100 roll with everyone else who selected Greed (regardless of points) with the winner getting the item and having their points are reduced to half (rounded down) for that boss / dungeon. - If everyone Passes on the item it is 'sold to an npc' and the value split evenly.
So, basically, if you really want a certain item you can guarentee getting it (when it drops) by building up your points for that boss / dungeon (i.e. running it multiple times and passing on other loot).... No more: 'hey first time here', item drops (after your 13th run), newbie rolls a 100, 'gg, thanx guys, bye'
Edit: As an adjuestment to Greed, it could be made so that the points 'cost' is dependant on the number of people rolling... e.g. 2 or less = reduced to 1/2, 3 = reduced to 1/3, 4 = reduced to 1/4, 5 = reduced to 1/5, and so on. Theory being that the more people 'Greeding' the more valuable the item is, so it should cost more points.
Never had a problem with old loot systems. In a heavily cooperative game, being a dick comes with consequences. Automating the process just removes one more reason for interaction.
I remember plenty of times when people gamed those mechanics. Such as 5 guildies all rolling on it then giving it to the one that needs it - leaving you with a 1:6 chance of winning anything because they always all roll against you. And what chance is there of any consequence then? Not much unless the server is willing to blackball an entire guild. Not likely. I often hear about consequences but in my experience that was a rarity.
That scenario doesn't change your odds even if everyone was still rolling for themselves. You still have a 1 in 6 chance of winning the item.
No, if only 1 other person needed it I should have had a 50% chance. 1 in 6 is much worse.
Or look at it this way: If everyone, including me, has a 33% chance of actually needing the next drop but they all roll on it anyway then for the next drop I have a (33%)(17%) = 6% chance of getting an item. If people only rolled need on what they really needed then Id have a (33%)(50%)= 17% chance. The odds absolutely do change.
If everyone except 2 people already won the item then they shouldn't be rolling and that should be explicitly stated in the group rules otherwise too bad.
They could have the same item or they could have better or the item could be wrong for their class, but in any case if they arent going to personally wear it they should not be rolling.
Then they won't be in the dungeon in that camp in which case have fun not getting the loot because you can't solo the content. A 1 in 6 chance is still better then a 0 chance.
I mean by all means set the rules beforehand and let everyone who joins the group know but if this is a pug chances are they will disband shortly after hearing said rules because again what's their incentive for staying there? They can go and try and get in the group that drops the item they want that no one can get because no melee will join because what's the point if they have no chance at some loot?
This is meant to be a cooperative game and if you are pugging it then you need to make some concessions just like you would expect other people to make concessions for you if you come into their group. If you go in with the attitude that it's for your class only you are going to find not many people are friendly towards you.
but again this is rendered moot if you are with friends or guild mates who are there to help you gear up
Amathe said: So my question is, in the interests of preserving as much of the spirit of EQ and games like it, are we returning to straight up roll 1 100? I confess as heated as they sometimes were, I kind of miss the drama that system brought about.
Yeah, I had no problem with the random 100 method in EQ. Although I totally understand the "need before greed" option, I didn't care for it that much. The interaction with other group members is valid. Usually, if you lobbied for the item and someone else didn't have use for it, they would give it up voluntarily. And if they didn't or you failed to win the roll, there was always the possibility someone would sell it for the right price (provided it wasn't a no drop item). There was a certain satisfaction with saving up enough coin to purchase an item you were unable to loot from a mob.
Amathe said: So my question is, in the interests of preserving as much of the spirit of EQ and games like it, are we returning to straight up roll 1 100? I confess as heated as they sometimes were, I kind of miss the drama that system brought about.
Yeah, I had no problem with the random 100 method in EQ. Although I totally understand the "need before greed" option, I didn't care for it that much. The interaction with other group members is valid. Usually, if you lobbied for the item and someone else didn't have use for it, they would give it up voluntarily. And if they didn't or you failed to win the roll, there was always the possibility someone would sell it for the right price (provided it wasn't a no drop item). There was a certain satisfaction with saving up enough coin to purchase an item you were unable to loot from a mob.
I dont mind the 1 100 method for determining loot. Many people would sometimes just take a look at your gear and give you the item they won but I never faulted anyone for winning a roll I knew they would sell. People who ninja looted were quickly dealt with and yeah they might have gotten away with 1 nice piece of gear or made some decent cash from selling it but that effectively ended their career on that character as they wouldn't be welcome in any groups again.
I did love going to hunt mobs that dropped decent loot that could be soloed so you can sell and slowly build up your fortune just to blow it all on that one piece of equipment you've always wanted but could never get to drop.
I dont mind the 1 100 method for determining loot. Many people would sometimes just take a look at your gear and give you the item they won but I never faulted anyone for winning a roll I knew they would sell. People who ninja looted were quickly dealt with and yeah they might have gotten away with 1 nice piece of gear or made some decent cash from selling it but that effectively ended their career on that character as they wouldn't be welcome in any groups again.
I did love going to hunt mobs that dropped decent loot that could be soloed so you can sell and slowly build up your fortune just to blow it all on that one piece of equipment you've always wanted but could never get to drop.
Your post reminds me of an incident that happened to me when I was a newbie playing EQ. I went on my first raid to the Plane of Hate and had no idea how loot etiquette worked. In this case there was a master looter who looted everything and would divide the treasure at the end. Up until then, I was just used to people taking turns looting mobs (in a group situation). Well when I saw this guy sucking up all the treasure, I got frustrated and started looting mobs before he was able to. No one said anything to me at the time.
Well on the next raid, someone singled me out as a ninja looter and the leader tried to boot me from the raid. I told my friend who was there with me that they wanted to kick me out of the raid because I was a ninja looter and that I didn't even know what that meant. Well he intervened on my behalf and explained to the leader that I was new to raids and didn't understand what the loot procedure was. Fortunately, all was forgiven and they let me stay.
I can look back on it now as a fond memory, but at the time it was a serious matter. I thought I had ruined my reputation as a player and would be a pariah in the land of Norrath.
Never had a problem with old loot systems. In a heavily cooperative game, being a dick comes with consequences. Automating the process just removes one more reason for interaction.
I remember plenty of times when people gamed those mechanics. Such as 5 guildies all rolling on it then giving it to the one that needs it - leaving you with a 1:6 chance of winning anything because they always all roll against you. And what chance is there of any consequence then? Not much unless the server is willing to blackball an entire guild. Not likely. I often hear about consequences but in my experience that was a rarity.
That scenario doesn't change your odds even if everyone was still rolling for themselves. You still have a 1 in 6 chance of winning the item.
No, if only 1 other person needed it I should have had a 50% chance. 1 in 6 is much worse.
Or look at it this way: If everyone, including me, has a 33% chance of actually needing the next drop but they all roll on it anyway then for the next drop I have a (33%)(17%) = 6% chance of getting an item. If people only rolled need on what they really needed then Id have a (33%)(50%)= 17% chance. The odds absolutely do change.
If everyone except 2 people already won the item then they shouldn't be rolling and that should be explicitly stated in the group rules otherwise too bad.
They could have the same item or they could have better or the item could be wrong for their class, but in any case if they arent going to personally wear it they should not be rolling.
Then they won't be in the dungeon in that camp
Thats ridiculous. If most of the group doesnt need the item I need they should still want to camp that camp for the items they need.
Never had a problem with old loot systems. In a heavily cooperative game, being a dick comes with consequences. Automating the process just removes one more reason for interaction.
I remember plenty of times when people gamed those mechanics. Such as 5 guildies all rolling on it then giving it to the one that needs it - leaving you with a 1:6 chance of winning anything because they always all roll against you. And what chance is there of any consequence then? Not much unless the server is willing to blackball an entire guild. Not likely. I often hear about consequences but in my experience that was a rarity.
That scenario doesn't change your odds even if everyone was still rolling for themselves. You still have a 1 in 6 chance of winning the item.
No, if only 1 other person needed it I should have had a 50% chance. 1 in 6 is much worse.
Or look at it this way: If everyone, including me, has a 33% chance of actually needing the next drop but they all roll on it anyway then for the next drop I have a (33%)(17%) = 6% chance of getting an item. If people only rolled need on what they really needed then Id have a (33%)(50%)= 17% chance. The odds absolutely do change.
If everyone except 2 people already won the item then they shouldn't be rolling and that should be explicitly stated in the group rules otherwise too bad.
They could have the same item or they could have better or the item could be wrong for their class, but in any case if they arent going to personally wear it they should not be rolling.
Then they won't be in the dungeon in that camp
Thats ridiculous. If most of the group doesnt need the item I need they should still want to camp that camp for the items they need.
I'll still use the fbss camp. Generally that's the only camp you had in LGuk(if you were camping the frenzied) since it was always so crowded. The only good drop was the fbss so there was no other loot for non melee classes. So again what would their incentive be if you joined the group and announced that you will be getting the next fbss that drops because you are most deserving of it simply because you are a melee class and they are casters?
Do you really think you are going to get group invites when you join groups and tell everyone you're getting the good loot that drops because you need it more then all of them?
FBSS camp was exceptional because it provided the melee character's most important item: haste. It almost seemed like developers forgot all about haste up to that point, because items that had it were almost nonexistent. As such, it was extremely valuable and remains a source of drama on emus and progression servers to this day.
Had they thought things thru a little better and added a few alternatives, it would have likely spared us all from a lot of bitterness and discontent.
SOE had the dumbest system ever and people knew it was exploited but seems nobody cares.When the games community doesn't care about exploiting it tells me a lot about that player base.
I am talking about groups doing dungeon runs then sitting on an item and spamming global chat to sell it,so then a player not in the fight or dungeon could run there and grab the item for a price.
Those items were NOT meant to be sold,yet that is exactly what they were doing.Not only was intentionally exploiting a crappy system,SOE should have easily seen it's exploit as gamer's themselves and stopped it by employing a fast timer like maybe 15 seconds and no trading within the party.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Never had a problem with old loot systems. In a heavily cooperative game, being a dick comes with consequences. Automating the process just removes one more reason for interaction.
I remember plenty of times when people gamed those mechanics. Such as 5 guildies all rolling on it then giving it to the one that needs it - leaving you with a 1:6 chance of winning anything because they always all roll against you. And what chance is there of any consequence then? Not much unless the server is willing to blackball an entire guild. Not likely. I often hear about consequences but in my experience that was a rarity.
That scenario doesn't change your odds even if everyone was still rolling for themselves. You still have a 1 in 6 chance of winning the item.
No, if only 1 other person needed it I should have had a 50% chance. 1 in 6 is much worse.
Or look at it this way: If everyone, including me, has a 33% chance of actually needing the next drop but they all roll on it anyway then for the next drop I have a (33%)(17%) = 6% chance of getting an item. If people only rolled need on what they really needed then Id have a (33%)(50%)= 17% chance. The odds absolutely do change.
If everyone except 2 people already won the item then they shouldn't be rolling and that should be explicitly stated in the group rules otherwise too bad.
They could have the same item or they could have better or the item could be wrong for their class, but in any case if they arent going to personally wear it they should not be rolling.
Then they won't be in the dungeon in that camp
Thats ridiculous. If most of the group doesnt need the item I need they should still want to camp that camp for the items they need.
I'll still use the fbss camp. Generally that's the only camp you had in LGuk(if you were camping the frenzied) since it was always so crowded. The only good drop was the fbss so there was no other loot for non melee classes. So again what would their incentive be if you joined the group and announced that you will be getting the next fbss that drops because you are most deserving of it simply because you are a melee class and they are casters?
Are you implying that based on that one example all group loot should be available for everyone to roll on - even if its just to sell and someone in group would actually wear it? The wizard can roll on tank only gear to sell and screw the tank in that group that wants it to wear it? Are you really going to go there?
Naturally if thats the only way I can get people to come to the camp Id relax the need before greed rule, but that one oddball case does not make your "all greed all the time" rule correct in general.
SOE had the dumbest system ever and people knew it was exploited but seems nobody cares.When the games community doesn't care about exploiting it tells me a lot about that player base.
I am talking about groups doing dungeon runs then sitting on an item and spamming global chat to sell it,so then a player not in the fight or dungeon could run there and grab the item for a price.
Thats why they changed most loot to no trade like 13 years ago.
Never had a problem with old loot systems. In a heavily cooperative game, being a dick comes with consequences. Automating the process just removes one more reason for interaction.
I remember plenty of times when people gamed those mechanics. Such as 5 guildies all rolling on it then giving it to the one that needs it - leaving you with a 1:6 chance of winning anything because they always all roll against you. And what chance is there of any consequence then? Not much unless the server is willing to blackball an entire guild. Not likely. I often hear about consequences but in my experience that was a rarity.
That scenario doesn't change your odds even if everyone was still rolling for themselves. You still have a 1 in 6 chance of winning the item.
No, if only 1 other person needed it I should have had a 50% chance. 1 in 6 is much worse.
Or look at it this way: If everyone, including me, has a 33% chance of actually needing the next drop but they all roll on it anyway then for the next drop I have a (33%)(17%) = 6% chance of getting an item. If people only rolled need on what they really needed then Id have a (33%)(50%)= 17% chance. The odds absolutely do change.
If everyone except 2 people already won the item then they shouldn't be rolling and that should be explicitly stated in the group rules otherwise too bad.
They could have the same item or they could have better or the item could be wrong for their class, but in any case if they arent going to personally wear it they should not be rolling.
Then they won't be in the dungeon in that camp
Thats ridiculous. If most of the group doesnt need the item I need they should still want to camp that camp for the items they need.
I'll still use the fbss camp. Generally that's the only camp you had in LGuk(if you were camping the frenzied) since it was always so crowded. The only good drop was the fbss so there was no other loot for non melee classes. So again what would their incentive be if you joined the group and announced that you will be getting the next fbss that drops because you are most deserving of it simply because you are a melee class and they are casters?
Are you implying that based on that one example all group loot should be available for everyone to roll on - even if its just to sell and someone in group would actually wear it? The wizard can roll on tank only gear to sell and screw the tank in that group that wants it to wear it? Are you really going to go there?
Naturally if thats the only way I can get people to come to the camp Id relax the need before greed rule, but that one oddball case does not make your "all greed all the time" rule correct in general.
It can be implied to any loot camp that drops 1 good piece of gear for a specific class. That camp that only drops tank gear well you're only going to have tanks going there cause the cleric or the shaman or the monk won't care about the camp because there's nothing there for them.
I don't have to go there because people already did in EQ which is why if you were pugging it you sucked it up and rolled against everyone. Or you get a group of friends with the intent of getting a camp to gear out one person first and everyone else can sell the item if it drops multiple times.
Never had a problem with old loot systems. In a heavily cooperative game, being a dick comes with consequences. Automating the process just removes one more reason for interaction.
I remember plenty of times when people gamed those mechanics. Such as 5 guildies all rolling on it then giving it to the one that needs it - leaving you with a 1:6 chance of winning anything because they always all roll against you. And what chance is there of any consequence then? Not much unless the server is willing to blackball an entire guild. Not likely. I often hear about consequences but in my experience that was a rarity.
That scenario doesn't change your odds even if everyone was still rolling for themselves. You still have a 1 in 6 chance of winning the item.
No, if only 1 other person needed it I should have had a 50% chance. 1 in 6 is much worse.
Or look at it this way: If everyone, including me, has a 33% chance of actually needing the next drop but they all roll on it anyway then for the next drop I have a (33%)(17%) = 6% chance of getting an item. If people only rolled need on what they really needed then Id have a (33%)(50%)= 17% chance. The odds absolutely do change.
If everyone except 2 people already won the item then they shouldn't be rolling and that should be explicitly stated in the group rules otherwise too bad.
They could have the same item or they could have better or the item could be wrong for their class, but in any case if they arent going to personally wear it they should not be rolling.
Then they won't be in the dungeon in that camp
Thats ridiculous. If most of the group doesnt need the item I need they should still want to camp that camp for the items they need.
I'll still use the fbss camp. Generally that's the only camp you had in LGuk(if you were camping the frenzied) since it was always so crowded. The only good drop was the fbss so there was no other loot for non melee classes. So again what would their incentive be if you joined the group and announced that you will be getting the next fbss that drops because you are most deserving of it simply because you are a melee class and they are casters?
Are you implying that based on that one example all group loot should be available for everyone to roll on - even if its just to sell and someone in group would actually wear it? The wizard can roll on tank only gear to sell and screw the tank in that group that wants it to wear it? Are you really going to go there?
Naturally if thats the only way I can get people to come to the camp Id relax the need before greed rule, but that one oddball case does not make your "all greed all the time" rule correct in general.
It can be implied to any loot camp that drops 1 good piece of gear for a specific class. That camp that only drops tank gear well you're only going to have tanks going there cause the cleric or the shaman or the monk won't care about the camp because there's nothing there for them.
I don't have to go there because people already did in EQ which is why if you were pugging it you sucked it up and rolled against everyone. Or you get a group of friends with the intent of getting a camp to gear out one person first and everyone else can sell the item if it drops multiple times.
Ok, well if you are just talking about the specific case where there is only 1 loot reason to be there then that is irrelevant to my post that you replied to. I was talking about loot in general not that one specific oddball case.
In most cases in EQ need before greed was and is the norm. Also, its the few people like you that insist on rolling on everything that caused EQ to change most loot to no-trade.
I'm personally glad to see Pantheon loot system will be open. All these training wheels only detract from any semblance of a virtual world. There should be opportunities to work together or against other players. There should be good guys and bad guys, heroes and villains.
What people don't seem to grasp having not played early EQ is that you inevitably need other people in a heavily cooperative mmorpg. In EQ, even a big guild wasn't enough to help 100% of the time. If you were seeking experience, particular items, AAs or questing, you couldn't solo most of those things or even rely on your friends to always be there. Everyone you knew had a long list of goals, so on a daily basis, to some degree, you had to rely on random players whose goals aligned with your own. Even if it was one or two to fill your group.
When random players need each other, how you treat other people becomes important. That means you don't need training wheels and bumper lanes on every game system. The world polices itself. Heroes are rewarded, and villains are punished.
Never had a problem with old loot systems. In a heavily cooperative game, being a dick comes with consequences. Automating the process just removes one more reason for interaction.
I remember plenty of times when people gamed those mechanics. Such as 5 guildies all rolling on it then giving it to the one that needs it - leaving you with a 1:6 chance of winning anything because they always all roll against you. And what chance is there of any consequence then? Not much unless the server is willing to blackball an entire guild. Not likely. I often hear about consequences but in my experience that was a rarity.
That scenario doesn't change your odds even if everyone was still rolling for themselves. You still have a 1 in 6 chance of winning the item.
No, if only 1 other person needed it I should have had a 50% chance. 1 in 6 is much worse.
Or look at it this way: If everyone, including me, has a 33% chance of actually needing the next drop but they all roll on it anyway then for the next drop I have a (33%)(17%) = 6% chance of getting an item. If people only rolled need on what they really needed then Id have a (33%)(50%)= 17% chance. The odds absolutely do change.
If everyone except 2 people already won the item then they shouldn't be rolling and that should be explicitly stated in the group rules otherwise too bad.
They could have the same item or they could have better or the item could be wrong for their class, but in any case if they arent going to personally wear it they should not be rolling.
Then they won't be in the dungeon in that camp
Thats ridiculous. If most of the group doesnt need the item I need they should still want to camp that camp for the items they need.
I'll still use the fbss camp. Generally that's the only camp you had in LGuk(if you were camping the frenzied) since it was always so crowded. The only good drop was the fbss so there was no other loot for non melee classes. So again what would their incentive be if you joined the group and announced that you will be getting the next fbss that drops because you are most deserving of it simply because you are a melee class and they are casters?
Are you implying that based on that one example all group loot should be available for everyone to roll on - even if its just to sell and someone in group would actually wear it? The wizard can roll on tank only gear to sell and screw the tank in that group that wants it to wear it? Are you really going to go there?
Naturally if thats the only way I can get people to come to the camp Id relax the need before greed rule, but that one oddball case does not make your "all greed all the time" rule correct in general.
The all greed rule is mostly applied to really valuable items exclusively, common and rare items that don't hold that much value would still go to the classes that can use them (unless you have a dickhead on your group that wants an absolute greed all system, but that rarely happens, and even if it happens I'm sure that guy would have trouble finding groups since most players don't want greed all for lower value items that other in the group can use).
In EQ there were lots of items where people would argue this an "x" class item, no this is a "y" class item. I remember some melee shoulders dropping in The Hole that weighed about 1,000 pounds and a monk rolling on them. Stuff like that could get you hot under the collar.
In games I have played since then, there has been less of that. An major item often is only for one class or one or two classes. Labeled as such, and wearable only by them.
In a way I guess that is another form of hand holding? Here is your Garanimals armor. Look we even wrote "ranger" on it for you. Saves a lot of arguments but kind of insulting to one's intelligence.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
I'm personally glad to see Pantheon loot system will be open. All these training wheels only detract from any semblance of a virtual world. There should be opportunities to work together or against other players. There should be good guys and bad guys, heroes and villains.
What people don't seem to grasp having not played early EQ is that you inevitably need other people in a heavily cooperative mmorpg. In EQ, even a big guild wasn't enough to help 100% of the time. If you were seeking experience, particular items, AAs or questing, you couldn't solo most of those things or even rely on your friends to always be there. Everyone you knew had a long list of goals, so on a daily basis, to some degree, you had to rely on random players whose goals aligned with your own. Even if it was one or two to fill your group.
When random players need each other, how you treat other people becomes important. That means you don't need training wheels and bumper lanes on every game system. The world polices itself. Heroes are rewarded, and villains are punished.
I here you on this but I honestly don't expect the community to agree on how the game should be played. After all this isn't EQ, Vanguard, FFXI or any other game. For example as you know in EQ for NM's you made camp calls. In Vanguard I don't know how it went but in XI it was contested and it was who ever made claim. There will also be other players who never played any of those who may even try to play another way. Honestly there are a few things like this that maybe need to be put down as official rules so people no what is considered rude or bad behavior in the game.
What is rude or bad behavior is self evident - at least in western society. Those expectations have been predominant in all PvE mmos from the west unless the game encouraged something different. XI was different because it was an eastern title with a predominantly eastern playerbase, and chose not to adopt those social norms in-game.
I personally like competition and plan to play on a pvp server where there's more content contention, but on a normal server order and politeness will be expected.
Never had a problem with old loot systems. In a heavily cooperative game, being a dick comes with consequences. Automating the process just removes one more reason for interaction.
I remember plenty of times when people gamed those mechanics. Such as 5 guildies all rolling on it then giving it to the one that needs it - leaving you with a 1:6 chance of winning anything because they always all roll against you. And what chance is there of any consequence then? Not much unless the server is willing to blackball an entire guild. Not likely. I often hear about consequences but in my experience that was a rarity.
That scenario doesn't change your odds even if everyone was still rolling for themselves. You still have a 1 in 6 chance of winning the item.
No, if only 1 other person needed it I should have had a 50% chance. 1 in 6 is much worse.
Or look at it this way: If everyone, including me, has a 33% chance of actually needing the next drop but they all roll on it anyway then for the next drop I have a (33%)(17%) = 6% chance of getting an item. If people only rolled need on what they really needed then Id have a (33%)(50%)= 17% chance. The odds absolutely do change.
If everyone except 2 people already won the item then they shouldn't be rolling and that should be explicitly stated in the group rules otherwise too bad.
They could have the same item or they could have better or the item could be wrong for their class, but in any case if they arent going to personally wear it they should not be rolling.
Then they won't be in the dungeon in that camp
Thats ridiculous. If most of the group doesnt need the item I need they should still want to camp that camp for the items they need.
I'll still use the fbss camp. Generally that's the only camp you had in LGuk(if you were camping the frenzied) since it was always so crowded. The only good drop was the fbss so there was no other loot for non melee classes. So again what would their incentive be if you joined the group and announced that you will be getting the next fbss that drops because you are most deserving of it simply because you are a melee class and they are casters?
Are you implying that based on that one example all group loot should be available for everyone to roll on - even if its just to sell and someone in group would actually wear it? The wizard can roll on tank only gear to sell and screw the tank in that group that wants it to wear it? Are you really going to go there?
Naturally if thats the only way I can get people to come to the camp Id relax the need before greed rule, but that one oddball case does not make your "all greed all the time" rule correct in general.
It can be implied to any loot camp that drops 1 good piece of gear for a specific class. That camp that only drops tank gear well you're only going to have tanks going there cause the cleric or the shaman or the monk won't care about the camp because there's nothing there for them.
I don't have to go there because people already did in EQ which is why if you were pugging it you sucked it up and rolled against everyone. Or you get a group of friends with the intent of getting a camp to gear out one person first and everyone else can sell the item if it drops multiple times.
Ok, well if you are just talking about the specific case where there is only 1 loot reason to be there then that is irrelevant to my post that you replied to. I was talking about loot in general not that one specific oddball case.
In most cases in EQ need before greed was and is the norm. Also, its the few people like you that insist on rolling on everything that caused EQ to change most loot to no-trade.
There was more then one specific case of a 1 loot camp if you didn't take into account wanderers who might drop something awesome.
Lol and you know nothing about my eq career and what I did so please don't assume.
In EQ there were lots of items where people would argue this an "x" class item, no this is a "y" class item. I remember some melee shoulders dropping in The Hole that weighed about 1,000 pounds and a monk rolling on them. Stuff like that could get you hot under the collar.
In games I have played since then, there has been less of that. An major item often is only for one class or one or two classes. Labeled as such, and wearable only by them.
In a way I guess that is another form of hand holding? Here is your Garanimals armor. Look we even wrote "ranger" on it for you. Saves a lot of arguments but kind of insulting to one's intelligence.
Lol I had those shoulders on my monk but only because the guild forced me to loot and wear them cause they had a terrible sense of humour.
But yes many items could be contested because oh it has some int on it so it's good for casters, oh but it has agi/dex so it's good for monks/rogues.
I don't want loot that is labelled monk only or cleric only (unless it absolutely makes sense like a holy relic for a cleric for example). The hand holding that everyone has gotten used to in modern MMO's is what's killing the community. Someone upset you because they aren't pulling mobs fast enough? Well go right ahead and tell them what you think of them because you will never see them again anyway with dungeon finder.
Comments
When loot drops, and assuming you have at least 1 point, you can either Need, Greed, or Pass...
- If you Need, and have more points than anyone else who selected Need, you get the item, but go back to 0 points for that boss / dungeon. Ties are decided by a roll.
- If you Greed, it's a 1-100 roll with everyone else who selected Greed (regardless of points) with the winner getting the item and having their points are reduced to half (rounded down) for that boss / dungeon.
- If everyone Passes on the item it is 'sold to an npc' and the value split evenly.
So, basically, if you really want a certain item you can guarentee getting it (when it drops) by building up your points for that boss / dungeon (i.e. running it multiple times and passing on other loot).... No more: 'hey first time here', item drops (after your 13th run), newbie rolls a 100, 'gg, thanx guys, bye'
Edit: As an adjuestment to Greed, it could be made so that the points 'cost' is dependant on the number of people rolling... e.g. 2 or less = reduced to 1/2, 3 = reduced to 1/3, 4 = reduced to 1/4, 5 = reduced to 1/5, and so on. Theory being that the more people 'Greeding' the more valuable the item is, so it should cost more points.
I mean by all means set the rules beforehand and let everyone who joins the group know but if this is a pug chances are they will disband shortly after hearing said rules because again what's their incentive for staying there? They can go and try and get in the group that drops the item they want that no one can get because no melee will join because what's the point if they have no chance at some loot?
This is meant to be a cooperative game and if you are pugging it then you need to make some concessions just like you would expect other people to make concessions for you if you come into their group. If you go in with the attitude that it's for your class only you are going to find not many people are friendly towards you.
but again this is rendered moot if you are with friends or guild mates who are there to help you gear up
I did love going to hunt mobs that dropped decent loot that could be soloed so you can sell and slowly build up your fortune just to blow it all on that one piece of equipment you've always wanted but could never get to drop.
Your post reminds me of an incident that happened to me when I was a newbie playing EQ. I went on my first raid to the Plane of Hate and had no idea how loot etiquette worked. In this case there was a master looter who looted everything and would divide the treasure at the end. Up until then, I was just used to people taking turns looting mobs (in a group situation). Well when I saw this guy sucking up all the treasure, I got frustrated and started looting mobs before he was able to. No one said anything to me at the time.
Well on the next raid, someone singled me out as a ninja looter and the leader tried to boot me from the raid. I told my friend who was there with me that they wanted to kick me out of the raid because I was a ninja looter and that I didn't even know what that meant. Well he intervened on my behalf and explained to the leader that I was new to raids and didn't understand what the loot procedure was. Fortunately, all was forgiven and they let me stay.
I can look back on it now as a fond memory, but at the time it was a serious matter. I thought I had ruined my reputation as a player and would be a pariah in the land of Norrath.
Do you really think you are going to get group invites when you join groups and tell everyone you're getting the good loot that drops because you need it more then all of them?
Had they thought things thru a little better and added a few alternatives, it would have likely spared us all from a lot of bitterness and discontent.
I am talking about groups doing dungeon runs then sitting on an item and spamming global chat to sell it,so then a player not in the fight or dungeon could run there and grab the item for a price.
Those items were NOT meant to be sold,yet that is exactly what they were doing.Not only was intentionally exploiting a crappy system,SOE should have easily seen it's exploit as gamer's themselves and stopped it by employing a fast timer like maybe 15 seconds and no trading within the party.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Naturally if thats the only way I can get people to come to the camp Id relax the need before greed rule, but that one oddball case does not make your "all greed all the time" rule correct in general.
I don't have to go there because people already did in EQ which is why if you were pugging it you sucked it up and rolled against everyone. Or you get a group of friends with the intent of getting a camp to gear out one person first and everyone else can sell the item if it drops multiple times.
In most cases in EQ need before greed was and is the norm.
Also, its the few people like you that insist on rolling on everything that caused EQ to change most loot to no-trade.
What people don't seem to grasp having not played early EQ is that you inevitably need other people in a heavily cooperative mmorpg. In EQ, even a big guild wasn't enough to help 100% of the time. If you were seeking experience, particular items, AAs or questing, you couldn't solo most of those things or even rely on your friends to always be there. Everyone you knew had a long list of goals, so on a daily basis, to some degree, you had to rely on random players whose goals aligned with your own. Even if it was one or two to fill your group.
When random players need each other, how you treat other people becomes important. That means you don't need training wheels and bumper lanes on every game system. The world polices itself. Heroes are rewarded, and villains are punished.
In games I have played since then, there has been less of that. An major item often is only for one class or one or two classes. Labeled as such, and wearable only by them.
In a way I guess that is another form of hand holding? Here is your Garanimals armor. Look we even wrote "ranger" on it for you. Saves a lot of arguments but kind of insulting to one's intelligence.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
I personally like competition and plan to play on a pvp server where there's more content contention, but on a normal server order and politeness will be expected.
Lol and you know nothing about my eq career and what I did so please don't assume.
But yes many items could be contested because oh it has some int on it so it's good for casters, oh but it has agi/dex so it's good for monks/rogues.
I don't want loot that is labelled monk only or cleric only (unless it absolutely makes sense like a holy relic for a cleric for example). The hand holding that everyone has gotten used to in modern MMO's is what's killing the community. Someone upset you because they aren't pulling mobs fast enough? Well go right ahead and tell them what you think of them because you will never see them again anyway with dungeon finder.