PDA

View Full Version : Raid Loot Mechanics - A Suggestion



Pellegro
12-24-2007, 01:25 AM
Would this make people happy? If not, why not -

When you join a Raid (or a group is changed to a raid group), a pop-up appears.

It says: "Join loot pool?" You click YES or NO.

If you click NO, then at the end of the raid, all loot that you pull is yours and yours alone, and you don't participate in the pool. I.e. its the current system.

If you click YES, then at the end, any loot you would have pulled, as well as any loot anyone else would have pulled (who is also in the pool), all goes into the "pool".

Everyone who chose to be in the pool sees each raid loot piece, and each piece has a drop down menu with each pool participant's name under it.

Each participant then assigns each piece of raid loot to one participant - they can even assign it to themselves if they wish. They assign each piece of loot to whomever they think should get it.

Whoever has the most votes for any piece of raid loot gets it. Ties are rolled on by the computer behind-the-scenes.

Thoughts?

I think this would give some protection to the PUGger, while maintaining a guild's ability to enforce the "opt in" of pooling.

It would also make Raiding easier generally since you wouldn't have "leader loot" only raids which I think chase away puggers.

It also protects a guild's ability to control the pool - if a guild has 8 people and they want to do the pool, they can, and they know that the 4 PUGgers they get cant' mess the pool up (if they participate in it). And if the PUGers don't participate in the pool - no biggie either. The chances of the guildies getting loot remain constant (as the opt-outs have no chance at anything pulled by the opt-ins.)

Would this make people happy?

bandyman1
12-24-2007, 01:49 AM
Humm.....protects my interests, and those of my friends.

Supports varied groups.......

Protects the interests of unknowns that join......


Yeah. I'd be for this.

I'm not sure how feasible it'd be to develop ( I know NOTHING about coding ), but all in all, I'd say it's a very good idea.

Hvymetal
12-24-2007, 02:39 AM
One of the better ideas on the subject I've heard.

Pellegro
12-24-2007, 08:41 AM
I believe this is a solid system that will meet most if not all of the legitimate concerns I've heard regarding the new loot system.

More feedback perhaps?

Hendrik
12-24-2007, 08:59 AM
Couldn't the same be accomplished via using the LFM Comment area?

Just by typing in "Old System" could do it without any coding done.

I mean, under the old system there were 'complaints'. New system we have the same. I really doubt another one will make any difference. Particularly when you have a group of players looting under two different rules in the same party.

Aesop
12-24-2007, 09:12 AM
not a bad suggestion really.

Aesop

binnsr
12-24-2007, 09:13 AM
Couldn't the same be accomplished via using the LFM Comment area?

Just by typing in "Old System" could do it without any coding done.

I mean, under the old system there were 'complaints'. New system we have the same. I really doubt another one will make any difference. Particularly when you have a group of players looting under two different rules in the same party.

There will always be folks who join the raid, say they understand how loots going to be distributed and then take it anyway. case in point (http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=130673)

The OPs suggestion helps avoid the problem all together.

Lorien_the_First_One
12-24-2007, 09:16 AM
This gives no protection to a pugger as they would be outvoted by the group of friends.

If a group of friends wants to pool, nothing in the current system stops them from doing it (in fact I know of at least one guild that still uses a point system for their drop assignments)

There is no need for this system, it adds nothing to the game

Hendrik
12-24-2007, 09:23 AM
There will always be folks who join the raid, say they understand how loots going to be distributed and then take it anyway. case in point (http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=130673)

The OPs suggestion helps avoid the problem all together.

Player greed will be in any system. What happened in that horrid example you posted was a problem with the player in question and not with Turbine. Nothing Turbine can code could weed out the low-life dregs that we run across from time to time. And it looks like, from that thread, the player has been blacklisted and got what he deserved.

So, are a few reports of some ******s going to ruin the experience of us all? Are we not all adult enough to deal with these 'people' and these rare occasions or do we have to have Turbine be big brother and make more rules for things we can deal with ourselves?

Beherit_Baphomar
12-24-2007, 09:24 AM
I think in all the time we've had the new raid system Ive heard of at most 5 cases where someone has "stolen" the raid
loot.

Ive saw once where a person removed an item without knowing it was no use to them.

Ive saw and heard of numerous cases of generosity.

Only thing I would like to see is bind on exiting the raid. That way we can loot and trade rather than leaving it in
the chest for the wrong person who happened to have already recalled.

Lorien_the_First_One
12-24-2007, 09:39 AM
Only thing I would like to see is bind on exiting the raid. That way we can loot and trade rather than leaving it in the chest for the wrong person who happened to have already recalled.

That was my original solution back when it came up. It has a bunch of real strengths to it (making accidental pickup not a problem, ensuring no one leaves and then gets something accidentally assigned, etc) but I'm a little more torn about it now. It if became easier to trade for items would we see more trading instead of gifting of the end items? That itself could be an advantage but I'd hate to see that generous spirit we have been seeing die so I'm just not sure which approach is best right now...

Pellegro
12-24-2007, 12:08 PM
This gives no protection to a pugger as they would be outvoted by the group of friends.

The point is that a PUGGER can join and choose NOT to join the pool. Then they take whatever they loot (or don't) - i.e. they participate in the raid just as if the system were as it is now.

While people can be outvoted if they join the pool, that's the risk you take. Your decision to join the pool or not will be based on whether or not you trust your fellow players.



If a group of friends wants to pool, nothing in the current system stops them from doing it (in fact I know of at least one guild that still uses a point system for their drop assignments)

There is no need for this system, it adds nothing to the game

It is true that under the current system, people can voluntarily choose to pool. The problem in the current system is someone joining, saying "Yeah, I'll abide by your distribution rules" but then not doing so.

Under this system, if you choose to opt-in to the pool, the game will force you to abide by that choice.

Pellegro
12-24-2007, 12:11 PM
I think in all the time we've had the new raid system Ive heard of at most 5 cases where someone has "stolen" the raid
loot.

Ive saw once where a person removed an item without knowing it was no use to them.

Ive saw and heard of numerous cases of generosity.

Only thing I would like to see is bind on exiting the raid. That way we can loot and trade rather than leaving it in
the chest for the wrong person who happened to have already recalled.


I agree that "stealing" items isn't a huge issue - but if you happen to be the sorc in a reaver raid where the rules were posted and some rogue takes the napkin, it has a very serious effect.

The point of the system is to allow guilds to invite outsiders to join, and to enforce the agreement to pool loot if they so choose. It is better than old "leader distributes" (in my view) because that system discourages puggers from joining, encourages slanted distribution by a self-interested leader, and negates the possibility of someone running the raid and just sticking wiht whatever they do (or dont) pull. It is better than the "new" system (in my view) because it permits guilds to invite puggers and they can take comfort that they can distribute loot by their rules (and essentially dictate the results, assuming they have a majority), without outsider interference, and without fear that a PUGger will reneg on their agreement once they find that +3 CON tome in their inventory.

It is different from the current system in that PUGgers may choose to opt-in if they trust the guild to distribute the loot fairly, and the guild will have comfort that the opt-in will be enforced by the game.

In addition, you can have a pure PUG where people just randomly join the pool hoping for the best. Given the maturity level of the majority of the player base, I would assume that the results will, more often than not, be just.

Chelsa
12-24-2007, 12:18 PM
I don't understand.

If it is the same loot system, then why do we need to have another layer of distribution. For that matter, if you can't trust your own guildies why should Turbine have to build in a mechanism against people you don't trust. Just remove them from the guild.

I like the current system and am completely against anybody having any control over what I pull.

krud
12-24-2007, 01:18 PM
Not sure i like the voting idea, but the rest of it sounds good. Probably be easier to do a pool like the old system (where you just /roll for the items and distribute them), along with the option to not participate (like the current system).

either way, i've never had problems with loot distribution in raid groups, and I've run both pug and guild raids.

Lorien_the_First_One
12-24-2007, 01:44 PM
The point is that a PUGGER can join and choose NOT to join the pool. Then they take whatever they loot (or don't) - i.e. they participate in the raid just as if the system were as it is now.

While people can be outvoted if they join the pool, that's the risk you take. Your decision to join the pool or not will be based on whether or not you trust your fellow players.



It is true that under the current system, people can voluntarily choose to pool. The problem in the current system is someone joining, saying "Yeah, I'll abide by your distribution rules" but then not doing so.

Under this system, if you choose to opt-in to the pool, the game will force you to abide by that choice.

I guess what I meant and didn't state well is since the pool doesn't protect puggers I can't imagine why anyone would join it. That being the case, the pool will generally be made up with the guild/friends in the raid and they don't need a coded pool to lock them into anything, right?

krud
12-24-2007, 01:56 PM
I guess what I meant and didn't state well is since the pool doesn't protect puggers I can't imagine why anyone would join it. That being the case, the pool will generally be made up with the guild/friends in the raid and they don't need a coded pool to lock them into anything, right?

I guess this is supposed to enforce guild rules on anyone that joins up and agrees to the pool

Pellegro
12-24-2007, 03:27 PM
I guess what I meant and didn't state well is since the pool doesn't protect puggers I can't imagine why anyone would join it. That being the case, the pool will generally be made up with the guild/friends in the raid and they don't need a coded pool to lock them into anything, right?

The main complaint I'm seeing about the new raid loot system is that if a guild opens up to puggers, but says "don't join unless you agree to our distribution system", that there is no way to enforce their distribution system. Thats from the Sarlona thread (IIRC).

The other complaint is that people agree to swap raid loot and one side renegs, getting the swap and keeping their's.

The other complaint is an erroneous assignment (i.e. mistake) where the recipient just keeps it.

This is an attempt to avoid those concerns. Its also an attempt to make the assigning of loot more democratic than "leader" assigns, by forcing everyone to vote.

As for why any pugs would join the pool ... because they may trust the "majority" in that particular raid to assign things fairly, and prefer a system that lets them cast a wider net at getting what they're interested in. Its the same as a PUGger under current system joining a raid that is posted with a rule that "If you join, you must agree to our distribution rules". The key difference is, once you opt into the pool, you are committed and cannot reneg (i.e. take your loot and leave).

At the end of the day, I don't see it as an issue. I mistakenly took something I "won" but shouldn't have taken once (where I thought there would be a wipe). But other than that, I haven't seen any problems at all (although admittedly I don't police other people's loot and question whether they "really need" some pull or not ... I'm of the mind that if you pulled it, its yours).

Impaqt
12-24-2007, 03:50 PM
I think the Mechanic is Fine...

Much of this Loot discontention could be solved withint he system we already have.....

Chests stay the same.

End reward progressionis modifies so that instead of every 20th run you get the static list it goes

5th, 10, 20th, 40th, 60th,80th etc etc etc.

That way your guaranteed 3 pieces of loot in your first 20 Runs. Rest is Gravy. Helps out the general populace greatly as MANY folks willnever see 20 Completions of a raid.

Aspenor
12-24-2007, 03:56 PM
Couldn't guilds use the OP's proposed system to stack their votes against PUG'rs? Just a thought.

Pellegro
12-24-2007, 07:42 PM
Couldn't guilds use the OP's proposed system to stack their votes against PUG'rs? Just a thought.


Yes, and that is by design.

The point is to encourage guilds to "open the doors" and allow PUGgers to fill up the last 2, 3, 4, slots.

If a guild abuses it, then the puggers who join simply will not "opt in" to the pool.

If, on the other hand, a guild develops the reputation as running a fair show ... then PUGgers will be more likely to opt in.

Really its no different than the trust that is required now. It just places the responsibility of being fair on the "majority" of the PUG and takes it away from the renegade griefer who may say "Yeah, I'll play by your rules" ... but then they pull that sweet item and *poof*.

In addition, if you're talking about a truly totally PUG raid ... if people want to do the "pool" you now have a way to insure that everyone has a say in who gets what. If everybody votes for themselves for the loot, then by design the game will (behidn the scenes) simply assign it to one randomly. Hopefully, people wouldn't do that and would actually assign the stuff according to need before greed. And if it didn't work out ... you could simply not "opt in". At a minimum it doesn't provide the disincentive to permitting pugs to join that the 'leader only' option does since the puggers still have the option of silently not opting in.

krud
12-24-2007, 10:15 PM
Yes, and that is by design.

The point is to encourage guilds to "open the doors" and allow PUGgers to fill up the last 2, 3, 4, slots.

If a guild abuses it, then the puggers who join simply will not "opt in" to the pool.

If, on the other hand, a guild develops the reputation as running a fair show ... then PUGgers will be more likely to opt in.

I pug quite a bit and still have no idea what kind of reputation certain guilds have. How many times will a guild/pug get away with it before word really gets around? So, as it is now, a few guilds who like to go by the old rules get screwed by the occasional griefer (who in turn will develop a bad rep). Whereas under this system, an few pugs will get screwed by the occasional bad guild (which in turn will also develop a bad rep). Protect the guilds, or protect the pugs. Either way someone has the potential of getting screwed.

Can't really say i've seen that much screwing with regard to raid loot to warrant a change. I also question why the voting is necessary. Why not have everyone who opts for the pool just roll for it as was done under the old system?


In addition, if you're talking about a truly totally PUG raid ... if people want to do the "pool" you now have a way to insure that everyone has a say in who gets what. If everybody votes for themselves for the loot, then by design the game will (behidn the scenes) simply assign it to one randomly. Hopefully, people wouldn't do that and would actually assign the stuff according to need before greed. So, you are relying on people to be honest in the new system, just as you were relying on them to be honest before. How is this gonna change that? HowAnd if it didn't work out ... you could simply not "opt in". At a minimum it doesn't provide the disincentive to permitting pugs to join that the 'leader only' option does since the puggers still have the option of silently not opting in
I think leader assigned loot has just as much potential for abuse as a guild rigging the vote. Not much different as far as a pugger is concerned.

Pellegro
12-24-2007, 11:38 PM
I pug quite a bit and still have no idea what kind of reputation certain guilds have. How many times will a guild/pug get away with it before word really gets around? So, as it is now, a few guilds who like to go by the old rules get screwed by the occasional griefer (who in turn will develop a bad rep). Whereas under this system, an few pugs will get screwed by the occasional bad guild (which in turn will also develop a bad rep). Protect the guilds, or protect the pugs. Either way someone has the potential of getting screwed.

Quite right. But under current system, there is no way to prevent the renegade individual from breaking their agreement to swap loot that they pull. Here, if you "opt in", you're stuck and lose control over "your" loot. If you don't, then you won't be affected at all.



Can't really say i've seen that much screwing with regard to raid loot to warrant a change.

I agree. But if you look around you'll see 3 or 4 active threads of people complaining about raid loot issues. Some are asking for the old system back (I suspect just because they want to increase their chance of getting loot by shortmanning). Others are upset that there's no confirmation and mistakes happen (pretty lame if you ask me, but go read tekn0mages thread). Others are upset about a pugger joining a guild run, agreeing to use their loot distribution system, then changing their mind and keeping their rolled loot.

This was just an attempt to address some if not all of those concerns without a terribly complex solution.


I also question why the voting is necessary. Why not have everyone who opts for the pool just roll for it as was done under the old system?

Under the old system, the leader either said "this goes to X because s/he needs it most" or said "X, Y and Z get to roll on it, no one else." That was not viewed too kindly by some who felt that their class was underrepresented in loot, or who wanted a chance to boost a secondary skill/item slot (despite the fact that someone else relied more heavily on the item).

Under this system, the idea of voting is to spread the moral hazard around a bit more (less likely to get 6 people willing to hose you than just 1), and to give it legitimacy over "leader dictates". The loot goes where the majority tells it to. And again, its an "opt in" system - if you don't want to pool, you don't have to.


I think leader assigned loot has just as much potential for abuse as a guild rigging the vote. Not much different as far as a pugger is concerned. Well, that's certainly a valid viewpoint. But the key difference here is that if you don't want to pool, you don't have to. That's not an option under the "old system", and under the "new system" there is no way to force people to honor their agreement. This "pooling" option does both.

Cireeric
12-26-2007, 11:35 AM
This seems to be one of the better discussions on the subject. Everyone seems to be making solid arguments about the subject.

This is what the forums are supposed to be like.

Lorien_the_First_One
12-26-2007, 12:36 PM
Yes, and that is by design

The point is to encourage guilds to "open the doors" and allow PUGgers to fill up the last 2, 3, 4, slots.



LOL, and that's why no pugger in their right mind would join the pool.