PDA

View Full Version : Idea for Raid Loot that Nobody Wants



MysticTheurge
06-13-2008, 03:11 PM
I was thinking today about those scenarios where you get a raid loot item and there's just no one in the group who wants that item. It's always been pretty disappointing that there's just nothing that can be done with those items. They're not even always the "bad" ones that no one ever wants. Sometimes it's just the docent in the group of all non-warforged or the plate where everyone has something they already like better.

So I was thinking. What if you could turn in unwanted raid loot items to the quest givers for those raids and in exchange your quest count for that raid would be advanced by one. Basically, that means unwanted raid loot becomes 1/20th of a chance toward a wider selection of items from that raid.

It doesn't seem overpowered to me, and actually provides a reason to not just leave them in the chest, but maybe people who raid more often would feel differently. Thoughts?

bobbryan2
06-13-2008, 03:13 PM
The only thing I don't really like about it, is that it makes every single piece of raid loot useful to everyone in the party. Someone might say they need something, and roll on it, just to go turn it in.

I like the idea, I just wonder if it would make people more loath to actually give any raid loot away at all.

Mhykke
06-13-2008, 03:14 PM
That's a great idea.

The only problem though would be those greedy folks that argue that they really want the ventilated bracers to use, for example, roll on them or get the person to switch it over to them, and only turn around and give them to the quest giver to advance their count.

MrCow
06-13-2008, 03:23 PM
If there was an item flag that kept track of the person who the raid item originally spawned for then that would defeat the "well, I only want the raid item to increment my counter" issues.

Lithic
06-13-2008, 03:26 PM
As the other two have said, this would result in hoarding of all raid loot. You could never expect to get to roll on anything ever again because each useless (to you) raid loot can be turned into 1/20th of a +3 tome (on the reaver for example).

The only other thing I can come up with is you can select an item to be randomly rerolled. This turns it into another random item on the raid loot list (from the same boss of course).

The only 2 restrictions would be
1) It is randomly assigned, preferably to people still in the instance, and only to those who could have been assigned raid loot (no late-comers)

2) There is a 50% chance of the item being lost completely, replaced with a festival twig or something useless like that.

This would give you a decent chance that garbage loot can turn into something decent for the party, but should prevent most people from having an item rerolled even if someone else in the party could use it.

Borror0
06-13-2008, 03:42 PM
The only problem though would be those greedy folks that argue that they really want the ventilated bracers to use, for example, roll on them or get the person to switch it over to them, and only turn around and give them to the quest giver to advance their count.

What he said.

Vorn
06-13-2008, 03:54 PM
One of the niceties of the current raid loot system is that most folks in pugs (and I pug raids a lot) are pretty generous with raid loot they can't use. I think this suggestion would end that.

bobbryan2
06-13-2008, 03:57 PM
One of the niceties of the current raid loot system is that most folks in pugs (and I pug raids a lot) are pretty generous with raid loot they can't use. I think this suggestion would end that.

I'd just like to point out... that while I agree with that, I also still like the suggestion.

It's really disappointing to find raid loot you don't need. And even worse to go sell it to the Tavernkeep for an extra 600 plat. I'd risk people being a little less likely to give away loot if it meant they had a reason to keep it.

ehcsztein
06-13-2008, 03:59 PM
This could also be exploited by groups that consitently play together. Say Raid # 1 person A gets all of the items to force there completion count up. Raid # 2 person B would get itall etc until it cycled through all of the interested players.

I have seen up to six items drop on elite reaver before but figurring this could get someone to 20 completions in X<5-6 runs i'd doubt we'll see anything similar implemented.

I am holding out for deconstruction of raid loots in MOD 8+. Have the raid loots decompose into "better" / "special" base ingredients or something. Even though the same lvl of greed/exploit would be possible the immediate reward would only be abstract.

bobbryan2
06-13-2008, 04:03 PM
This could also be exploited by groups that consitently play together. Say Raid # 1 person A gets all of the items to force there completion count up. Raid # 2 person B would get itall etc until it cycled through all of the interested players.

I have seen up to six items drop on elite reaver before but figurring this could get someone to 20 completions in X<5-6 runs i'd doubt we'll see anything similar implemented.

I am holding out for deconstruction of raid loots in MOD 8+. Have the raid loots decompose into "better" / "special" base ingredients or something. Even though the same lvl of greed/exploit would be possible the immediate reward would only be abstract.

That would be no different than those same people running the raid multiple times and just keeping their own items.

It might allow for ways to use alts to give items to another guy's main for a little quid pro quo action... but I don't have a horrible problem with that either.

Angelus_dead
06-13-2008, 04:18 PM
That would be no different than those same people running the raid multiple times and just keeping their own items.
Not quite, although I wouldn't call it an "exploit". (It's a consequence of the proposed system, which may or may not be desirable)

The people in an organized group would get items faster than if they kept everything for themselves, if they can trust each other and take turns. Suppose four people assign all their items to one player character, and that they run on elite which gives them each a 25% chance of getting a raid loot. On average the assigned character would advance his completion counter by +2 each run instead of +1, and then he'd hit 20 after 10 runs and get his item. Then they move on to next in line and it takes him just 5 more runs to get his 20th.

So after 15 runs, they have two characters with the desired raid loot, which presumably makes completing the following runs easier, since they're better equipped for it.

This is the same as how some Shroud crafting went. There are people who had a tier 3 Green Steel item on only their 3rd run, because they convinced other guild members to pool resources.

Citymorg
06-13-2008, 04:31 PM
I like the idea of being able to do something with raid loot that nobody wants. For the reasons stated above, I suggest Turbine makes Raid Loot equivalent to a Wild-Card Crafting ingredient. You can turn it in to someone the Shroud (like the Skeleton) and have it converted into any ingredient that you want. Yes, people might roll on items to get them as ingredients (but I think it would be obvious if the rogue is rolling on the Cloudburst) and would encourage people to keep the items that they don't want instead of putting it up for a roll for someone else. This would also reward the person who honestly earned the raid loot and not leave them stuck with nothing. I believe that once people have done all the crafting they need to do, these items will still come up for a roll.

bobbryan2
06-13-2008, 05:14 PM
Not quite, although I wouldn't call it an "exploit". (It's a consequence of the proposed system, which may or may not be desirable)

The people in an organized group would get items faster than if they kept everything for themselves, if they can trust each other and take turns. Suppose four people assign all their items to one player character, and that they run on elite which gives them each a 25% chance of getting a raid loot. On average the assigned character would advance his completion counter by +2 each run instead of +1, and then he'd hit 20 after 10 runs and get his item. Then they move on to next in line and it takes him just 5 more runs to get his 20th.

So after 15 runs, they have two characters with the desired raid loot, which presumably makes completing the following runs easier, since they're better equipped for it.

This is the same as how some Shroud crafting went. There are people who had a tier 3 Green Steel item on only their 3rd run, because they convinced other guild members to pool resources.

That can technically already happen. You can run alts you don't care about to get raid loot for the mains.

It's not a new problem that would crop up with the raid system, it's the same old problem that has existed since the very beginning and exacerbated by the recent raid changes.

Kris_P._Letus
06-13-2008, 05:43 PM
That can technically already happen. You can run alts you don't care about to get raid loot for the mains.

.

eh? i dont understand the meaning here? you cant swap out after the raid is done, therefore you cant get your main the loot? unless im missing something?

Angelus_dead
06-13-2008, 05:46 PM
eh? i dont understand the meaning here? you cant swap out after the raid is done, therefore you cant get your main the loot? unless im missing something?
He means that if you can find some players who do not want raid loot on their characters (or all their characters who want raid loot are on timer), you can convince them to bring other characters into the raid with you, and give you anything that drops for them.

Thrudh
06-13-2008, 05:47 PM
One of those interesting ideas in theory that upon reflection, would be absolutely terrible in practice. This would really hurt the current generous nature of PUG raids.

So /NOT signed

Riddikulus
06-13-2008, 05:47 PM
I thought I saw somewhere a dev post saying that we would be able to "disenchant" (WoW term) magic items into ingredients for later crafting. It might have been buried in that last dev chat.

bobbryan2
06-13-2008, 06:41 PM
One of those interesting ideas in theory that upon reflection, would be absolutely terrible in practice. This would really hurt the current generous nature of PUG raids.

So /NOT signed

While I agree that it would hurt the activity of sharing raid loot in practice, it would only do that by making useless raid loot useful again.

You wouldn't say that allowing the vicious backlash component to be blocked by deathward would hurt generosity. It might be true that less people would willingly give good vicious weapons away suddenly, but it's only because they made vicious something that people now wanted.

All in all... the effect you're describing would be a side-effect of something that is good for everyone.

Hendrik
06-13-2008, 07:08 PM
I thought I saw somewhere a dev post saying that we would be able to "disenchant" (WoW term) magic items into ingredients for later crafting. It might have been buried in that last dev chat.

But that would be non-raid items.

While MT has a good idea and his heart is in the right place, I think this might put an end to or we would see a decline in the generosity of others.

GlassCannon
06-13-2008, 09:40 PM
Great idea if we were all Socialist.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of greedy psychopaths in this game, and in the world.

This greedy and psychotic behavior is the only reason this idea should not be implemented.


There are 3 solutions to this problem: Ban the greedy ones permanently(yeah right), Keep things as they are(Probably going to happen), Kill the Capitalist idealism through rather drastic means outside DDO(i.e. massive upheaval and societal reconstruction in a sane and rational format, one that does not have a rich or poor, but all are born equal and maintained as equal until death, or put to death for being lazy)... Let's just use Option 2 and Leave Things As They Are

MysticTheurge
06-14-2008, 12:48 AM
If there was an item flag that kept track of the person who the raid item originally spawned for then that would defeat the "well, I only want the raid item to increment my counter" issues.

The "greedy" aspect of the system is one I hadn't really considered, but MrCow seems to have a decent "solution" to this problem.

What if this system only worked for the person who first pulled the item. That is, you can't roll on items for the sole purposes of turning it in, because it won't actually work that way for you. You can only turn the items in, if they dropped for you in the first place.

It would at least reduce the "greedy" issue to people who won't let others roll on items because they selfishly want to turn in good items they don't need (but someone else might) in for a chance at the thing that they do. It's still there, but it's significantly less prevalent (only when greedy people get the items, as opposed to any time there are greedy people in the group). And, overall, if you ascribe to a "your loot is your loot" philosophy, then the "greediness" is a non-issue. If they want to let people roll (or they want to give the item away) they can, but they don't have to.

It's not a perfect system, of course, but as bobbyryan2 points out, anything you do that makes "useless" items worthwhile is going to have this effect to one degree or another.

Lithic
06-14-2008, 12:55 AM
It's not a perfect system, of course, but as bobbyryan2 points out, anything you do that makes "useless" items worthwhile is going to have this effect to one degree or another.

I for one would much rather stay with the system we have, where items are generously passed to strangers and guilds invite strangers to their runs. The more I think of it, the less I like the idea of making non-usefull loot into something to be desired.

Angelus_dead
06-14-2008, 09:21 AM
I was thinking today about those scenarios where you get a raid loot item and there's just no one in the group who wants that item. It's always been pretty disappointing that there's just nothing that can be done with those items.
You know what else is disappointing? Finishing the raid and getting no item. That didn't used to happen, but a new raid loot system was created to add that possibility.

In essence there are two ways the raid loot drop can disappoint the players:
1. No named item drops
2. The named item isn't something anyone wants.

Those two events have almost the same outcome in terms of gameplay, because they both amount to "I didn't get a good item like I hoped", although #2 is slightly more fun because it allows one player to take the item and screw around with it some before selling it for plat.

So you see that raid loot has always had a "Disappointment percentage chance" based on the likelihood that a generated item is desirous or not. The "item desirability" probability varies from raid to raid, because some have only a few good items while others have more. (Indeed, each raid seems to have had some items added just to dilute the loot and raise the disappointment chance, like Ruby-Encrusted Gauntlets and Nullcloth Gown).

In addition, as the level cap goes up and other sources of items are added, the desirability rate of raid loot goes down as the rewards are obsoleted by gear from other sources. For example, the Titan's Battle Coin was originally of low desirability, but when module 4 added the Mk2 Bloodstone trinket sitting out in an easily-accessible desert chest, the Coin's worth was destroyed. At this point there are 3 desired VON items (sword, boots, armor) and 2 desired Titan items (ring and gloves).

So anyway, there had already been this disappointment chance built into all raid loot, but then module 5 added the "no drop" probability as a separate variable, which put together makes the disappointment probability much higher. So, if you're looking for a way to reduce the disappointment rate, I'll ask: Why bother trying to make complex and problematic systems to allow players to salvage partial value from items they don't want, when you could instead fix it much more simply by increasing (or stabilizing) the overall drop rate?



PS. Maybe someone will ask what it means to "stabilize" the drop rate, so I'll quickly explain it here. The current system is usually a 16&#37; chance per-player chance of raid loot (when on normal mode). That probability is rolled separately for each player, which means a group of 6 will usually get 1 loot, but frequently get 0 loots, and on lucky rare occasions they may get 6 loots. Instead of independent rolls, the net probability could be added up to determine the total number of loots, and then they are randomly assigned to different players.

That way if there are 3 players, you have a 16+16+16=50% chance of loot, so if a 1d100 roll is <= 50, one item is generated and assigned to a randomly chosen player. With 6 players it's a 100% chance, so you'd always get exactly 1 item. With 7 players it's a 116% chance, so you always get 1 item and have a 16% chance of 2 items. 9 Players would mean a 50% chance of 1 or 50% of 2. And 12 players would come out to a 200% chance, meaning exactly 2 items are guaranteed.

MysticTheurge
06-14-2008, 09:33 AM
Why bother trying to make complex and problematic systems to allow players to salvage partial value from items they don't want, when you could instead fix it much more simply by increasing (or stabilizing) the overall drop rate?

That's a good question. For me, psychologically, the "items dropped but no one wants them" situation is actually more disappointing than the "no items dropped" problem. The former is a "aw so close" situation and the latter is a "ah well, them's the breaks" situation.

That said, I'm not actually against increasing the drop rate of raid loot, but it doesn't actually solve either of these problems, it just makes them a bit less frequent. "Stabilizing" though (assuming you mean some sort of raid loot minimums) has other issues that have been debated at length across the boards, and it also doesn't actually solve the problem entirely (since your guaranteed items are still just as likely to end up being something no one wants).

And I suppose my suggestion doesn't entirely solve the problem either since, as you point out, there's still a chance that no items will drop. Though, for me, that's less a problem and more just part of how the system works (though, I suppose you could, and did, argue the same thing about "useless items").

I suppose you could combine these two somehow to solve both problems, but I suppose there are fairly strong arguments against doing either one.

Borror0
06-14-2008, 09:41 AM
That's a good question. For me, psychologically, the "items dropped but no one wants them" situation is actually more disappointing than the "no items dropped" problem. The former is a "aw so close" situation and the latter is a "ah well, them's the breaks" situation.

I hear a lot more "**** no loot", than complaints about poor loot.

In one case, it's "We did this for nothing... now, got to wait 3 days". In the other, it's "Bah, who wants the armor?"

Angelus_dead
06-14-2008, 11:44 AM
I hear a lot more "**** no loot", than complaints about poor loot.
Yes, for two reasons.

1. Proximity. To get a "keeper" raid item requires winning two rolls- first to get any raid item, second to get the item you want. If you see any item it already means you beat the first 1/6th roll, so it feels like you were close to getting a keeper.

2. Agency. If you get a raid item you can't use, often there's something you could've done about it. A different party composition could've meant the item went to someone who needed it. "Too bad I'm on my bard and not my ranger, or I could take those goggles". This gives players the feeling that they could've done something about the problem themselves, as opposed to what happens when you get zero raid loots, which means nothing at all you could've done would've made it a profitable run.