Iksar said:disposalist said:Want/Pass is only 'fair' if you're happy with items going to people who will just sell them when you really do need them. If you're going to go that way, then round robin in random order until everyone has one is the only fair way, and even then you'd have to hold back the items until all 6 of you have one, else the first person getting 'the good drop' from the camp can just leave the group.
Greedy people will break the 'fairness' of any system, but that's no reason to not give people the tools to more easily be fair and, so, encourage it.
...
Which sounds more greedy/selfish? "I know all of us put in the time and effort to camp this mob but I can equip that armor now so it should be mine" or "We all put in the time and effort to camp this mob so let's all have a roll and see who wins" ?
Ah I absolutely take that point and I guess I should add what I thought was an obvious point for NBG but of course is not at all.
NBG only trumps others until you get an item. All it does it put you at the front of the queue and even that is by consent of the group. If someone has 4 slots that can be filled by the drops at a camp, they don't get 4 items in a row. If someone steps into a group, they don't suddenly head the list just because they have a legitimate need, and, of course, if the group prefers a simple Want/Pass because that makes more sense for the camp, then they can just select that loot mode.
There has to be an element of random-round-robin for valuable drops, but I still think 1) most groups will be happy to allocate items to people that need them first and 2) an in-game system will stop a *lot* of potential arguments and stresses because it will administer and not make 'mistakes' 3) to make a system fair is actually quite complex. People couldn't possibly keep everything in mind that an in-game system easily could. As suggested above, a good system might apply 'weightings' depending on how long you've been in the group and how many items you've won and, yeah, whether you need the item or not, but an in-brain system could never cope with that stuff.
A loot system would keep track of who has had uncommon drops and who hasn't and the random round-robin order and the results of previous loot votes and how long people have been in the group, etc etc.
Maybe the same Group Management System that would be keeping track of lists of people wanting to join the group/camp and be handling LFG, etc.
There's going to be all sorts of things we used to do on scraps of paper that were a) painful b) prone to error c) prone to abuse.
I am generally a fan of a NBG system to minimize abuse but that works best for bound drops which have minimal value to anyone that cannot actually use them.
I tend to agree with most of Iksar's last post a bit above.
Some people here support free for all - run to a mob and loot. AAArghhhhh that is the worst of all possible systems. Not on fairness issues but because it gives everyone in the group a strong incentive to stop what they are doing as soon as a mob dies and run over to loot it. As soon as they think they can get away with it without the group booting them. And there are fairness issues - generally a DPS can stop attacking and loot for a bit a lot more easily than the tank or healer.
I've given this topic some more thought and come to some interesting conclusions about certain ideas, if nothing else. I don't necessarily have the perfect answer for what the loot system itself should be, but I can bring up a few interesting things to consider:
1. Bound gear vs. re-usable gear
I think this may be throwing a few people off. Looking back, I can see that it was impacting my opinion. Most games nowdays have either 'bind on pick up' or 'bind on equip' gear. (Using WoW as the example, to keep things simple.) In a setup like this, gear loses a good chunk of value the moment it is not given to someone who can equip it (BOP) and it does not sustain value once it has been equipped (BOE). Giving to anyone other than an end user turns a new piece of gear into a few gold or silver that could be obtained from a quest (again WoW, not Pantheon!) or vendor trash.
Because of the widespread popularity of this type of system, and the influence over a long period of time that it has had on many players, it is unsurprising to see that this has effected their thoughts and logic on gear aquisition / distribution. While I do still value the idea of helping someone get the item(s) they need--I'd totally 'join to help get the fuzzy mittens' mentioned in an earlier post--I think it's going to take some adjusting to the idea that those mittens were not automatically useless to me since that player and I are two different roles / classes.
2. Stats vs. treasure
Because of the commonness of BOP / BOE, the prevelance of loot tables, etc. it has become much easier and more expected to go after things for statistical reasons with detailed knowledge of drop rates, best in slot, etc. It's stopped being about hearing a rumor that a cool sword drops from the ogre king. It's become +8 to attack, +3% critical chance and 5% fire damage. This methodical and mathematical way of looking at things has taken away some of the whimsy of playing fantasy games and has stripped much of the treasure / loot that we get of its actual value as an item, rather than just its value as a numeric upgrade. Of course people are always going to want to get items that make them stronger--that just makes sense--but when they see the sword they aren't seeing the weapon, they're seeing a stat upgrade. So the idea of it having market value, when you combine this with my first point, stops even being a consideration.
3. PUGS are like pirates
Now that we've restored loot to its proper place as actual treasure, we need to consider with whom we are splitting the 'booty'. *laughs* With friends or guilds, one can make the arguement that once I help with the fuzzy mittens, another day will be spent helping me get the healing staff of awesome so the group can continue progressing together. PUGS don't work like that, though. They are a loosely formed band of adventurers that you may or may not end up partying with again. Someone could mutiny (ninja loot). You likely aren't worried about whether that guy next to you needs a new peg leg (axe). You are working together, yes, but you are likely all working toward a shared objective because of individual goals. If the item(s) being dropped from the enemies came in a box and was full of gems, gold and an occassional rare, valuable trinket that could be taken back to civilization for further profit, we would not be having ethical debates about the fairness of that. Well, in this game it sounds like loot is going to actually be treasure (as opposed to BOP / BOE) so this logic may hypothically apply.
4. The persuit of loot
Another thing that some of us may be overlooking is how much / how common actual loot--as opposed to gold and vendor junk--will drop. In a game like WoW you tend to get items after clearing each boss in a dungeon, there are usually at least three bosses, and dungeons take half an hour to an hour to complete. That means there are 3-6 potential upgrades for people every 30-60 minutes. Because of the large amount of upgrades, and because those usually come from fairly diverse loot tables, there is always a reasonably compelling reason for people to go in when they are the right level for that content. On the other hand, if we are going to be doing camps (like something from FFXI, for eg., since I did not play EQ1) and getting 'loot' could involve camping one key mob or repeat killing a key type of mob in a certain area for several hours to obtain a single, specific drop, the rules change drasticly. BOP / BOE loot would not work in a situation like this--especially not for a PUG--because the amount of time put in vs. the amount of loot brought would not measure up if someone can only equip that item for 2 levels and then throw it in the garbage. The fact that loot retains value ecnomically, even once it has lots its value to a player stastically, is part of the justification for the challenge that was present in getting it.
Further, since this is a group based game and the only legit way to get stuff like this from the creatures will be with a group, and groups seem to require a traditional trinity setup (plus CC, even!) we're going to be in trouble if we suddenly have multiple people going "I don't want to hunt mob X for drop Y. It offers nothing to me and you're not wasting 4 hours of my time!" ... Again, you can likely get past this issue with friends or a guild that has developed trust and that works as a team... But those can take time to develop and you're still going to need to progress your character while you sort that out. Hence, PUGs. Since some roles in a party are less flexible than others (tanks and healers tend to be harder to find in most MMOs) you're going to have a lot more trouble getting an average group off the ground if there is not proper incentive.
***
Anyway, just a few more things that came to me last night / this morning. I'm really enjoying reading about all of the various takes people have on the loot system and the creative suggestions I've seen about ways it could be implemented.
Some interesting points Katryn. One thing you pointed out is that the in-game loot rules don't really matter with a group of friends or guildies, so I think the amount times people PUG as opposed to group with friends will affect which loot system(s) the community asks for. I wonder if this discussion could be pointless if the game's system for keeping people together after their first play session is successful. If it is, then most people will be playing with friends or people they want to stay friendly with. If the friend finding system is REALLY successful, then I think it could be the go-to suggestion for people that are mad about being screwed by a ninja looter.
I really like the EQ2 looting options of Leader Only Looting, where only the group/raid leader could open a corpse and see the loot. They were then given a drop down box of all group/raid members and could assign the loot or choose to loot the item themselves. Or, need, greed, decline where one group member can open the corpse and the whole group within a range gets a popup asking what they want to do with the item. I do like the idea of need only being an option if the character can actually equip the item.
As a healer/support class in EQ1, I almost never got loot in PUGs because I was too busy medding. If there had been a NBG popup whenever someone else opened a corpse, I would have gotten more loot.
Group leader can set the group looting options.
options being free for all, need before greed and leader assigned loot.
an option to auto split coin.
after that I think it’s up to the players to be responsible for the way they need, greed or assign.
Personally, I always liked the idea of a group having the ability to lock an encounter so the treasure doesn’t get ninja looted.
Ninja looting from players outside the group kinda belongs in pvp in my opinion... if you take my loot then I kill you and take it back.
The advanced looting that was put into eq1 is perfect fine. It uses a nbg system determined by the player for every item that drops. It also allows players to auto pass on items and auto greed on items which saves a lot of time once you determine what items you want and do not.
As was said before. The group and group leader determine the loot rules and you either like it or not. If people are constantly using using rules that the community doesn't like, their name will get out and people won't group with them.
Porygon said:The advanced looting that was put into eq1 is perfect fine. It uses a nbg system determined by the player for every item that drops.
EQ1's advanced looting system was an abominable failure and a disaster of epic proportions. It was total garbage. The *ONLY* useful thing it did was prevent you from accidentally looting no-drop items that you could not use.
People honestly, and infuriatingly, don't understand that there is no such thing as NBG. When you declare NBG, you are imposing *YOUR* values on to another human player.
If I am a wizard and playing with a cleric and warrior and a valuable rare sword drops, the warrior does *NOT* automatically get it.
Instead of the warrior getting a sword worth 5K, I want it, so I can sell it and get a robe worth 5K. The cleric wants to trade it for 5K worth of tradeskill mats.
You cannot decide what *I* as a player value and what is important to me.
If the sword is valued at 10K, the only fair thing is to sell it and split the proceeds evenly. If the warrior wants it, he can pony up the difference and buy it himself saving 1/3 the cost.
I believe 99% of the population does not understand basic economics and finances.
@fazool - If your neice finds 10 dollars on the ground, would you suggest that you rock paper scissors for it, because you can both use it? Maybe split it 50/50? If you have a good relationship with someone, then it is a trust and friendship building exercise to give more than you receive and accept more than you give. If people are friendly and wish to make friends, this can be useful to that end and is also personally rewarding. Good economic decisions should not guide all group looting choices.
That said, I don't like NBG in situations where loot is the goal and the group is composed of strangers. I would take the same stance as you in the majority of cases. However, don't fool yourself into believing that everyone who doesn't agree with your logic is just stupid.
I think fazool means looting in general, grouping with guildmates and friends/family is a different story just like your example of someone's niece finding money on the floor, pretty sure any uncle or aunt won't fight their niece over $10 unless they're some kind of drug addict, in which case, I wouldn't recommend the niece near that aunt/uncle in the first place.
Anyway like fazool said, generally speaking, there is no such thing as NBG, it really can't get any more simple than that. I, along with many others have already provided many examples and reasoning for this.
Regarding NBG, the question becomes why does any specific player need it? Being able to equip it because it's an upgrade is not really a good reason TBH, a tradeable item giving someone a 10% stats increase vs someone who can't use it, but can sell it and use that money for a +100% upgrade really tells me the 2nd player needed it more if we're getting into the technicalities of NBG. Digging even deeper into NBG, I've played MMORPGs where warriors want a cloth piece because it gives an oddly large amount of strength...so does the warrior get it so he can do more DPS, or does the caster get it so he's not always encumbered? Another example is there's a party of 5 plate wearers and 1 leather wearer, lets just say 5 leather pieces dropped, does everything go to the leather wearer just because he's the only leather wearer and they're all upgrades? The fair way is to roll for the loot, if you want to make a friend or just be nice, you can sell it to the leather guy for cheap or give it for free. Enforcing NBG sounds more like greed to me because we've all spent X hours doing our part in the party, why does anyone specifically get priority over the loot?
The bottom line is about what is considered to be fair, but otherwise do as you like.
I'm slowly changing (well, rather, refining) my views on this. It really is a complex issue.
I accept that "I want it" for most items is pretty much fairest. If there's a magic sword for warriors that drops from a certain monster, they aren't going to get much willing help if the group warriors always get the item because they 'need' it. The group might choose to allow the warrior to take it first if they are going to be staying for another 5 drops, but that 'fair' situation isn't often going to actually happen, not with any half-decent or better loot.
I still believe that there needs to be a Group Management System (GMS) one part of which is the looting rules.
The default system, though, should be one that VR think is fairest and will cause least arguments. I know, though, that they would probably say it's 'best left to the community', but, as we know, the community needs guidance, especially in thorny areas like this.
What I think would be best is a shared dialog that comes up after a group is all out-of-combat and someone loots a corpse. All loot in range appears in the window and everyone can choose Need/Want/Greed/Pass. The default would be Want, meaning, of course, everyone wants loot and it's fair for everyone to want loot (especially when it's saleable).
You could also choose Need which has no more 'rights' than Want, but can be seen by the rest of the group and they may change their choice accordingly. I look at it as someone putting their hand up and saying they can actually use it, can they please have it and hoping others will allow that, but recognising they really don't have to.
You could also choose Greed, which gives up 'rights' to anyone choosing Want/Need. This is for people who really don't care if they get another Orc Shield because their bags are pretty full and they already have 4. They are effectively saying, "sure, I'll take it if no one else really wants it, but I don't really care".
You could also choose Pass, which means "I just don't want it. Not even if no one else wants it. My bags are full and I have 20 of them.
Once everyone's 'vote' is in a short timer runs out giving a little time for the Need/Want situation and the loot is allocated appropriately (with 'dice rolling' as necessary) by the system.
The 'dice rolling' could be as weird and wonderful as you like. It could take account of round-robin allocation, or time in group weightings or whatever, but the important thing is, it's handled and argument and hassle free.
You could automate the looting, or make people go get the items, the important thing is the item can only be looted by whoever the GMS allocated.
>Being able to equip it because it's an upgrade is not really a good reason<
Actually it is a good reason if the item would be vendor trash to anyone else because it is bind-on-acquire.
The dynamics are *totally* different when items have a real cash value to anyone in the group.
I think we clearly need a need system for bind on acquire items. There may not be many of them - we don't know that yet - but they may make up for that by rarity. And the only reason anyone in the group would object would be to be just plain nasty.
fazool said:Porygon said:The advanced looting that was put into eq1 is perfect fine. It uses a nbg system determined by the player for every item that drops.
EQ1's advanced looting system was an abominable failure and a disaster of epic proportions. It was total garbage. The *ONLY* useful thing it did was prevent you from accidentally looting no-drop items that you could not use.
People honestly, and infuriatingly, don't understand that there is no such thing as NBG. When you declare NBG, you are imposing *YOUR* values on to another human player.
If I am a wizard and playing with a cleric and warrior and a valuable rare sword drops, the warrior does *NOT* automatically get it.
Instead of the warrior getting a sword worth 5K, I want it, so I can sell it and get a robe worth 5K. The cleric wants to trade it for 5K worth of tradeskill mats.
You cannot decide what *I* as a player value and what is important to me.
If the sword is valued at 10K, the only fair thing is to sell it and split the proceeds evenly. If the warrior wants it, he can pony up the difference and buy it himself saving 1/3 the cost.
I believe 99% of the population does not understand basic economics and finances.
NBG is definitely a realistic loot system and one that most people are comfortable with. Either way it goes, it's just an option. If you aren't happy with how the traditional NBG rules work, you can just decline to group with people who utilize it. But let's not get things twisted and act like it doesn't work. Your logic of wanting to roll on a sword so you can sell it for something else is something that most people would want to avoid while grouping. Selling the item and splitting the profit is not the only fair option ... there are a ton of people out there who would be happy to let the class who can use the item have dibs on it. I would argue that this is the default method accepted by most groups ... that doesn't mean that you won't find groups who operate with the ruleset you seem to prefer, but I would suggest that something like that be clarified from the onset. If an item drops and it's an upgrade to someone in group, I think it makes sense that they should get that item. I understand that not everybody would agree with that and that's perfectly okay ... but that will be the loot rules that I apply in most of my groups as I have never had an issue with getting people to buy into that philosophy. In my experience, NBG has been the rule for PUGS, not the exception.
I think given my stated preferences earlier in the thread, that we need an arbitrator...ie: the group leader manages what is available..hands it to those that need the upgrade, leftovers to be rolled on by the rest of the group.
If I am aiming at a quest staff..that quest staff drops, and I am the only caster that can use it, I pretty much won't be happy with someone who takes it to sell..to add money to their piggy bank.
Just the same as...if I see something drop that is more useful to one of the members in our group, I usually decline to roll on it, out of consideration for the people I am grouping with....there is no "I" in team. If you show that you can work with others without thinking "me me me" all the time, people will invite you back. And you'll make some friends along the way.
Cana
oneADseven said:...NBG is definitely a realistic loot system and one that most people are comfortable with. ...is something that most people would want to avoid while grouping....
I think you are assuming this is the case. It may be more common, but I don't have data to support that.
By the way - I always let someone take something they can use - I'm not a greedy group-mate. Mine is more about the point of issue.
oneADseven said:...Selling the item and splitting the profit is not the only fair option ... there are a ton of people out there who would be happy to let the class who can use the item have dibs on it.
THis is my point.
Let me reiterate - I am the guy who let's the other people take the item and am happy about it.
But your statement about fairness is quite inaccurate. The only "fair" thing is for everyone to get equal rewards. It has nothing to do with happiness of one or all players. NBG may be the "happiest" because 5 of 6 players are happy, but that doesn't make it "fair".
If this is a social game and there are repercussions for good and bad players we need to do away with this auto loot system and let the community grow and be responsible for working loot out within a group. Sure some knob steals something here and there, then you dont group with them again but primarily the majority are good. The social aspect of all working together to gather loot and share it around ends up uniting us against a common douche or by creating a name for yourself locally as being a kind or generous person giving to the needy goes a long way to create a better community for better no mtter what the outcome. Excluding the need for a discussion in a group as each item of value drops creates a group dynamic where it feels like everyone is keeping at arms length of each other re loot, an occasional grats if they win and and a woohoo if you win with an automated need / greed.
Winning and losing of a player run system always sparked comradery and kinship and I just dont find that same rally behind the loser to strive for getting that item again mentality hardly exists anymore with an auto generating system.
fazool said:In a "real world" scenario, me and a group of adventurers would kill a monster, scrounge around see it's loot and decide what to do with it.
It should be unrestricted, uncontrolled, open world - that's th emost "realistic" and therefore immersive
Exactly, let it be living and breathing, take the good with the bad... life is not about everything being perfectly fair and automated, love the good people, despise the bad people and actually stand for and be part of somthing!
fazool said:oneADseven said:...NBG is definitely a realistic loot system and one that most people are comfortable with. ...is something that most people would want to avoid while grouping....
I think you are assuming this is the case. It may be more common, but I don't have data to support that.
By the way - I always let someone take something they can use - I'm not a greedy group-mate. Mine is more about the point of issue.
oneADseven said:...Selling the item and splitting the profit is not the only fair option ... there are a ton of people out there who would be happy to let the class who can use the item have dibs on it.
THis is my point.
Let me reiterate - I am the guy who let's the other people take the item and am happy about it.
But your statement about fairness is quite inaccurate. The only "fair" thing is for everyone to get equal rewards. It has nothing to do with happiness of one or all players. NBG may be the "happiest" because 5 of 6 players are happy, but that doesn't make it "fair".
We'll have to disagree on the definition of fair, I guess. According to Merriam Webster, it's defined as "In accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate." Fair isn't necessarily the same thing as "mathematically even" which is what you're talking about. I don't know how technical you want to go with this but I'm confident that NBG is widely accepted as a "fair" system.
Grimix said: if a group decidee to go after a named that only drops loot for a warrior, is the warrior honestly entitled to the loot just because he's the warrior when 5 other people put just as much effort in downing the mob? I honestly think it's best to let the group sort out who gets what. Say no to NBG!
I am a bit unsure about your position in this situation here, but i'm going to go ahead and say.. No of course the warrior isnt automatically and blindly entitled if thats what you mean but he would surely be consulted 1st right? And given the weapon if he can use it and it is an upgrade?
If that wasnt the outcome i'd be arguing for it to be that way on his behalf. After that go at it and roll away for the opportunity to win or see if people in the group are happy to give it to the dude who is struggling badly with equipment. Hopefully i would have group mates who want to see loot go to the people who need it first.
NBG greatly facilitates cheating the system/screwing over groups by claiming need on things you don't need or already have, it also leads to far more exlusionary groups. In an ideal world everyone would be chummy with everyone else and pass the reward for their time and efforts camping things off to others, but the world is not full of such people. For pick up/random groups it is mostly a zero sum situation where one random person is going to come out ahead at the expense of everyone else.
Give this a shot: http://ncase.me/trust/
