Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Ducem

Who gets to loot?

Recommended Posts

Your statement had been poorly placed.  It should have been in a separate post.  It made it seem like you were trying to make me look bad.

 

just pointing out that I never actually called you a carebear.. unlike many other forums.. accusing people of slander on these forums can actually get them banned.

 

I tend to take a game, however it is designed, and play it.  I really can't stand people who try and change a game (especially after release!).  I will be happy to play this game regardless of looting rules and have no advocacy for any way over another.

 

So you take the "I have no opinion on this subject even though I started a thread about it" stance... path of least resistance.. I like it. Spoken like a true... ahh.. nevermind.

Edited by thenebrosity

OQa1xvz.png?1

lol ok.. I wonder if I'll still be able to steal directly from people's inventories.. hrmmm

;)Twitch - Twitter

RIP DOC GONZO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you take the "I have no opinion on this subject even though I started a thread about it" stance... path of least resistance.. I like it. Spoken like a true... ahh.. nevermind.

Spoken like someone who rises to the challenge of whatever situation is thrown at him... yes that is me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spoken like someone who rises to the challenge of whatever situation is thrown at him... yes that is me.

Respectable response. gnight <3


OQa1xvz.png?1

lol ok.. I wonder if I'll still be able to steal directly from people's inventories.. hrmmm

;)Twitch - Twitter

RIP DOC GONZO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The system should not protect you from the consequences of playing with people you don't know or from playing with people who are likely to steal from you. If you decide to play with people who would do that then it's your own damn fault. If you are on a large battlefield where people are expecting to kill and be killed the chances of you actually looting something of value is very low. Forcing everyone into a "forced" loot distribution system because a random invisible person is out there looting mana and hp pots seems unreasonable and anyone advocating such a system, is in-fact, a carebear.

 

Putting aside the carebear moniker for a moment: FFA rules are, perhaps surprisingly, a good thing to promote a healthy community.

 

 

Perhaps paradoxically, as FFA rules leave the door open for ninjalooters and the likes, it also promotes player accountability.

Why? Because it looks like we will be limited in how many characters (looks to be only a single one), we can take into a single campaign: Reputation matters

 

The best way to make sure you at least get -some- loot in a FFA environment, is -TALKING- to others: Get an organised group, discuss who needs what from whatever activity you plan to do and distribute the loot afterwards. 

 

 

Some players may decide to speed up their accumulation of goods trough ninjalooting, but this will also mean they will possibly be blackballed in no time if there where any agreements in place before the fight started in the case of organised groups. 

There are countless examples of this working in other established games, the result has consistently been that the ninjalooter in question was forced to reroll or change servers in the end, as nobody would bring that player anywhere anymore, rendering the game unplayable for him. 

 

Conversely, a regulated loot-system brings the danger of removing player accountability and promoting asshattery: All because the consequences of your actions are less risky.   

Of this we can see examples in established MMO's as well: Removing consequences leads to a real toxic community. 

 

 

 

On the other hand, if you plainly get robbed? 

Meh, that just means you probably had inadequate plans for security in place, rob that player blind yourself the next time you see him. 

 

 

 

Such an intense discussion for a pre alpha game.

 

Yup, grand isn't it? Being passionate about something that isn't even more then a vision yet.

Personally, I've been waiting for this for a long time. :) 


~Strategy is the art of making use of time and space.
I'm less concerned about the latter than the former: Space we can recover, lost time never.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putting aside the carebear moniker for a moment: FFA rules are, perhaps surprisingly, a good thing to promote a healthy community.

 

 

Perhaps paradoxically, as FFA rules leave the door open for ninjalooters and the likes, it also promotes player accountability.

Why? Because it looks like we will be limited in how many characters (looks to be only a single one), we can take into a single campaign: Reputation matters

 

The best way to make sure you at least get -some- loot in a FFA environment, is -TALKING- to others: Get an organised group, discuss who needs what from whatever activity you plan to do and distribute the loot afterwards. 

 

 

Some players may decide to speed up their accumulation of goods trough ninjalooting, but this will also mean they will possibly be blackballed in no time if there where any agreements in place before the fight started in the case of organised groups. 

There are countless examples of this working in other established games, the result has consistently been that the ninjalooter in question was forced to reroll or change servers in the end, as nobody would bring that player anywhere anymore, rendering the game unplayable for him. 

 

Conversely, a regulated loot-system brings the danger of removing player accountability and promoting asshattery: All because the consequences of your actions are less risky.   

Of this we can see examples in established MMO's as well: Removing consequences leads to a real toxic community. 

 

 

 

On the other hand, if you plainly get robbed? 

Meh, that just means you probably had inadequate plans for security in place, rob that player blind yourself the next time you see him. 

 

 

 

 

Yup, grand isn't it? Being passionate about something that isn't even more then a vision yet.

Personally, I've been waiting for this for a long time. :)

 

Its almost like a series of simple game mechanics combine into increasingly complicated social and mechanical situations that generate a special type of in game experience!  :o


nAd1VPD.png

"Agelmar is King of the Hypocrites and Ruler of the Kingdom of Hypocrytia"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putting aside the carebear moniker for a moment: FFA rules are, perhaps surprisingly, a good thing to promote a healthy community.

 

 

Perhaps paradoxically, as FFA rules leave the door open for ninjalooters and the likes, it also promotes player accountability.

Why? Because it looks like we will be limited in how many characters (looks to be only a single one), we can take into a single campaign: Reputation matters

 

The best way to make sure you at least get -some- loot in a FFA environment, is -TALKING- to others: Get an organised group, discuss who needs what from whatever activity you plan to do and distribute the loot afterwards. 

 

 

Some players may decide to speed up their accumulation of goods trough ninjalooting, but this will also mean they will possibly be blackballed in no time if there where any agreements in place before the fight started in the case of organised groups. 

There are countless examples of this working in other established games, the result has consistently been that the ninjalooter in question was forced to reroll or change servers in the end, as nobody would bring that player anywhere anymore, rendering the game unplayable for him. 

 

Conversely, a regulated loot-system brings the danger of removing player accountability and promoting asshattery: All because the consequences of your actions are less risky.   

Of this we can see examples in established MMO's as well: Removing consequences leads to a real toxic community. 

 

 

 

On the other hand, if you plainly get robbed? 

Meh, that just means you probably had inadequate plans for security in place, rob that player blind yourself the next time you see him. 

 

 

 

 

Yup, grand isn't it? Being passionate about something that isn't even more then a vision yet.

Personally, I've been waiting for this for a long time. :)

Problem is pure FFA in a large-scale combat is much different than 5 people in a dungeon.  Unless there is an area message that says "Bob just looted a sword off Neil" there is zero accountability.  How are you going to know who out of the 50 people on your side is just looting bodies rather than participating in the fight. Going to call out anyone that grabs stuff? What if said person participates in 99% of the fight and you just happen to catch him at that 1%?

 

Since there is no real in-combat healing, you can assume there is going to be a lot of death-runs.  Is the tank that died while holding the line for the rest of your band any less entitled to loot?  Most should say no, but if he sacrificed himself and someone else grabbed his loot, because in FFA it is not actually his loot, is the grabber accountable for not even knowing who it belonged to?

 

My suggestion a few pages ago still holds in my mind.  Group loot based on "participation" (defined by devs in whatever combo of damage done, damage taken, and support) get loot rights for the first 30-60 sec, then it goes to FFA.  Reason for this is participation is mechanically supported, but expediency for looting has to be considered to keep things flowing. 

 

Not even sure how mechanically regulated loot bring asshattery?  That makes no sense unless it is a single tag-mob/player based system rather than participation.

Edited by Savevsdeathmagic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't watch the video link I added above did you? They say they want this in game and would be surprised if it wasn't: 

I watched it. I am hoping they put it in.  It was a lot of fun in ultima and shadow bane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is pure FFA in a large-scale combat is much different than 5 people in a dungeon.  Unless there is an area message that says "Bob just looted a sword off Neil" there is zero accountability.  How are you going to know who out of the 50 people on your side is just looting bodies rather than participating in the fight. Going to call out anyone that grabs stuff? What if said person participates in 99% of the fight and you just happen to catch him at that 1%?

 

Since there is no real in-combat healing, you can assume there is going to be a lot of death-runs.  Is the tank that died while holding the line for the rest of your band any less entitled to loot?  Most should say no, but if he sacrificed himself and someone else grabbed his loot, because in FFA it is not actually his loot, is the grabber accountable for not even knowing who it belonged to?

 

My suggestion a few pages ago still holds in my mind.  Group loot based on "participation" (defined by devs in whatever combo of damage done, damage taken, and support) get loot rights for the first 30-60 sec, then it goes to FFA.  Reason for this is participation is mechanically supported, but expediency for looting has to be considered to keep things flowing. 

 

Not even sure how mechanically regulated loot bring asshattery?  That makes no sense unless it is a single tag-mob/player based system rather than participation.

 

 

Instead of relying on the developers to set rules to define who gets loot... have better friends?  Every situation you outlined above should happen in game, will happen in game, and should be handled by the players and not game mechanics.


nAd1VPD.png

"Agelmar is King of the Hypocrites and Ruler of the Kingdom of Hypocrytia"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First and foremost, my apologies, I crashed into this topic without making clear I'm open to a variety of lootrules, I'm not dismissing any other options outright. 

The FFA ruleset just appeals to me most as it stands. 

 

 

Problem is pure FFA in a large-scale combat is much different than 5 people in a dungeon.  Unless there is an area message that says "Bob just looted a sword off Neil" there is zero accountability. 

 

The old eyeball 1.0 will do: It's a risk-v-reward situation: A person going over dead bodies in the middle of a fight is going to stick out like a sore thumb. 

They might get away with it, maybe even a decent amount of time. But he or she is almost guaranteed to get called out on it at one point in such a scenario. 

 

Other then that, I imagine there could be combat logs to show who did what, including looting. 

 

 

 

How are you going to know who out of the 50 people on your side is just looting bodies rather than participating in the fight. Going to call out anyone that grabs stuff? What if said person participates in 99% of the fight and you just happen to catch him at that 1%?

 

Since there is no real in-combat healing, you can assume there is going to be a lot of death-runs.  Is the tank that died while holding the line for the rest of your band any less entitled to loot?  Most should say no, but if he sacrificed himself and someone else grabbed his loot, because in FFA it is not actually his loot, is the grabber accountable for not even knowing who it belonged to?

 

My suggestion a few pages ago still holds in my mind.  Group loot based on "participation" (defined by devs in whatever combo of damage done, damage taken, and support) get loot rights for the first 30-60 sec, then it goes to FFA.  Reason for this is participation is mechanically supported, but expediency for looting has to be considered to keep things flowing. 

 

Not even sure how mechanically regulated loot bring asshattery?  That makes no sense unless it is a single tag-mob/player based system rather than participation.

 

 

These reasons are exactly why I personally feel FFA is a more fair system.

 

What about the support guy? The scout? The commander?

What about the guys who do not actually fight, but act as commanders directing the battle? Rearguards looking out for enemy reinforcements, preventing them coming in? Or the reserves you left at your base of operations, coming in too late to do any real damage? 

What about the guy who was willing to run in first to lead the charge, only to get killed instantly and for whatever reason is unable to return to the fight and do his share of the damage?

 

These are all people whose role may have been vital to securing your victory, but there is no way to measure or register this.

No system in the world will be able to tell if they deserve any loot or not. While they may or may not  have been very valuable to the group. 

"Participation" in an open world PvP environment is highly subjective and very hard to measure fairly. 

 

 

With a FFA system, you allow any player to take what they can and leaves the option open to pool your spoils after a battle and divide as needed. 

Since CF will be heavily reliant on players working together, I imagine you will want to give your groupmates the loot they need in order for them to help you reach a common objective.

The entire thing hinges on players communicating and agreeing on what to expect to get out of it when fighting battles on behalf of one faction or the other. 

 

 

Aside from this, I picture this will lead to a perhaps interesting metagame: Do we trust everybody to pool their loot fairly? This leaves options open for saboteurs to mess with groups; rooting this people out could be a real mechanic and part of the game. 

In turn, this allows people to form real bonds: Over time there will be people you will trust with your most valuable items, others perhaps not so much.

This might tie in to the political game. 

 

 

Battlefield scavengers might be an avenue for a profitable career-path: These players might be loathed and live on the periphery of the playerbase in any given campaignworld. While they might be cast out by the mainstream players, there is possibly much to be gained from purely waiting for battles to be over and picking up the pieces.  

At the same time, this opens up another factor to account for when planning battles: Do you plan for scavengers who try and pick clean your hard earned-poils? Do you have a plan in place to deal with them?

I could see mercenary guilds dedicated to securing battlefields and keeping scavengers at bay.

 

 

In my personal opinion, a FFA system is a organic way to let players sort out for themselves what is a fair deal when dividing loot. 

The player hoarding all loot for himself will likely find himself an outcast sooner rather then later: Players will get wise and create a system where loot is awarded or bartered for based on merit decided by the players themselves. 

 

To me, that brings a world of interesting opportunities.

 

 

As always though,

 

Just my 2c.  

Edited by Heriot

~Strategy is the art of making use of time and space.
I'm less concerned about the latter than the former: Space we can recover, lost time never.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First and foremost, my apologies, I crashed into this topic without making clear I'm open to a variety of lootrules, I'm not dismissing any other options outright. 

The FFA ruleset just appeals to me most as it stands. 

 

 

 

The old eyeball 1.0 will do: It's a risk-v-reward situation: A person going over dead bodies in the middle of a fight is going to stick out like a sore thumb. 

They might get away with it, maybe even a decent amount of time. But he or she is almost guaranteed to get called out on it at one point in such a scenario. 

 

Other then that, I imagine there could be combat logs to show who did what, including looting. 

 

 

 
 

 

These reasons are exactly why I personally feel FFA is a more fair system.

 

What about the support guy? The scout? The commander?

What about the guys who do not actually fight, but act as commanders directing the battle? Rearguards looking out for enemy reinforcements, preventing them coming in? Or the reserves you left at your base of operations, coming in too late to do any real damage? 

What about the guy who was willing to run in first to lead the charge, only to get killed instantly and for whatever reason is unable to return to the fight and do his share of the damage?

 

These are all people whose role may have been vital to securing your victory, but there is no way to measure or register this.

No system in the world will be able to tell if they deserve any loot or not. While they may or may not  have been very valuable to the group. 

"Participation" in an open world PvP environment is highly subjective and very hard to measure fairly. 

 

 

With a FFA system, you allow any player to take what they can and leaves the option open to pool your spoils after a battle and divide as needed. 

Since CF will be heavily reliant on players working together, I imagine you will want to give your groupmates the loot they need in order for them to help you reach a common objective.

The entire thing hinges on players communicating and agreeing on what to expect to get out of it when fighting battles on behalf of one faction or the other. 

 

 

Aside from this, I picture this will lead to a perhaps interesting metagame: Do we trust everybody to pool their loot fairly? This leaves options open for saboteurs to mess with groups; rooting this people out could be a real mechanic and part of the game. 

In turn, this allows people to form real bonds: Over time there will be people you will trust with your most valuable items, others perhaps not so much.

This might tie in to the political game. 

 

 

Battlefield scavengers might be an avenue for a profitable career-path: These players might be loathed and live on the periphery of the playerbase in any given campaignworld. While they might be cast out by the mainstream players, there is possibly much to be gained from purely waiting for battles to be over and picking up the pieces.  

At the same time, this opens up another factor to account for when planning battles: Do you plan for scavengers who try and pick clean your hard earned-poils? Do you have a plan in place to deal with them?

I could see mercenary guilds dedicated to securing battlefields and keeping scavengers at bay.

 

 

In my personal opinion, a FFA system is a organic way to let players sort out for themselves what is a fair deal when dividing loot. 

The player hoarding all loot for himself will likely find himself an outcast sooner rather then later: Players will get wise and create a system where loot is awarded or bartered for based on merit decided by the players themselves. 

 

To me, that brings a world of interesting opportunities.

 

 

As always though,

 

Just my 2c.  

Sorry, but your whole idea is predicated on a fact that everyone on "your side" will be acting as any sort of cohesive after-party where we all sit around and swap loots in a perfectly altruistic way.  The scout, commander and the especially the support guy are not going to be solo and in a participation group loot, are also going to benefit (please re-read the paragraph you include din your quote).

 

The ol' eyeball 1.0?  LOL!  So you will play loot-police while the battle presses from one hill and pushes into the keep?  How can you possibly even manage "saboteurs" unless you know what is exactly what it is every picked up?  Bob grabs three swords.  One goes in his embargo, one he hands to a friend who was not even there, and 1 he goes Hey guys, found this!  Just doing my part for the team! wink-wink.

 

Mercenary teams keeping scavengers at bay?  Mercs are for the front lines simply because they are not trust-able (and the dead cost nothing, hehe)

 

You put forth an interesting philosophical debate on self-governing which leaves so many holes it competes for Swiss cheese.  Here is the #1 problem you cannot get over:  You cannot see what is in another person's bags.  Self-governing means that people can be audited, inspected, and have more than their word to account to.  Heck, you cannot even say right now if there is even a kneel-down-to-loot animation to see if someone is picking something up!

Edited by Savevsdeathmagic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SB had the perfect system Id think. Anyone could loot anything. If youre in the group and loot, there was a group message X player picked up Y item. And then they can decide within the group whether to split items by trading. If theres a ninja looter not in the group, you realize that pretty fast when corpses are always empty, and then you deal with that problem. If the group loooted a 40 int and whoever grabbed it didnt want to abide by results of the /random roll, you could kill them.

 

In the dregs, no problem. In the more carebear campaign worlds, thats where you can run into trouble. If members of a faction cannot attack eachother then there would be no effective recourse against someone cheating on loot.

 

Whether that situation is handled by artificially imposed rules, or by allowing friendly fire even on 3 faction campaigns will tell us alot about what direction ACE is taking us.


PFq3vWQ.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just giving my thoughts here mate, I'm not claiming I have the definitive solutions for everything.

I'll gladly humour you with a response though: 

 

 

Sorry, but your whole idea is predicated on a fact that everyone on "your side" will be acting as any sort of cohesive after-party where we all sit around and swap loots in a perfectly altruistic way.  The scout, commander and the especially the support guy are not going to be solo and in a participation group loot, are also going to benefit (please re-read the paragraph you include din your quote).

 

Naturally, but your suggestion takes away control from the players. This was my point, I'm sorry if I did not make that clear. 

I was going on the assumption that when we loot (player) corpses, there is no way to assign loot (the corpse inventory) fairly trough an automated system.

This might work if even players had loot-tables, but I'm almost 99% sure this won't be the case. 

 

Who decides who gets his chickens? His metal? His boots? 

Need or greed? Rolls? Random number generators? 

Or do you really suggest using duplicate loot? Where everybody gets his whole inventory? Inflation is a horrible idea in a player-driven economy. 

 

Also, as I mentioned in my post: If you have a decent group going, it's likely you will want your fellow players to be equipped as best as possible, if only because they help you to get where you need to go.

It won't be fair always, but I feel that's best left up to the players to sort out, not a number generator.  

 

 

The ol' eyeball 1.0?  LOL!  So you will play loot-police while the battle presses from one hill and pushes into the keep?  How can you possibly even manage "saboteurs" unless you know what is exactly what it is every picked up?  Bob grabs three swords.  One goes in his embargo, one he hands to a friend who was not even there, and 1 he goes Hey guys, found this!  Just doing my part for the team! wink-wink.

 

Sure, why not? Let him. 

And Bob get's away with it and gets filthy rich. 

Up until he get's caught and gets blacklisted from half the community and will need to scrape together a living on the fringes.

 

That, or reroll.  

 

 

As for the loot-police: That might be where your mercenaries come in: 

 

Mercenary teams keeping scavengers at bay?  Mercs are for the front lines simply because they are not trust-able (and the dead cost nothing, hehe)

 

Mercenaries have a wide range of roles they can fill.

If they are not to be trusted: Do you trust them to hold the front line? What if they break and run when the going gets tough?

Or what if the other side pays them more then you do? 

 

 

I imagine Mercs will want a good reputation in order to be hired again: I feel they would make wonderful guards as one example. 

Screwing their employers is a good way for mercenaries to never be hired again. 

 

We might decide to give them a bigger share of the loot then we agreed: Might breed loyalty y'know?

 

 

You put forth an interesting philosophical debate on self-governing which leaves so many holes it competes for Swiss cheese.  Here is the #1 problem you cannot get over:  You cannot see what is in another person's bags.  Self-governing means that people can be audited, inspected, and have more than their word to account to.  Heck, you cannot even say right now if there is even a kneel-down-to-loot animation to see if someone is picking something up!

 

Of course it leaves room for error, uncertainty and fraud, that's the whole point!

Controlling everything, auditing or inspecting all the things removes all margin of error: Where is the fun in that I'd argue? 

 

I want to worry if that guild-mate screws us over loot!

I want to investigate if that new hire isn't just a saboteur funneling the resources we won to our enemies!  

I want to be challenged to make plans for what happens after the battle! 

I want to discuss before and after what the needs of my fellow players are and reward them based on what WE feel is fair after seeing them perform. 

I want to have to either be amazing in battle, or have to suck up to my guild leader in order to get the best loot.

I want to have such a vital role, that people will want to give me loot anyway!

 

And so on.  

 

In the end, I want the system to leave room for players to come up with their own ways and solutions to the problem.  

I want to be able to screw up and be screwed and fix those issues myself.

 

 

What I do not want, is systems where me receiving loot is based on percentages, rolls or automated assignment by some obscure algorithm. 

 

 

I'll say again, I'm not sure if this is the best way, but for now, it's what I feel would be the most interesting way to go about it.

 

Just my 2c. 

 

 

 

EDIT

 

Forgot to add:

 

 

 

Sorry, but your whole idea is predicated on a fact that everyone on "your side" will be acting as any sort of cohesive after-party where we all sit around and swap loots in a perfectly altruistic way. 

 

I imagine any sensible group will indeed have a cohesive after-party. 

Counting losses, making plans for a follow-up on your victory or defeat and of course, dividing their spoils.

 

In the real world, we call this a "debriefing".

 

I imagine it'll be useful for any serious faction out here. 

Not sure if it'll be altruistic, but it'll happen I'm sure.  ;)  

Edited by Heriot

~Strategy is the art of making use of time and space.
I'm less concerned about the latter than the former: Space we can recover, lost time never.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

In the end, I want the system to leave room for players to come up with their own ways and solutions to the problem.  

I want to be able to screw up and be screwed and fix those issues myself.

 

 

What I do not want, is systems where me receiving loot is based on percentages, rolls or automated assignment by some obscure algorithm. 

 

 

I'll say again, I'm not sure if this is the best way, but for now, it's what I feel would be the most interesting way to go about it.

 

Just my 2c. 

The only recourse you give is public shaming and propose an anti-system, a lack of dev assisted tools.  If the largest guild on the server is self-sufficient douches, there is zero you can do about it.  There are several out there that shaming=praise in their eyes.  Ever see someone get unjustly temp-banned for being reported by a lot of people willing to screw you?  Happens in about every game I have seen.  That is the kind of mentality games can draw and a self-governing system can do NOTHING about.  Because shame only works if people give a crap.  Otherwise, you best stick to the Dreggs.

 

For the tools, I suggested and will do so again, group loot rules, set by the group lead (group FFA, round robin, need/greed) whatever for the first 30-60sec.  There is nothing wrong with that so long as participation (group total level) is the basis.  Then it goes FFA for the scavengers.

 

Dupe loot is bad.  That equals exponential inflation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only recourse you give is public shaming and propose an anti-system, a lack of dev assisted tools.  If the largest guild on the server is self-sufficient douches, there is zero you can do about it.  There are several out there that shaming=praise in their eyes.  

 

I don't see how a guild where players hoard all the loot for themselves personally, will grow to be the biggest guild.

In the end, these guilds usually ultimately go down due to internal strife or players not working together sufficiently (the "me" mentality). 

Even if I'm wrong and they was to be such a guild: It'll be just another faction you need to compete against.

 

Lose a battle against them, you'll get nothing anyway.

Win against them and they will have no force left standing on the field to screw you with. 

 

 

 

Ever see someone get unjustly temp-banned for being reported by a lot of people willing to screw you?  Happens in about every game I have seen.  That is the kind of mentality games can draw and a self-governing system can do NOTHING about.  Because shame only works if people give a crap.  Otherwise, you best stick to the Dreggs.

 

You make a fair point here and this is something I observed as well. In general terms I agree. 

Though I believe this goes beyond just loot rules and is a deeper issue with any such a community in general.

 

When it comes to CF however, I have good faith we have a real opportunity to foster a unique kind of gaming community.

Perhaps with it's own challenges, but time will have to tell how this will all work out. 

 

 

 

For the tools, I suggested and will do so again, group loot rules, set by the group lead (group FFA, round robin, need/greed) whatever for the first 30-60sec.  There is nothing wrong with that so long as participation (group total level) is the basis.  Then it goes FFA for the scavengers.

 

Dupe loot is bad.  That equals exponential inflation.

 

Not saying loot rules are not a viable solution; The way you propose might indeed be fair.

 

What I personally am arguing for is my opinion that a FFA rule-set brings far more interesting consequences to the game for players to deal with.

The way I see it, this forces players to think, strategise and interact more with their own group and be more mindful of others.

 

Overall I envision FFA rules to promote the emergent gameplay that ACE seems to be going for. 

 

 

As always,

 

Just my 2c. 

 

 

 

Edited by Heriot

~Strategy is the art of making use of time and space.
I'm less concerned about the latter than the former: Space we can recover, lost time never.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not saying loot rules are not a viable solution; The way you propose might indeed be fair.

 

What I personally am arguing for is my opinion that a FFA rule-set brings far more interesting consequences to the game for players to deal with.

The way I see it, this forces players to think, strategise and interact more with their own group and be more mindful of others.

 

Overall I envision FFA rules to promote the emergent gameplay that ACE seems to be going for. 

 

 

As always,

 

Just my 2c. 

 

 

 

 

Just remember "interesting" can also be defined as "Oh God! Oh God! We're all gonna die!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is pure FFA in a large-scale combat is much different than 5 people in a dungeon.  Unless there is an area message that says "Bob just looted a sword off Neil" there is zero accountability.  How are you going to know who out of the 50 people on your side is just looting bodies rather than participating in the fight. Going to call out anyone that grabs stuff? What if said person participates in 99% of the fight and you just happen to catch him at that 1%?

 

 

This guy apparently has never played in a guild of friends where they would give you something they needed just because they liked you as a person. 

Also, unless they go with a full-loot type of campaign, people are not going to be bringing anything worth looting in their inventory outside of buff / mana / hp pots and maybe materials to repair / summon / or control siege weapons.. if you're in a large scale battle who in their right mind would bring a second weapon /set of gear into a battle? Maybe the LotD guys.. but you will hardly ever loot anything worth while in a large battle. 

 

And yes, the rule of thumb in large scale battles it was against the rules to loot while fighting.. why? because if you are looting you are not fighting.. which means that you are a custardin tool and a don't deserve to be in the guild. Everyone was in charge of calling out battle looters.. unless you were a caster or a melee that needed mana or stam pots and said you were gonna try to loot some your ass would get called out immediately and warned. If you continued to do it you were \ kicked from the group and replaced with someone who was more concerned with the fight than with looting.

 

Why should group buffs go to looters when that guy who didn't make it into the group is trying his ass off to kill people. Kick the looter and invite the PvPer. 

 

Man.. I miss SB...

 

Since there is no real in-combat healing, you can assume there is going to be a lot of death-runs.  Is the tank that died while holding the line for the rest of your band any less entitled to loot?  Most should say no, but if he sacrificed himself and someone else grabbed his loot, because in FFA it is not actually his loot, is the grabber accountable for not even knowing who it belonged to?

 

My suggestion a few pages ago still holds in my mind.  Group loot based on "participation" (defined by devs in whatever combo of damage done, damage taken, and support) get loot rights for the first 30-60 sec, then it goes to FFA.  Reason for this is participation is mechanically supported, but expediency for looting has to be considered to keep things flowing. 

 

Not even sure how mechanically regulated loot bring asshattery?  That makes no sense unless it is a single tag-mob/player based system rather than participation.

 

 

This isn't serious right?? If you have a tank or anyone that died or ANYONE who wasn't even at the battle and logged in the next day who needed anything looted at any point you considered them when deciding who get the loot. Of course people who are at the battle / who are online (those buffing and repairing people at your spawn point away from the battle) should get priority if they need the items but everything you are talking about is how well everyone knows eachother and how close you guys are as a guild. Why would you play with anyone who you don't trust to let you roll for gear that you also need? It's not like they single handedly created the situation there they cause 100 enemies to group up and then they single handed killed all of them. 

 

It's understood that in a battle you split up loot and roll for items that drop.. it doesn't matter who looted the item initially. Chances are that if you were not there with the group you would of never actually gotten the item so if someone else in your group needs an item that drops you roll for it. If you decide to keep the item then you're a hooligan and people won't like playing with you cause you a greedy mother custarder (good luck getting any help later when going after an item).

 

 

Just thinking about this guy's suggestion brings to mind.. what if you're in the middle of a camp where a mob spawns that drops a Discipline Rune or an item that you want and there are multiple guilds there that want it? I remember going into a camp with a group of my friends and there being 2 or 3 other group of people there fighting. Then all of a sudden.. the mob spawns early and everyone just goes straight for the mob.. group 1 hits the mob for 33%, group 4 hits the mob for 20%, group 2 hits the mob for 33%, group 3 hits the mob for 10% and we (being late to the party) hit the mob for 4%.. there's now 12 people standing at the mob corpse trying to loot it first.. one of our guys loots the mob and makes a run for it.. he gets away...  I'm telling you that happened pretty often.. and was some of the most fun and funnier memories I have in SB. In that scenario who would you suggest gets to loot the mob? No one there are friends and multiple people did an equal amount of damage. Should the loot be locked so only one person (who is probably dead) gets it?


OQa1xvz.png?1

lol ok.. I wonder if I'll still be able to steal directly from people's inventories.. hrmmm

;)Twitch - Twitter

RIP DOC GONZO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone mentioned messages, what are people's opinions on those?  Say for instance these two:

 

1. Anyone who did damage to something/someone that died will receive a message of Person A took Item X from Monster/Player B.

2. Message sent to person who had fallen in battle: Person A took Item X from your corpse.

 

If messages are to be implemented I would want a way to filter them as I can imagine these messages would get rather annoying if I had just taken part in killing a few dozen mobs/people and everyone is looting at once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No and no.

 

If you didn't loot the guy, it's not your loot.

 

If you left that loot on your body, it's definitely not your loot.

 

I could see a case for messages going out to the looter's group so that there's enough info for a fair divvy afterwards. Otherwise, if you want the loot, best get that loot.


Official "Bad Person" of Crowfall

"I think 1/3rd of my postcount is telling people that we aren't turning into a PvE / casual / broad audience game." -

Tully

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you didn't loot the guy, it's not your loot.

 

If you left that loot on your body, it's definitely not your loot.

These are not legitimate reasons for not having messages.  I think I might know what you are trying to say, but you didn't state it in a logical manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...