Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

RPG Superstar 2015

What looting system is being used?


Pathfinder Online

1 to 50 of 62 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Now I may have missed this somewhere, but I think it is important to get some opinions and ideas out about systems you like and dislike. In most games a have played, they have had to battle the "ninja" with looting systems. Now a days, looting systems are pretty complex with need before greed and master looter options etc. What would like to see GW use in thier game ?

Goblin Squad Member

I would prefer the All of The Above with the party leader choosing which system to use.

While the ninja loot is for sure the most true to d20 rules, people having their loot ninjaed is going to really take away people's desire to participate in group play. Even in a fairly trustworthy company there is no way to tell who ninjaed the loot so that you can kick them if someone decides to do it. And putting together a PUG will just be a nightmare.

I would far rather see loot rule where the party leader picks it. That way in a PUG you can agree what you want before your adventure. Or with a clan they can run whatever complicated loot system they do or don't want.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scarlette wrote:
Now I may have missed this somewhere, but I think it is important to get some opinions and ideas out about systems you like and dislike. In most games a have played, they have had to battle the "ninja" with looting systems. Now a days, looting systems are pretty complex with need before greed and master looter options etc. What would like to see GW use in thier game ?

Well I'd say the need/greed systems are going to be somewhat moot points. At least to the best I have interpreted, there is no implications that completed weapons/armors will drop at all. Every talk of dungeons has more or less been reffering to hauling resources, and in fact dungeons containing so many huge reserves of things that it may take several trips to haul them out. In that case a pretty simple limiter, you get what you can fit in a waggon.

In a game of this style I imagine ninja looting to be a bit of a small factor. If you tick somoene off and grab something you had previously agreed not to take, the party can kill you on the spot and take it back. That fact alone greatly reduces if not eliminates ninja looting.


In PFO, if someone ninjas me I'd expect I'd have the ability to sleight-of-hand it back. :D

Goblin Squad Member

This is providing of course they aren't super sneaky about it. I could see getting into the room with the loot where a member of the party then pockets all the diamonds and a big handful of gold coins, and you don't notice it happening. Going to kill each member of the party until you find it when you might never have known it was there to begin with?

If that is 10% of the value of the loot I doubt it will be a big deal and adds a bit of authenticity. If its 50% of the value of the total loot group play will see a decline in popularity. I don't want to fight through something with 5 other people just to see 1 person secretly reap half our rewards.

Goblin Squad Member

I really don't think ninja looting will be a big problem either, but I realize there may be scenerios I am missing. If it going to take as long as two years to reach capstone, your character will be around for a long while. Get a bad name and you will stop getting into groups.
But other questions are; does a monster drop something for every one, or only one item, will it be free for all, or rotate through the group ? Also, I think completed arms and armors should drop from dungeons, otherwise I don't need them in my game. I could get resources from other sources or just use something different. I am a firm believer in the loot should fit the target. If I kill a goblin who was swinging an axe at me, I should be able to loot it. If not, where the heck did it go ? If I kill Onishi <sorry, just an example> and he uses a +1 axe and masterworked breastplate, I dont get those. But I should get an regular axe and regular breastplate <and of coarse, you don't lose yours>. If I kill a boar, he shouldn't have a dagger for loot.

Goblin Squad Member

Scarlette wrote:
I really don't think ninja looting will be a big problem either, but I realize there may be scenerios I am missing. If it going to take as long as two years to reach capstone, your character will be around for a long while. Get a bad name and you will stop getting into groups.

I agree with this on principles like bounty hunters and caravan guards where you have to make a good name for yourself in order to get jobs. I disagree on parties. This is a basic role that a lot of people are going to need. You would have to make a HORRIBLE named to not find any parties in a game of 4500 people and growing. A name you aren't going to get if you open a chest and secretly pocket all of the most valuable items inside it, because nobody will know it was you.

If the amount of loot you can get this way is minimized its fine. If you are robbing the party of the majority of their loot value, then it will be entirely broken.

Goblin Squad Member

Well if the system including broadcasting what is pickup by party members, you wouldn't be recieving things with out every one in group knowing. There would have to be exceptions in some cases though, slieght of hand and pick pockets types of scenerios. Of coarse these shouldn't be broadcasted to the party, unless your are caught.

Goblin Squad Member

Ideally, I'd like to be able to automatically loot every mob I kill, without having to explicitly click on its corpse. Loot windows wouldn't be displayed during combat, but rather would be queued up and processed all at once after the fight.

I've given a lot of thought to systems to automate the process of ensuring the loot is equitably distributed. In general, it feels fair to award items to the character who has the fewest item-awards. This can be a problem as players join and rejoin the group, so I would modify that to award items to the character who has the fewest item-awards per time-with-group. It would probably be best to keep track of all characters' time-with-group even after they leave the group, in case they return later. I would also suggest allowing the group to choose either to vote to reset the time-with-group statistics, or to vote to reset both the time-with-group and item-awards statistics.

Here are the system rules I would use:

1. If any character selects Need, all Greed selections are considered the same as Pass.

2. Items are awarded to the character with the fewest item-awards per time-with-group.

3. If two or more characters have the same item-awards per time-with-group, then a random number is rolled for each character, and the character with the highest number is awarded the item.

4. In cases where multiple items are available simultaneously, the items should be awarded in such a way to minimize the number of random number rolls required.

For an example of what I'm talking about with #4, imagine the case where Alex, Bob, and Chuck have just opened a chest with four items.

(Item) - (Who rolled Need)
Item 1 - Alex, Bob, Chuck
Item 2 - Alex, Bob
Item 3 - Alex, Bob
Item 4 - Alex

Each pass identifies the first item that can be awarded with the fewest number of random rolls.

Item Awards (Alex = 1, Bob = 0, Chuck = 0)

Pass 1
* Item 1 requires 2 rolls, -> (Bob or Chuck).
* Item 2 requires 0 rolls, -> Bob.
* Item 3 requires 0 rolls, -> Bob.
* Item 4 requires 0 rolls, -> Alex.
Item 2 is awarded to Bob.
Item Awards (Alex = 1, Bob = 1, Chuck = 0)

Pass 2
* Item 1 requires 0 rolls, -> Chuck.
* Item 3 requires 2 rolls, -> (Alex or Bob).
* Item 4 requires 0 rolls, -> Alex.
Item 1 is awarded to Chuck.
Item Awards (Alex = 1, Bob = 1, Chuck = 1)

Pass 3
* Item 3 requires 2 rolls, -> (Alex or Bob).
* Item 4 requires 0 rolls, -> Alex.
Item 4 is awarded to Alex.
Item Awards (Alex = 2, Bob = 1, Chuck = 1)

Pass 4
* Item 3 requires 0 rolls, -> Bob.
Item 3 is awarded to Bob.
Item Awards (Alex = 2, Bob = 2, Chuck = 1)

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:


1. If any character selects Need, all Greed selections are considered the same as Pass.

I still have to point out the question... How do we define "need" in a system of resources and crafting materials? When it comes to materials that will be sold to refiners/crafters, everything is equal to all adventurers. This isn't a "X sword is obviously useless to the wizard and it binds on pickup so he can't trade it for a stave". The need greed system, is more or less entirely due to bind on pickup systems, after that it is entirely who spent the most time etc...

Now as far as sleight of hand etc... I just can't see that working. Either everyone will be maxing their spot to catch ninja's, and then it comes down to how to fairly balance the 2 skills being maxed. Maxed sleight always wins, no that would be horrible, spot always wins? Nobody will ever try to steal as societies will almost instantly blacklist thieves from groups.

Goblin Squad Member

In my mind, the Need/Greed system is entirely based on each character's subjective assessment of their own Need or Greed for the item.

The alternative is Roll/Pass, where there's really no choice for someone who would like the item, but would prefer someone else got it if they Need it.

Unless I misunderstood your point, Onishi.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just one thing:

Any entity placed into a 'lootable' condition, can only be accessed by the party that placed it into said condition, or a re-incarnation of said entity, for at least two minutes. After at least two minutes, the entity can be accessed by any party for at least five minutes. After at least five minutes, the entity and everything inside of it is removed from the game.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would really like to see NO master-looter type system. It's another point of potential grief. In the end, it's just a control mechanisim for power hungry players that results in discouragement of PUGing, and i really hate games where you have to always play with the people in your guild/group/clan/charter in-order to have a fair system. If it must be in the game, it should only be for a convenience of close groups, and all members of the party must all agree that it should be that way, so any of the member of the party could turn it off.

The Need/Greed system needs more depth, I don't think anyone is doing it right, warhammer was the closest IMO, SWTOR failed.

New roll categories, highest priority on top.(= signifies a server check)
=Use - has the necessary abilities to use.
=Use Later - has pre-requisite abilities to the ability to use the item(can look bar further, basic idea is that the player is working towards the item).
--------Items can only be checked by the above two flags if the required skill is 3 boxes into the line, otherwise no check is made for these options to verify usage.
-Friend/Alt
-Greed
-Pass

This protects players from losing items they could use, to people who just want to sell them.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

In my mind, the Need/Greed system is entirely based on each character's subjective assessment of their own Need or Greed for the item.

The alternative is Roll/Pass, where there's really no choice for someone who would like the item, but would prefer someone else got it if they Need it.

Unless I misunderstood your point, Onishi.

Well what I mean is, if it has value of any kind, everyone has equal need, short of it being not worth carying. Considering they will need to pass through a crafter anyway, it isn't like it does not have an extra step for everyone anyway. Really at the point of co-operation and non-binding, the most rational and fair concept would be for the group to total up the value of the loot, and split the value evenly. Of course that does vary depending on if we are talking about 1 super diamond dropping, or 500 diamond fragments. But the refferences to "multiple trips" to carry loot out, leads me to think it is far less about 1-2 super items that make the trip worthwhile, and more about a ton of stuff that adds up and can be split evenly.

IMO that is a huge plus. It lessens the whole DKP type concept (IE you leave empty handed 4/5ths of the time, sometimes you get the good item, but unless you run 5 times with the same group, then it is a random roll every time and if you are unlucky you may run 20 in a row without earning anything).

Again I point out, without binding, what is to fairly say something is worth more to you, then it is to someone else. An item worth 500 coin, is worth 500 coin to me, and 500 coin to you. It isn't WoW where the bind on pickup robes are as good as a 200 gold item to me, and you'll only NPC it for 2 gold.

Goblin Squad Member

I would not have any problem whatsoever with a pure Round Robin system, as long as all items could be traded, at least within the group.

I'm also a big fan of whatever loot there is being something that is easily divisible among all the group members, rather than having to award specific items.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

I would not have any problem whatsoever with a pure Round Robin system, as long as all items could be traded, at least within the group.

I'm also a big fan of whatever loot there is being something that is easily divisible among all the group members, rather than having to award specific items.

Indeed and with crafting, items don't need to be locked to a specific class or skill. It fully makes sense that the same items can be used in a sword, mace, armor, dagger etc... as well as settlement building etc... There isn't any necesity at all for "Oh X is a rogue item, it goes to jim". Assuming enchantments, the same item that is used to make a flaming sword, could also be used to make a fireguard cloak, or flaming arrows, etc... Nothing needs to be locked to one archtype or ability at all.

Quote:


=Use - has the necessary abilities to use.
=Use Later - has pre-requisite abilities to the ability to use the item(can look bar further, basic idea is that the player is working towards the item).
--------Items can only be checked by the above two flags if the required skill is 3 boxes into the line, otherwise no check is made for these options to verify usage.
-Friend/Alt
-Greed
-Pass

And this creates a huge potential for extreme unequivelency.

5 years in, we have a group going, with Joe, who has 10 merit badges in wizard, cleric, fighter, and rogue, and Tom who started 1 year ago, and has cleric 11 badges in.

Item for rogue drops, Joe needs and gets, Item for fighter drops, joe needs joe gets. Item for wizard drops, joe needs joe gets.
Item for cleric drops, Joe and Tom roll, it's a 50/50 now.

If the system is counting on the players fairness to balance it, then no system is even needed.

The only fair systems involve no connection to archtype and use, but either pure splitting based on value, or random chance.

Goblin Squad Member

I fail to see how it isn't fair. No player is by default more deserving of an item.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Valkenr wrote:
I fail to see how it isn't fair. No player is by default more deserving of an item.

I agree with that, I was disagreeing with the entire existance of a need/greed priority chain in PFO

Valkenr wrote:
This protects players from losing items they could use, to people who just want to sell them.

I was saying that can use getting priority over needs to sell winds up unfair. Especially in a game where characters can learn to use just about everything. One character who is good enough at 5 archtypes to use the items, should not get 5x more loot then the character who is great at 1 archtype.

Without binding, there is no real reason why someone who is going to sell it and buy what he needs with the money is lower priority then one who is going to personally use the item. I see no reason why any character or class should have priority to claim it "Needs" something more than anyone else over any items. If there is no bind system (which I strongly hope there isn't), then the 2 fair choices for loot are even and random distribution. Need/Greed is just a biproduct of the binding system of which something picked up is of little value to one who can't directly use it.

Goblin Squad Member

I agree. I don't want to see Need / Greed in the loot system. DDO had all the loot come in chests, and everyone got something in every chest, regardless of whether they could use it or not. I'm ok with mobs not dropping a lot of loot because I find it irritating to go and pick up lame item after lame item. Oh, great, it's another MW shortsword. Now I have to run back to town to sell all this crap. Or waste time deciding what in my inventory I want to drop to make room for it because it's worth 20 Gold more than something else. If they do need to drop stuff, let it be consumables, crafting items, or coin, and then have every mob drop the same thing for everyone in the party. Kill a goblin, everyone can go loot the body and get 23 Silver. Kill that orc warleader? Everyone can go and collect a potion of healing from his body. Leave the real treasure for quest rewards, big enemy chests, and crafted items.

I'd much prefer the DDO system to the WoW or TOR system.

Goblin Squad Member

Valkenr wrote:
I would really like to see NO master-looter type system. It's another point of potential grief. In the end, it's just a control mechanisim for power hungry players that results in discouragement of PUGing, and i really hate games where you have to always play with the people in your guild/group/clan/charter in-order to have a fair system. If it must be in the game, it should only be for a convenience of close groups, and all members of the party must all agree that it should be that way, so any of the member of the party could turn it off.

If a chartered clan wants to use a DKP system it WILL use a DKP system. Either through in-game mechanics or "You will not take items you don't earn through DKP/Give the items you earn to whoever won them through DKP or we will kick you from the clan OR never take you to group PVE events again OR kill you so you can't have it and THEN take option 1 or 2."

People have a right to run things how they want to run them. I know for my clan the presence or absence of a DKP system will be based on member feedback (I personally don't give a crap atm.)

Don't try to use mechanics to force people to play a certain way. Simply make it so the party leader can choose the loot rule and if you don't like what he sets it as... then ask him to change it or leave the party.

Goblin Squad Member

I want to see "ninja looting" be entirely possible, maybe even encouraged. The thing about ninja looting is that it makes people angry. And angry people and loot drama are very good for business.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:


Don't try to use mechanics to force people to play a certain way. Simply make it so the party leader can choose the loot rule and if you don't like what he sets it as... then ask him to change it or leave the party.

Then there needs to be a way for the loot rules to be locked, and impossible to alter until the group has completed the objective. PFO has the 3 biggest attractants of griefers, and i don't want loot griefing to be possible, this includes a two-faced party leader, that switches loot rules whenever something good comes around, potentially screwing over the pugs.

I'm not trying to force people to play any way, If a group wants to limit items to certain members, they can, but there shouldn't be game mechanics that let them do it, that have the smallest chance of being abused. If members want to stay in good standing, they will listen to the party leader. If you don't want to give pick-up members anything, don't solicit their help.

I will never join a group using master looting that isn't run by a trusted member in my charter, and if i do join a group, i want to be 100% sure they aren't going to screw me out of anything when it gets to the end of the activity(when the good stuff comes around).

------

And another point, don't put bind on pickup on any item in the game. If items can be bound to a player, it should only be armor/clothing and they should be 'fitted' for a certain body type.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:


If a chartered clan wants to use a DKP system it WILL use a DKP system. Either through in-game mechanics or "You will not take items you don't earn through DKP/Give the items you earn to whoever won them through DKP or we will kick you from the clan OR never take you to group PVE events again OR kill you so you can't have it and THEN take option 1 or 2."

People have a right to run things how they want to run them. I know for my clan the presence or absence of a DKP system will be based on member feedback (I personally don't give a crap atm.)

Don't try to use mechanics to force people to play a certain way. Simply make it so the party leader can choose the loot rule and if you don't like what he sets it as... then ask him to change it or leave the party.

Well while I do agree, if people want DKP they should do it, but I feel DKP is a response to some poor systems in the first place. DKP was invented as a response to an insufficiant rewards system. Essentially DKP was invented because a typical raid is by design imposible to fairly distribute loot for a single run.

DKP is a result of a 3+ hour run with 10-40 people, dropping 1-5 items that are vastly better then the rest of the loot put together, and thus an extreme need to fairly chose who gets those 1-5 items. When we are talking crafting mats, you litterally can give everyone 1/10th of a weapon and actually have a fair system.

I'm not saying to make a DKP system imposible, but the mechanics don't need to be put in a way to make it necessary for fairness in the way WoW and EQ did.

I believe it is possible to drop loot in a way that the loot and supplies can be split fairly in a single run, rather than need players to create a DKP system to even out the last 20 runs to create fairness over time.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

I don't think it's always possible to have loot that deserves a large raid that can be fairly split between a large number of people. Sure, loads of coin and most of the gems are fairly fungible, but the dragon's hoard doesn't have 20 large star rubies, suitable for storing a fiery burst enchantment.

Ideal would be a loot system which is determined when the group is formed, visible to everyone before they join, and cannot be changed without either some majority or all of the members currently in the group agreeing. There still needs to be some allowance for multiple groups which are competing for the same item, rather than cooperating. PvP is the final arbitrator of that.

Goblin Squad Member

Blaeringr wrote:
I want to see "ninja looting" be entirely possible, maybe even encouraged. The thing about ninja looting is that it makes people angry. And angry people and loot drama are very good for business.

I've been a Chef for over 18 years in professional kitchens and have to say my bakers and pastry chefs are the most esentric and oddest of the lot.

In Ultima Online some of the most fun was after a Champ Spawn or Perlise raid we would all meet up at a House and roll dice (literly a set of dice, not /roll) for every item we looted, players who couldn't use the item just wouldn't roll. It really was a great non-combat player made content, we would spend hours chatting and rolling for loot... Such a great time...

I would really like to see the players handle loot and not some mechanic to be honest.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:

I don't think it's always possible to have loot that deserves a large raid that can be fairly split between a large number of people. Sure, loads of coin and most of the gems are fairly fungible, but the dragon's hoard doesn't have 20 large star rubies, suitable for storing a fiery burst enchantment.

Ideal would be a loot system which is determined when the group is formed, visible to everyone before they join, and cannot be changed without either some majority or all of the members currently in the group agreeing. There still needs to be some allowance for multiple groups which are competing for the same item, rather than cooperating. PvP is the final arbitrator of that.

I like that. Change the loot rule at any time but EVERYONE must agree. So you don't get, "OOPS! I'm 5 minutes in and forgot to set the rule!!!" but you don't get "DAMN! The party leader changed the loot rule to party leader chooses all right as we cleared the last room!!!"

BlackUhuru wrote:
I would really like to see the players handle loot and not some mechanic to be honest.

There are two things giving me reservations about this. One, we don't know what the most valuable possible item drops will be, and two we can't kill people and get access to their entire inventory.

In Darkfall loot was Free For All and I had no problem with it, but in Darkfall super expensive items were not dropped off weak monsters on a regular basis and if someone ninja looted a dragon or kraken we would see it and could kill them for 100% loot recovery. When out hunting the big stuff when they went down we would have one higher ranked designated looter and nobody else was allowed near the body (Which was only possible because both enemies had to be killed via ranged weapons.) and when out killing little stuff we would have everyone bag their junk then hand it to the master looter at the end of combat to be split evenly. If someone ran in and ninja looted the dragon the entire rest of the party would have instantly turned on them, and if someone handed back a nearly empty bag from a long time of killing the small stuff after we saw them looting and skinning graves, likewise.

In this game we don't know that there won't be very expensive items that will really skrew our profits if they get ninjaed, and according to currently proposed loot rules if someone ninja loots a major enemy or fails to cough up their split at the end of a hunting tip we will only get random selection of items back. That is not cool with me.

If these two problems are solved I'm fine with and might even support mandatory free-for-all looting as long as there are animations and sound effects that accompany gathering loot.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Optionally, have visible free for all looting, with a delay. Everyone sees what you take, and can respond accordingly.

Also, consider having all "recently looted" items show up on a player's corpse, regardless of the loot method used. Ambushing a group as they come back is a time-honored tradition.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Also, consider having all "recently looted" items show up on a player's corpse...

Yes, please!

+1

This makes it possible for players to police their looting policies much more effectively, without unbalancing the rest of the game (I hope).

Goblin Squad Member

I'm agreeing most with the people that don't want a need element. Having need-over-greed makes sense when there are BOP, class-specific items. In that case items can either be used very effectively or sold for a pitiful amount of gold.

In PFO we'll have neither people who will always be one class nor bound items. Basically everything you touch can be sold for gold, so it's not more valuable to you because you can technically use it as well. With a bit of time that awesome crossbow can be sold and used to buy an awesome staff. It would be easier to give the crossbow to the ranger, but being a ranger doesn't mean he gets every crossbow. I can also see people wearing a lower tier of armor so they can win more upgrades they 'need' then sell them later.

I never liked round-robin looting or 'you win a roll, you don't get anything more until everyone else wins a roll' systems. Round robin just leads people to wait until it's their turn to loot and make sure they kill the big mob next. The other system doesn't make much sense when, typically, the best loot is at the end. It's not very fun to pass on all the loot at the beginning and hope that something you want drops at the end. You also run into issues where something useful drops, it's a minor upgrade, but everyone passes to save their roll. The item gets destroyed or given away randomly and the people who could get some use out of it are twiddling their thumbs.

I do think there should be some computer-enforced loot system. The blog did mention contracts and therefore some legal enforcement for player agreements. You can see a dungeoneering party as having a contract to support each other and split the loot fairly. I can imagine all the drops going into an invisible chest until the dungeon is complete or the group disbands and everything is distributed by some pre-determined system.

I'm also okay with a purely random distribution of loot. Like I said, everything it worth gold and can be turned into anything else with a little bit of work. People can go a while without any loot, but they have an equal chance to get all the loot.

Goblin Squad Member

I think it's important to understand that Need doesn't really have to have anything to do with with BoP or class-restrictions. It can simply express the degree to which the character desires the item.

For example, if Delbin and I are grouped together, and an item that is universally valuable for crafting weapons drops, I should be able to select Greed to allow Delbin to select Need if he wants to. Neither of us are necessarily concerned about whether the item is useful for his class. Really, all that's happening is that I'm saying "I don't want to Pass, and let the item rot on the corpse, but I would also like to defer to anyone who says the Need it, regardless of whether they really need it."

Please leave in a distinction between Need and Greed so that I can be nice and select Greed when the item really isn't very important to me, but it's not so insignificant as to leave it behind.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
I think it's important to understand that Need doesn't really have to have anything to do with with BoP or class-restrictions. It can simply express the degree to which the character desires the item.

I can easily see that devolving into hitting need on everything because there's always that one guy in the party that tries to get as much as possible.

Really, with how the economy would be, you have equal need of everything because it can all be converted into gold. Unless you're running out of bag space/carrying capacity, you'll want to pick up everything.

Goblin Squad Member

Delbin wrote:
I can easily see that devolving into hitting need on everything because there's always that one guy in the party that tries to get as much as possible.

Is there anything wrong with that? Personally, I don't think so. The whole point is to be able to select Greed when you want to defer to any other player that chooses Need.

If you don't want to defer to them, then you select Need.

I've always been mystified at the insanity of the "customary" responses to universally useful items being "everyone selects Greed, and if you select Need we're going to frown at you". That's just silly. The customary response should be "everyone selects Need, if you want it and don't want to defer to others".

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Delbin wrote:
I can easily see that devolving into hitting need on everything because there's always that one guy in the party that tries to get as much as possible.

Is there anything wrong with that? Personally, I don't think so. The whole point is to be able to select Greed when you want to defer to any other player that chooses Need.

If you don't want to defer to them, then you select Need.

I've always been mystified at the insanity of the "customary" responses to universally useful items being "everyone selects Greed, and if you select Need we're going to frown at you". That's just silly. The customary response should be "everyone selects Need, if you want it and don't want to defer to others".

Perhaps we just need a better wording then need/greed/pass, as what we associate with the need/greed no longer applies.

Maybe

Want
Wouldn't mind
Won't take.

Or someone who is better with words could come up with something. Need in MMO terms has come to mean will personally use, greed has come to mean will probably sell, and sometimes it just makes more sense to figure out new words then to argue different meanings of old words.

Goblin Squad Member

I could get behind Roll - Defer - Pass.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Delbin wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
I think it's important to understand that Need doesn't really have to have anything to do with with BoP or class-restrictions. It can simply express the degree to which the character desires the item.

I can easily see that devolving into hitting need on everything because there's always that one guy in the party that tries to get as much as possible.

Really, with how the economy would be, you have equal need of everything because it can all be converted into gold. Unless you're running out of bag space/carrying capacity, you'll want to pick up everything.

That's almost exactly the prisoner's dilemma. The player saying he needs everything is acting irrationally and against his best interests, even if he doesn't spoil his reputation and get put on the naughty list.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

In most RPGs I've played the group collects the treasure as they go and waits to divvy it up once they 'get back to town'. If someone wants the cool magic item that clearly works best for their character then people usually go along, but the other group members get more of the other loot.

That doesn't work so well in MMOs because people could be entering and leaving the group all the time. Thus, you usually see immediate distribution instead... which is unfortunate because it eliminates 'horse trading' and reduces it to random chance with the occasional case of someone taking an item that they can't use except to sell but which would have been extremely useful to their 'ally' in the group.

A different kind of loot system might be to have players flag loot as it is acquired, but only distribute it when the party disbands. That way if someone has to leave or gets disconnected their 'top picks' and 'nice to haves' are still recorded and they still get their share of the loot collected while they were playing. The loot could also then be more evenly distributed... if someone put 'top pick' on every piece of gear looted then they'd be most likely to get the ones no one else selected that option for. If a particular haul included several top level items usable by just one player then they might get those, but everyone else would get more of the 'cash loot'. Et cetera. Divide everything up by value and how much people indicated they wanted something. Maybe have an option to adjust your choices after the fact so that the group could decide exactly who gets each thing... OR leave it to the computer with better player guidance on the treasure as a whole rather than each item one at a time.

Goblin Squad Member

@CBDunkerson, that's a very clear explanation, and is largely what I was trying to outline in my rather long-winded post above.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll sign on for Roll-Defer-Pass, with an option to set a masterlooter so players could divvy up the loot however complicatedly they wanted.

I don't believe developer resources should be used to create additional systems to be used instead the roll of a die, which is fair, if not always equal. Masterloot allows the players to decide what is equal (based on value, contribution, etc), if that is what is desired. Players have used this simple system easily and effectively in the MMOs I have played.

Goblin Squad Member

I think the best way to handle this, is to not make anything 'looted' be more than trash items. Anything worth anything is either in a large chunk of rewards that is way more than the party could use, or harvested with specific skills and tools.

All equipment that is worth anything should be crafted

All consumables that are worth anything should be crafted

All main harvesting materials should be gathered/butchered.

Anything harvested should have a value that makes sense, if you kill a dragon, you get more than 5 dragon scales.

Any rare materials can be harvested by anyone with the very specific skill to harvest them from a corpse/node/object.

I know this is a big one, people aren't used to running a 'dungeon' only once, WoW forever ruined peoples expectations but:

when you run a 'raid' like mission, there is enough loot for everyone! in the end. And i'm guessing this is probably so, because Ryan said we would need to shuttle all the loot back to our encampment.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

There are a maximum of two dragon eyes per dragon. Fewer if SOMEBODY puts an arrow through one of them. (Not gonna point fingers here)

And if it ate a dwarf, there isn't going to be much liver left, either. Any resource which becomes common needs a better version that stays rare. You can and should have enough such items that many people can get a dragon organ or perfect gem or equivalent, but they are used for different things- dragon liver might be used in the preparation of rare spells, eyes might be used in perception-based amulets, scales for armor, gems for enchantments, and so forth.

Goblin Squad Member

Buri wrote:
In PFO, if someone ninjas me I'd expect I'd have the ability to sleight-of-hand it back. :D

Exactly, the alternative is open PvP. I would support a roll/pass system with zero binding.

I am still a really big supporter of player created associations. One of the things I would allow these associations to do is rate players in a way that is visible to everyone in the association. This allows players to charter independent make free trade groups, alliances, religious groups, etc... It also gives us a way to better exclude "bad people" without having to experience them firsthand. If anyone in one of your associations has a bad experience with a ninja, they can get marked as such. Then that shows on your UI and you can advise the group during group formation of any members "reputation".

Goblinworks Executive Founder

I'd really appreciate it if the shared reputation system was supported in the game client. It would be a pain to have to switch to the known reputation website constantly in response to requests. Reputation should always work both ways, though.

Goblin Squad Member

Heres an idea.
When an item drops, instead of need or greed window, have a vote for who gets it window pop up. So the group choses who they want to have it. Every one sees who gets it, and recently looted items are on the corpse. Also not having the items "bind" to characters will be awesome, thus allowing trades to fix mistakes, or just plain old you got jacked.

Goblin Squad Member

Scarlette wrote:

Heres an idea.

When an item drops, instead of need or greed window, have a vote for who gets it window pop up. So the group choses who they want to have it. Every one sees who gets it, and recently looted items are on the corpse. Also not having the items "bind" to characters will be awesome, thus allowing trades to fix mistakes, or just plain old you got jacked.

I don't know if it's necessary, but I wouldn't be opposed to seeing that in-game if enough people thought it was a good idea (in addition to the two classic systems I listed previously); it isn't overly complicated for the user and doesn't seem like it would take too much to code (note: my coding experience is limited to coding craps in C++ in high school).

A window much like the Need-Defer-Pass window comes up for every player, this window lists Need-Pass for every player, which is a vote for themselves or not. The group leader can designate a number of players as voters (e.g. everybody in a small group or officers in a guild run), who have an additional option to vote for any of the players that have self-nominated (they can also click Pass to defer their vote). Any 'mistakes' by an individual voter ("whoops, I forgot he already got an emerald!") would be balanced by the other votes.

This can solve a couple problems with the master looter system: The issue of equal loot distribution if somebody/the looter gets disconnected for the night (by awarding loot as it is found, though somebody could still 'yank the ethernet cord' after they get their first loot). And allowing voting on who gets what by whomever the group/charter leader wishes, without resorting to extensive OOC 'officer' discussions and requiring the voters to maintain a list of items looted.

These problems are regularly dealt with more or less effectively anyway, but it might not hurt to have a vote system.

Goblin Squad Member

@Scarlette, I think that system could be implemented just as well via the Master Looter option. Both are subject to abuse. Remember, the Master Looter knows that he can be killed, and the person he gave the loot to can be killed, if the other players aren't satisfied with the result.

@Forencith, I love the idea of in-game reputation rating agencies. Maybe GW could implement a simple command that forwards requests to external web services so that it's not that big a hit on their servers.

Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:

Perhaps we just need a better wording then need/greed/pass, as what we associate with the need/greed no longer applies.

Maybe

Want
Wouldn't mind
Won't take.

I've thought for a long time that Need/Greed is a poor system. At this point 99% of the people posting on forums about an MMO are going to know what Need/Greed means but I remember the first time I ran into it, and being partied with people who are using it for the first time it is kind of confusing.

Greed is a negative word and you get no real explanation of the system until its right in your face. So people say "I don't want to be greedy!" and sometimes pass on everything, or even worse, need it all. I believe I just let the timers run down because I was unsure of what to do.

This really isn't a big issue for anyone not just starting the game but I think if we do have a need/greed system it should be:

Need
Want
Pass

I think this is a much more clear description of what things do. It may not rhyme but... whatever.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
Onishi wrote:

Perhaps we just need a better wording then need/greed/pass, as what we associate with the need/greed no longer applies.

Maybe

Want
Wouldn't mind
Won't take.

I've thought for a long time that Need/Greed is a poor system. At this point 99% of the people posting on forums about an MMO are going to know what Need/Greed means but I remember the first time I ran into it, and being partied with people who are using it for the first time it is kind of confusing.

Greed is a negative word and you get no real explanation of the system until its right in your face. So people say "I don't want to be greedy!" and sometimes pass on everything, or even worse, need it all. I believe I just let the timers run down because I was unsure of what to do.

This really isn't a big issue for anyone not just starting the game but I think if we do have a need/greed system it should be:

Need
Want
Pass

I think this is a much more clear description of what things do. It may not rhyme but... whatever.

I believe your system is bringing in exactly the same issue that a need/greed system has. The bottom line is everything has equal value to everyone. Need itself comes with the implication of "My character will directly use it, therefore it is worth more to me then it is to you", thus it also comes with the implications that the rogue that rolls need on something used to craft a shield is a jerk, when fairly without binding he is equally entitled as the fighter is.

Also it still throws in far more complications when any character can learn to equip everything. Is the rogue/wizard/fighter/cleric really fairly allowed to roll need on every dagger, stave, wand, sheild etc... but the pure rogue only allowed to roll on the dagger? A focused character should not be entitled to less then 25% of the loot of a jack of all trades.

You just rephrased need/greed, but still carried over every stigma that is harmful to fairness. While I fully back Nihimon's better phrasing

Want
Deffer
Pass

Fairly no-one should be entitled to more items then anyone else. Deffer should IMO be the exception not the rule. IE everyone rolling the top tier on every item in a pick up group, should be perfectly reasonable, not OMG ninja.

I still fully state, there are 2 fair options

1. All loot be in pieces, since it's going to have to be crafted anyway there's no reason why it can't be in piles that are close to possible to split evenly.

2. What isn't, can be fair to be done via random chance. IE everyone can rightfully roll on every item, if someone choses to deffer, that is a wonderful kind gesture, but there is no reason why there should be outrage over not choosing to deffer something he will sell. IMO wanting to sell for money is just as important as wanting to use.

Again I point out without binding, an item used to craft the 100g sword of awesome killing, the healer rolls need on it, Sells it for 100g and then buys the item of uber healing with the 100g. Any system that implies that said healer was a ninja taking something that wasn't rightfully his, is a flawed system that harms the entire concept of pick up groups.

Goblin Squad Member

I like what CBDunk was talking about. If that's the general idea behind Nihimon's post, then that'll work fine for me.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

There are two different looting scenarios: the pickup group, where people are working together for their own short term best insterest, and the guild, where a large group is working towards a shared best interest. The guild can develop the long view, and assign the loot how they choose- giving all the crafting gear to the crafters, who give the crafted items away to the people who will make best use. For this group, the option of one person deciding by fiat is best.

The pickup group needs a fair way to decide spoils, based on a handful of assumptions. A system of bidding is one ideal, with sealed bids determining the value of an item and equal value going to each player. There are other methods, more and less complicated, including betrayal and theft.

Goblin Squad Member

Your friendly unnamed assassins' guild would like to generously introduce the loot whore contract!!!

Rain vengeance down on the greedy! Anonymously have their sticky fingered hand chopped off and used to beat them to a bloody pulp! Available through all our intermediary franchises.

1 to 50 of 62 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Paizo Licensed Products / Pathfinder Online / What looting system is being used? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.