Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

EG point system or other?Follow

#52 May 05 2013 at 1:55 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
**
728 posts
BartelX wrote:
Catwho wrote:
That didn't work in XI, where people had more than one job leveled. It won't work in XIV, where people will also have more than one job leveled.

If someone comes on a conjurer every raid because the group needs a healer, but their preferred class is lancer, it's not fair to tell them they can't lot on lancer stuff. Just because the group never sees them on lancer doesn't mean they don't have it leveled up and prefer to play it.


Very simple solution: prior to the start of an event, ask what main job players would like to lot items for. When said item drops, those players who put that as their main lot on it. If no one wants it, it goes free lot to anyone who has the job leveled to use it.


This^.

I only dabbled in FFXI endgame when it was relevent, but I have always thought DKP systems were garbage. Come to every event we have for weeks on end until everyone higher up than you gets what they want and stops coming, thus making runs more difficult or impossible. It was the same, even in WoW. Unless you have a close-knit group of players going on every run this system is quite unfair, especially to newer players entering your ranks. Far too many times have been invovled in groups that work this way only to be SOL when my turn to get pimped out came around and they were tired of the content due to having everything.

I much prefer the rudimentary loot system devised out of WoW's Need/Greed system. IT is one that will most likely have to be adopted more into FFXIV as well with the lean on casual play. Having players decide what they are aloud to roll on by declaring Main Spec/ Off Spec is much more fair and allows newcomers to feel like they can be rewarded for their effort. You may not be guaranteed your item when it drops right away, but everyone has a fair chance at loot.

Issues can arise with this system, but they can be mediated by a fair and trusted leader. For instance, my ex played an Assassination Rogue whom only used daggers. a very good one dropped that she needed and a Huntard also rolled on it. It was the Huntard's Main spec technically but it was more of a side upgrade (typically 2 handers were better for hunters) so the leader decided to give the dagger to my ex.

This system works especially well with static groups, but can still easily include other members of the LS or PUGs. DKP type systems always feel like the "Good ol' Boy's Club" to me. If you aren't there from the start you have to put in a lot of work with very little rewards. Yes it might breed loyalty and commitment, but there is nothing saying you have to Raid with that flaky guy that only wants to run when he can get his loot. A lot of this only takes a strong Guild/LS leader to pull off, and the system is much more welcoming.
____________________________
FFXI: DamienSlvrblade Race: Elvaan Nation: San d'Oria Server: Sylph 2002-2007, Phoenix 2012
PUP WHM PLD MNK BLU BST SAM WAR BLM 99 BRD THF NIN DNC SMN RDM 50+

FFXIV: Damien Scott Race: Duskwight Elezen GC: Limsa Lominsa Server: Ultros
DoW GLA50 ACN50 PUG50 MAR 50 Rest30+
DoH/DoL All 40+
#53 May 05 2013 at 4:37 PM Rating: Good
Xoie wrote:
Our shell in FFXI did a point system where you got X number of points for farming events (depending on how time consuming). Then for boss fights that dropped treasure, you placed a blind bid for the drops using as many of your points you wanted (we knew in advance who wanted what so as not to overlook anyone during the treasure pool window). So even someone who just started could get something no one particularly wanted, and it also prevented "point bloat" among those who were around awhile.


My HNM/endgame shell did something similar and it worked out quite well. Our shell was large enough that we had full teams of JP-time and NA-time ppl and you built up points by attendace.

2pts/hr on farming days
1pt/hr event days (sky, dyna, etc)
2pts/hr camping HNM's
3pts for kills of all bosses/NM's

Once something was killed and items dropped, there was open bidding for the items. Anyone could bid; it was all bout how many points you were willing to give up for an item. If no one wanted the item, it was sold and either bought pop sets or the gil was distributed amongst the members present once sold (These payouts happened periodically every few weeks). Sometimes people got really good stuff for cheap (saw Byakko's Haidate go for less than 20 pts because only 2 people were there that needed it) and other times semi-obscure items went for outrageous prices because 8 people that wanted it happened to be there that day. There was no rule on main jobs, no 2-week minimum, and no drama. Back in 2009~ I paid over 250 pts for my Kirin's Osode, but I got Oily Trousers, Black Tathlum, and an Ancient Torque all very easily by showing up regularly and being lucky that few people wanted those items when they dropped. I know this would not work for everyone, as has been stated numerous times already, but it rewarded both effort and luck. Few people have both, but most have one or the other.
____________________________
Our team is like a flock of woodpeckers in a petrified forest. We just need to keep working and keep an eye open for opportunity.

FFXI
Toofar - Asura (Formerly of Lakshmi (Garuda)) - WHM BLM SMN
Rafoot - Asura (Formerly of Lakshmi (Garuda)) - THF SAM BRD
#54 May 05 2013 at 5:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Guru
***
1,310 posts
IKickYoDog wrote:
Xoie wrote:
Our shell in FFXI did a point system where you got X number of points for farming events (depending on how time consuming). Then for boss fights that dropped treasure, you placed a blind bid for the drops using as many of your points you wanted (we knew in advance who wanted what so as not to overlook anyone during the treasure pool window). So even someone who just started could get something no one particularly wanted, and it also prevented "point bloat" among those who were around awhile.


My HNM/endgame shell did something similar and it worked out quite well. Our shell was large enough that we had full teams of JP-time and NA-time ppl and you built up points by attendace.

2pts/hr on farming days
1pt/hr event days (sky, dyna, etc)
2pts/hr camping HNM's
3pts for kills of all bosses/NM's

Once something was killed and items dropped, there was open bidding for the items. Anyone could bid; it was all bout how many points you were willing to give up for an item. If no one wanted the item, it was sold and either bought pop sets or the gil was distributed amongst the members present once sold (These payouts happened periodically every few weeks). Sometimes people got really good stuff for cheap (saw Byakko's Haidate go for less than 20 pts because only 2 people were there that needed it) and other times semi-obscure items went for outrageous prices because 8 people that wanted it happened to be there that day. There was no rule on main jobs, no 2-week minimum, and no drama. Back in 2009~ I paid over 250 pts for my Kirin's Osode, but I got Oily Trousers, Black Tathlum, and an Ancient Torque all very easily by showing up regularly and being lucky that few people wanted those items when they dropped. I know this would not work for everyone, as has been stated numerous times already, but it rewarded both effort and luck. Few people have both, but most have one or the other.


Cool. One thing I appreciated about the system was that recruitment for new people worked much better. A common problem old Dynamis/Sky linkshells was that people had built up so much seniority that anyone new quickly saw how futile it was to hope for anything good anytime soon. So they'd go off and make new shells where their chances were much better, but they were deprived of the valuable experienced members. So I think this bridged that gap quite well.
#55 May 06 2013 at 1:30 AM Rating: Good
Xoie wrote:
IKickYoDog wrote:
Xoie wrote:
Our shell in FFXI did a point system where you got X number of points for farming events (depending on how time consuming). Then for boss fights that dropped treasure, you placed a blind bid for the drops using as many of your points you wanted (we knew in advance who wanted what so as not to overlook anyone during the treasure pool window). So even someone who just started could get something no one particularly wanted, and it also prevented "point bloat" among those who were around awhile.


My HNM/endgame shell did something similar and it worked out quite well. Our shell was large enough that we had full teams of JP-time and NA-time ppl and you built up points by attendace.

2pts/hr on farming days
1pt/hr event days (sky, dyna, etc)
2pts/hr camping HNM's
3pts for kills of all bosses/NM's

Once something was killed and items dropped, there was open bidding for the items. Anyone could bid; it was all bout how many points you were willing to give up for an item. If no one wanted the item, it was sold and either bought pop sets or the gil was distributed amongst the members present once sold (These payouts happened periodically every few weeks). Sometimes people got really good stuff for cheap (saw Byakko's Haidate go for less than 20 pts because only 2 people were there that needed it) and other times semi-obscure items went for outrageous prices because 8 people that wanted it happened to be there that day. There was no rule on main jobs, no 2-week minimum, and no drama. Back in 2009~ I paid over 250 pts for my Kirin's Osode, but I got Oily Trousers, Black Tathlum, and an Ancient Torque all very easily by showing up regularly and being lucky that few people wanted those items when they dropped. I know this would not work for everyone, as has been stated numerous times already, but it rewarded both effort and luck. Few people have both, but most have one or the other.


Cool. One thing I appreciated about the system was that recruitment for new people worked much better. A common problem old Dynamis/Sky linkshells was that people had built up so much seniority that anyone new quickly saw how futile it was to hope for anything good anytime soon. So they'd go off and make new shells where their chances were much better, but they were deprived of the valuable experienced members. So I think this bridged that gap quite well.


Agreed. Nothing is worse than walking into your first Sky night, killing Kirin, seeing Osode drop, then seeing "Ok, so Xoie has first lot with 434 points." I think this works better than the ladder system, simply because it not only rewards attendance, but it makes the piece worth what the player will pay for it. I really appreciate it when a guild tells me "We want you to join and there are a handful of people with a lot of points. However, if they are not present and the item drops, you have a shot at it, and if it drops frequently in a short time-span your chances go up." I know endgame shells want commitment, but when you hear "2 weeks till lot" or "You'll need 150+ pts (equal to 1 month of work)," people tend to get discouraged and have lackluster, if any, attendance/effort.
____________________________
Our team is like a flock of woodpeckers in a petrified forest. We just need to keep working and keep an eye open for opportunity.

FFXI
Toofar - Asura (Formerly of Lakshmi (Garuda)) - WHM BLM SMN
Rafoot - Asura (Formerly of Lakshmi (Garuda)) - THF SAM BRD
#56 May 06 2013 at 9:24 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
*
175 posts
Ostia wrote:
Valeforelacky wrote:
Ostia wrote:
Player points are the worst thing that can happen to a guild/LS, they always bring drama, and abuse, the game fixes this issue on itself, with need/greed/pass, if you need it roll for it, and let the RNG gods deal with it, no drama, no cheating, no abuse, you can also add a "Cannot roll for 2 weeks if you are new rule" or a "Can only roll for active job/class" etc etc.


There is only one inherrent problem with using that system though Ostia. While some won't care others will. There is always that one person that no matter how many times they roll or are rolled against roll super high ALWAYS. And people like me who every mmo I've played never ever roll high. (lmao) Yes eventually I'd get the loot I'd need but only after everyone else that needed it beat me. There's nothing more annoying to people than showing up ever night and always walking away empty handed because that one person in the guild wins everything. That ultimately causes just as much drama. If it's a pug yeah sure that's a great system to use. If you are in a guild or otherwise the loot needs to be distributedly evenly. While I personally am not all about loot. I'm also not joining a "raiding" group just to gear others up until I "luck" out with a good roll.


Considering that all gear is going to drop from not one raid (My guess is that they will be divided between crystal tower and laberynth) you can set a 2 items cap per player, per raid event, once the player who always rolls high, gets his 2 items per event, everybody else gets a shot, also considering that there are no longer 40+ player raids, and it will be 12-14-16 player raids, there is really no need to have 4 archers, 4 lancers, 4 warriors etc etc, which brings down the competition for gear.

Need/greed/pass works, better than the other systems, the other systems are there to be abused and cheated, NGP is cold hard numbers, you win or you lose based on your luck, how it should be.


We'll have to agree to disagree then. MMO's and raiding by nature is luck based due to the fact what drops is never a sure thing generally speaking. In a organized group it should not also add a dimension of "luck" if you get anything from it as well. Obviously you don't raid much due to any successful guild knows loot has to be spread around so everyones performance in general increases to move on to higher content. Not so much the case with FFXI due to the nature of how its end game worked and it just being a series of kiting or throw blm's at it. But since XIV is taking a more dare I say WoW approach of having tiers of difficulty and gear checks your style of gear gathering will never fly thankfully. lol
____________________________
Gothos 75 SMN 75 WHM 68 COR 65SAM ~FFXI (Valefor)
80 Warlock - 80 Priest - 80 Shaman WoW (Moon Guard)
#57 May 06 2013 at 2:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
**
728 posts
I think a lot of people are still looking at this with FFXI tinted glasses. In FFXI yes, you would spend hours/days slogging through 18+ man farming just to prepare for a boss encounter at a later date. I'm finally starting to understand why a point system was needed for these events. Those people that go to every farming run for hours on end deserve just as much, if not more of a chance at loot than those that just go to boss runs. However, FFXIV is not supposed to be nearly as grindy as FFXI was, and I am assuming that loot is going to be tossed at us on a consistent basis. Groups will be much smaller and there will be no more "farm for a week for 10 pops and only get 1 drop". A point system most likely won't be necessary in the vast majority of circumstances and would probably be detrimental to LS/Company growth if not altered properly for the game.

This is just my opinion though, and I'm sure point systems will be quite widespread. I've been thinking of a system I might use if I were in the position to do so.

Main spec VS Off Spec (Need/Greed) Declare what job you are rolling for before we start (make sure everyone is informed and OK with selections...the job you come as better be properly geared as well)

If multiple people share the same loot table, whomever gets the first piece is moved down to "greed main spec" level in priority until everyone in that table has gotten something Edit: this might be an issue depending on exactly how much loot/how many bosses end game content is going to have.. and how many times it can be completed in a certain time frame.

Anything not rolled on for a "main" can then be rolled on for off specs by anyone.

Depending on how well everyone knows and trusts one another there are several extra steps that can be implemented. For instance, if someone only needs one specific item in your group you could let others know that and possibly give priority to them at the cost of them being unable to roll on anything that anyone else wants. If more than one person chooses to go this route, then they will still have to roll against each other for it.

You could also go further and define what an "Off Spec" is. I have heard many tales of people in FFXI getting loot for jobs they have at level 1, and this could be remedied by giving priority to those that have the job at a certain level. Also, if someone has to frequently come as a couple different jobs this could also be taken into account.

I feel this system would work well in a medium sized group that all know each other quite well. It might be harder to keep track of in a larger group, but I still feel it breeds friendship and camaraderie. It's just an idea of mine though. Who knows, maybe I'll start my own LS/Company and implement something similar that members can agree upon.


Edited, May 6th 2013 4:15pm by DamienSScott
____________________________
FFXI: DamienSlvrblade Race: Elvaan Nation: San d'Oria Server: Sylph 2002-2007, Phoenix 2012
PUP WHM PLD MNK BLU BST SAM WAR BLM 99 BRD THF NIN DNC SMN RDM 50+

FFXIV: Damien Scott Race: Duskwight Elezen GC: Limsa Lominsa Server: Ultros
DoW GLA50 ACN50 PUG50 MAR 50 Rest30+
DoH/DoL All 40+
#58 May 07 2013 at 6:42 PM Rating: Good
*
130 posts
The only thing devs can do impartially is to reward end game activities with points, and put all the gear and items at a vendor. Otherwise, square cant design raid loot rules. Different guilds hsve different goals and philosophies.

Its up to the players to decide whats best for the group. It is squares duty to not design scenarios that scam people or pit tgem against each other all the time.
____________________________
Peregrine Falcon
Rendezvous Zone LS
Mrd/Con/BS/GS/Min
#59 May 07 2013 at 8:02 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
benjjjamin wrote:
The only thing devs can do impartially is to reward end game activities with points, and put all the gear and items at a vendor. Otherwise, square cant design raid loot rules. Different guilds hsve different goals and philosophies.

Its up to the players to decide whats best for the group. It is squares duty to not design scenarios that scam people or pit tgem against each other all the time.


Many games have shown that guilds only have philosophies, goals, and methods as a consequence of design decisions. Goals are essentially created by the designer in any decent game, and guild philosophies or methods are created by players as a consequence of designers forcing players to make those decisions.

Very few people complain about not having to bring administration and bureaucracy into the problem of how rewards should be allocated when the developers don't create that problem to begin with. It's a chore most players are happy to be rid of.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#60 May 07 2013 at 8:36 PM Rating: Good
*
130 posts
Kachi wrote:

Many games have shown that guilds only have philosophies, goals, and methods as a consequence of design decisions. Goals are essentially created by the designer in any decent game, and guild philosophies or methods are created by players as a consequence of designers forcing players to make those decisions.

Very few people complain about not having to bring administration and bureaucracy into the problem of how rewards should be allocated when the developers don't create that problem to begin with. It's a chore most players are happy to be rid of.


I think that over time that's true, but at the beginning guilds don't know where that final place--the best rules for the game--will be, and neither do the developers necessarily. For them to dictate endgame item distribution may end up fighting the grain of the way the game ends up going. It's more like over time, the game pressures and selects out the same traits in guilds in a continuous fashion, until ones that natively align to the way the developers developed the content are left. Even then the rules aren't so uniform. At the start, they're all over the place though.

The most efficient, adaptable system is to design content that doesn't pit players against each other inherently (eg: rift's early warrior and rogue itemization mistakes, monks and wars being largely incompatible with thieves in FFXI), accomodates a range of hardcore/casual spectrum, BUT lets the community adapt and pick the best offers that guilds can come up in terms of rules. The player community is much more flexible than devs are with game coding.

In the end, there are guilds who are about firsts and competitions. They're going to run their rules inherently different from one that sits back in the pack a little and takes it easier. There's eventually public groups. Purely casual groups. When the players make these rules, these can all do what's best for themselves without regulation.

It's also a valuable lesson for the players to learn: their value as a player and to not take a bad deal from a group of well-equipped people. On one end of bad management, you have sweatshop mentality or an oligarchy. On the other hand you have a revolving door of wasted assets.

Not sure the developers are capable of coding the sweet spot in between. We may never hit it, but I think we can get much closer than they can.
____________________________
Peregrine Falcon
Rendezvous Zone LS
Mrd/Con/BS/GS/Min
#61 May 08 2013 at 1:43 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,898 posts
Kachi wrote:
Many games have shown that guilds only have philosophies, goals, and methods as a consequence of design decisions. Goals are essentially created by the designer in any decent game, and guild philosophies or methods are created by players as a consequence of designers forcing players to make those decisions.

Very few people complain about not having to bring administration and bureaucracy into the problem of how rewards should be allocated when the developers don't create that problem to begin with. It's a chore most players are happy to be rid of.


Yes, but you're missing the point that there are many, many different types of guilds, all with different purposes. There might be one guild that is solely devoted on gearing out players 1 at a time, so all loot goes to 1 player first. There are others where they are just mercenaries being paid to get loot for others. There are guilds who use DKP, those that use some other form of point system, those that are based solely on the discretion of the leadership, ad infinitum.

The point being, if you can devise a system that will work for every single one of these scenarios, and the countless others out there, then I'm all for it. I just don't see how it can be easily done. At this point, I'd rather have the devs focused on more important things like designing content, fixing bugs, improving class balance, improving game latency, etc. In fact, I'd rather have them do pretty much anything than bog down their time trying to solve loot distribution on a player level, something that I don't think should be in the hands of the devs to begin with. People might not complain at a lack of bureaucracy, but then they'd just complain at something else, like how the game decides too much for them. Hmmm, this is starting to sound like a political party debate... to much government (game designer) involvement vs. not enough.
#62 May 08 2013 at 2:44 PM Rating: Good
*
130 posts
It does totally sound like a regulation debate. This dem is breaking party lines XD
____________________________
Peregrine Falcon
Rendezvous Zone LS
Mrd/Con/BS/GS/Min
#63 May 08 2013 at 7:51 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
BartelX wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Many games have shown that guilds only have philosophies, goals, and methods as a consequence of design decisions. Goals are essentially created by the designer in any decent game, and guild philosophies or methods are created by players as a consequence of designers forcing players to make those decisions.

Very few people complain about not having to bring administration and bureaucracy into the problem of how rewards should be allocated when the developers don't create that problem to begin with. It's a chore most players are happy to be rid of.


Yes, but you're missing the point that there are many, many different types of guilds, all with different purposes. There might be one guild that is solely devoted on gearing out players 1 at a time, so all loot goes to 1 player first. There are others where they are just mercenaries being paid to get loot for others. There are guilds who use DKP, those that use some other form of point system, those that are based solely on the discretion of the leadership, ad infinitum.

The point being, if you can devise a system that will work for every single one of these scenarios, and the countless others out there, then I'm all for it. I just don't see how it can be easily done. At this point, I'd rather have the devs focused on more important things like designing content, fixing bugs, improving class balance, improving game latency, etc. In fact, I'd rather have them do pretty much anything than bog down their time trying to solve loot distribution on a player level, something that I don't think should be in the hands of the devs to begin with. People might not complain at a lack of bureaucracy, but then they'd just complain at something else, like how the game decides too much for them. Hmmm, this is starting to sound like a political party debate... to much government (game designer) involvement vs. not enough.


Right, there are many types of guilds, but my point was that their "different purposes" are all artifacts of game design. Player purposes are created by game designers, whether intentionally or unintentionally. When the loot distribution systems don't match up with player purposes, that's a system mismatch that is the fault of the designer.

The point you're missing is that you don't need to design a system for players who don't want a system, or are just going to subvert the system anyway. Most game systems are opt-in, so the answer to, "don't like this system" is "don't use that system." You design systems for the players who will use them.

I realize this may all be a bit abstract, but it is definitely a major problem in MMO design. Should FFXIV be the one to tackle it? **** no. It's too ambitious for a game that's playing catch-up.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#64 May 09 2013 at 1:42 PM Rating: Good
****
6,898 posts
Kachi wrote:
Right, there are many types of guilds, but my point was that their "different purposes" are all artifacts of game design. Player purposes are created by game designers, whether intentionally or unintentionally. When the loot distribution systems don't match up with player purposes, that's a system mismatch that is the fault of the designer.

The point you're missing is that you don't need to design a system for players who don't want a system, or are just going to subvert the system anyway. Most game systems are opt-in, so the answer to, "don't like this system" is "don't use that system." You design systems for the players who will use them.

I realize this may all be a bit abstract, but it is definitely a major problem in MMO design. Should FFXIV be the one to tackle it? **** no. It's too ambitious for a game that's playing catch-up.


I see what you're saying, I just don't think it's worth the time for the developers to tackle something like this, at least not in today's market. Perhaps 20-30 years from now, if (and it's a big if) the development cycle for mmo's takes considerably less time/money, it's something that they can work on. But as it stands, I just don't see a point to taking the time to work out a whole new system that only a select group of players will use, when there is an overarching system (need/greed/pass) that gets the job done already. Yes it may be a bit simplistic, but it is relatively effective as is. And even if that system doesn't work, there is the quartermaster system to allow full control by the players. To me it falls under the category "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

In a perfect world, I agree that it would be cool if the game kept track of all that stuff for you, as long as it wasn't the game deciding based on those records who gets what, as it would be incredibly difficult to teach a game engine all of the variables that go into attendance, contribution, skill level, or any of the other factors guilds use to decide who gets what gear.
#65 May 09 2013 at 3:25 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
BartelX wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Right, there are many types of guilds, but my point was that their "different purposes" are all artifacts of game design. Player purposes are created by game designers, whether intentionally or unintentionally. When the loot distribution systems don't match up with player purposes, that's a system mismatch that is the fault of the designer.

The point you're missing is that you don't need to design a system for players who don't want a system, or are just going to subvert the system anyway. Most game systems are opt-in, so the answer to, "don't like this system" is "don't use that system." You design systems for the players who will use them.

I realize this may all be a bit abstract, but it is definitely a major problem in MMO design. Should FFXIV be the one to tackle it? **** no. It's too ambitious for a game that's playing catch-up.


I see what you're saying, I just don't think it's worth the time for the developers to tackle something like this, at least not in today's market. Perhaps 20-30 years from now, if (and it's a big if) the development cycle for mmo's takes considerably less time/money, it's something that they can work on. But as it stands, I just don't see a point to taking the time to work out a whole new system that only a select group of players will use, when there is an overarching system (need/greed/pass) that gets the job done already. Yes it may be a bit simplistic, but it is relatively effective as is. And even if that system doesn't work, there is the quartermaster system to allow full control by the players. To me it falls under the category "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

In a perfect world, I agree that it would be cool if the game kept track of all that stuff for you, as long as it wasn't the game deciding based on those records who gets what, as it would be incredibly difficult to teach a game engine all of the variables that go into attendance, contribution, skill level, or any of the other factors guilds use to decide who gets what gear.


I think your imagination is going all the wrong places on this one.
1) These tools are not especially difficult to develop--certainly not so for the budget of MMOs.
2) Lots of players would use these tools, even something as absurdly simple as in-game attendance counters. Almost nobody would rather whip out a piece of paper, then transfer it to their guild's forum, then update that list when someone spends points, etc... That's just one simple example.
3) MMOs are already trying to address the problem. They are just wasting money by taking a very half-assed approach to it.

The fact is, players end up having less fun because of the current loot distribution systems. They might think that the current systems are good enough, but only because they don't know any better. When your job is to make something fun, falling on player complacency isn't a win-win (they don't think they want it, and we don't want to make it). It's a lose-lose (they're having less fun, and we're making less money).

Games, again, by design, already track all that stuff for you. HOW they track it for you is a design decision. As the designer, I decide who has earned Kirin's Osode, and how they earned it. I write the requirements. I decide if it goes to the luckiest person, or the most skilled, or the person who put in the most time, or the person who earned the most points. When players create their own systems, it's because the system that I designed didn't work properly. A player-built points system is an unintended side effect of me failing to realize that random lots is a stupid way to allocate something that has varying value to many different people who worked together to earn a chance at the reward I put in the game. The result is drama and bureaucracy that has to be managed by other players. I've created work-roles within a game that is supposed to be played for fun.

And the reality is, it's not that much harder for me as a game designer to set a requirement for earning something than it is for me to create an open drop system that just randomly shells out loot to players or groups. It's really not that much harder than picking a random % for an item dropping into a pool. It's really a question of whether I think that the drama and bureaucracy is all "part of the fun."

Need/Greed/Pass systems are better than nothing, I guess. But they're not great, and they don't solve a lot of the problems involved with loot distribution.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#66 May 09 2013 at 3:50 PM Rating: Good
***
3,386 posts
The question becomes, what happens when the players want something else?

What if guild A really loves open roll systems, but guild B likes suicide kings. Guild C on the other hand, prefers EPGP to handle their loot distribution, while guild D likes loot council. Guild E on the other hand prefers strict DKP, and while guild F generally agrees, they prefer a zero-sum DKP system. Guild G likes the idea of paying for loot with gil, but guild H would prefer the money were distributed to the other raiders. Guild I is ok with that, but they'd like a scaling system that uses attendance and dedication to lower the buy-in for certain items. Guild J is really only about half a raid, the rest is filled with random people from chat; they'd like to be able to have a fair way to distribute loot between themselves while accounting for the randoms they're picking up each night. Guild K is brand new and doesn't know what kind of system would work best for them, and they're also thinking of merging with guild L that currently uses open rolling.

DESIGN THAT.

Can you? Of course. Should you? Probably not.

Edited, May 9th 2013 5:37pm by Callinon
____________________________
svlyons wrote:
If random outcomes aren't acceptable to you, then don't play with random people.
#67 May 09 2013 at 3:55 PM Rating: Good
****
6,898 posts
Kachi wrote:
The fact is, players end up having less fun because of the current loot distribution systems.


I don't think you can say that's a fact. I certainly didn't have less fun because of loot distribution. Quite the opposite in fact. As soon as I started playing WoW and swtor, that was one of the things I really liked about it. The ease with which loot gets distributed.

Kachi wrote:
Games, again, by design, already track all that stuff for you. HOW they track it for you is a design decision. As the designer, I decide who has earned Kirin's Osode, and how they earned it. I write the requirements. I decide if it goes to the luckiest person, or the most skilled, or the person who put in the most time, or the person who earned the most points. When players create their own systems, it's because the system that I designed didn't work properly. A player-built points system is an unintended side effect of me failing to realize that random lots is a stupid way to allocate something that has varying value to many different people who worked together to earn a chance at the reward I put in the game. The result is drama and bureaucracy that has to be managed by other players. I've created work-roles within a game that is supposed to be played for fun.


The only point I was trying to make is that designing a system that factors in luck, player skill, player time, points, and everything else would be insanely complex. Yes, the game can certainly track that. And I'm sure they can devise algorithms to simplify the process, but it's still a ton of variables that quite honestly aren't something a game can decipher easily. How exactly does a game dictate player skill? Is it going to track your movements to realize that you were able to avoid that AoE move, or how often you use items to heal, or how many times you use the correct JA before a big mob attack? Is it going to do it for every player? If so, doesn't that seem like it would be way too complex, especially considering that is just one of many factors?

Kachi wrote:
And the reality is, it's not that much harder for me as a game designer to set a requirement for earning something than it is for me to create an open drop system that just randomly shells out loot to players or groups. It's really not that much harder than picking a random % for an item dropping into a pool. It's really a question of whether I think that the drama and bureaucracy is all "part of the fun."


Well then, perhaps I'm wrong. I don't think it's nearly as easy as you claim it be. I'm not an expert coder, but I do have about 4 years experience working with actionscript, html, and now html 5, and from that time I certainly don't see how it would be easy to incorporate. Again, I'm not a coding master, so perhaps I'm just overthinking it.

Kachi wrote:
Need/Greed/Pass systems are better than nothing, I guess. But they're not great, and they don't solve a lot of the problems involved with loot distribution.


Meh, personal opinion I think. I happen to think they're quite admirable. It simplifies the loot distribution choice to the truly guttural instincts. Do you need it. Do you want it. Do you not need it at all. Maybe it's too simple for some, for me it does the job effectively in almost every situation short of pickup groups with some jerk who just needs everything... but those situations are what QM is for. I dunno, I'm still not convinced a new system is even necessary. But I do appreciate your position and have certainly gained some food for thought.


Edited, May 9th 2013 5:57pm by BartelX
#68 May 09 2013 at 7:53 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Archmage Callinon wrote:
The question becomes, what happens when the players want something else?

What if guild A really loves open roll systems, but guild B likes suicide kings. Guild C on the other hand, prefers EPGP to handle their loot distribution, while guild D likes loot council. Guild E on the other hand prefers strict DKP, and while guild F generally agrees, they prefer a zero-sum DKP system. Guild G likes the idea of paying for loot with gil, but guild H would prefer the money were distributed to the other raiders. Guild I is ok with that, but they'd like a scaling system that uses attendance and dedication to lower the buy-in for certain items. Guild J is really only about half a raid, the rest is filled with random people from chat; they'd like to be able to have a fair way to distribute loot between themselves while accounting for the randoms they're picking up each night. Guild K is brand new and doesn't know what kind of system would work best for them, and they're also thinking of merging with guild L that currently uses open rolling.

DESIGN THAT.

Can you? Of course. Should you? Probably not.

Edited, May 9th 2013 5:37pm by Callinon


That system is easy to design if only because any player-established system can be accommodated simply by letting players do things however they want. So what happens when players wants something else? The same thing that already happens. Nobody is put out by allowing players more options.

The problem is not that players have the options to distribute loot how they like, but that they are often all but forced to. Most games do not even have system tools for guilds to manage their points in whatever way they like. I'll raise the obvious point again: Have you ever played a game that even provides a way to track and share member points within the game? Doesn't that strike you as an incredibly simple and effective tool for half the systems you just described?

Beyond which, I feel you're still missing my point: players don't choose loot systems simply out of personal preference. They choose loot systems in response to the perceived match between their goals (which are provided by the game) and the game's inherent fairness in distributing rewards. That's it. Those things are provided by the game--they are the direct result of the designer's choices. The best loot distribution system is one in which the game automatically gives the reward to players who have earned it. This is not the rocket science or development sink some of you seem to think it is. Organizational institutions hinge on their ability to do this. The programming is not difficult. So not only can they, but yes, they should.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#69 May 09 2013 at 8:07 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
I don't think you can say that's a fact. I certainly didn't have less fun because of loot distribution. Quite the opposite in fact. As soon as I started playing WoW and swtor, that was one of the things I really liked about it. The ease with which loot gets distributed.


For you, it's easy, but it's not easy in all cases. New systems aren't designed for the people who are happy with the old ones as much as they are designed for the people who aren't (though to reiterate: some people just don't realize how much happier they could be). It's still a source of stress and in-fighting for many players. WoW and SWTOR also have single-class systems which don't extend well to class-changing games. In those games, their application of Need/Greed/Pass is a half-example of exactly what I'm talking about--the game rewarding players according to its own design. The things you like about it are exactly what games need more of.


Quote:
The only point I was trying to make is that designing a system that factors in luck, player skill, player time, points, and everything else would be insanely complex. Yes, the game can certainly track that. And I'm sure they can devise algorithms to simplify the process, but it's still a ton of variables that quite honestly aren't something a game can decipher easily. How exactly does a game dictate player skill? Is it going to track your movements to realize that you were able to avoid that AoE move, or how often you use items to heal, or how many times you use the correct JA before a big mob attack? Is it going to do it for every player? If so, doesn't that seem like it would be way too complex, especially considering that is just one of many factors?


No no no... there are fundamentally only two variables that the game can track: effort and skill. Gauging both of these either simultaneously or independently is not particularly hard. For skill, you simply use performance checkpoints. For effort, you can measure engagement over time. They're actually very easy to assess and then to distribute as points or rewards. Fundamentally, that's what games already do right until you reach endgame, where oddly, they decide to stop doing that, and saying, "Let's make players figure out who earned what."

Quote:
Well then, perhaps I'm wrong. I don't think it's nearly as easy as you claim it be. I'm not an expert coder, but I do have about 4 years experience working with actionscript, html, and now html 5, and from that time I certainly don't see how it would be easy to incorporate. Again, I'm not a coding master, so perhaps I'm just overthinking it.


I think you're overthinking it. It doesn't require complex algorithms. It's not even a mathematical or programming problem as much as a design problem. You seem to be thinking of it in terms of how to make a tool that works in a game that is designed wrongly to begin with. It's not about building complicated parts, but about sticking the ones that are available together into a system that doesn't have quite so much runoff and waste.

Quote:
Meh, personal opinion I think. I happen to think they're quite admirable. It simplifies the loot distribution choice to the truly guttural instincts. Do you need it. Do you want it. Do you not need it at all. Maybe it's too simple for some, for me it does the job effectively in almost every situation short of pickup groups with some jerk who just needs everything... but those situations are what QM is for. I dunno, I'm still not convinced a new system is even necessary. But I do appreciate your position and have certainly gained some food for thought.


It's also notoriously abused and doesn't work well in games with class changes, or for that matter, games with significant horizontal progression. And if there is a situation that you'd use QM'ing for, then that QM is almost surely operating off of a system that required them to use pen and paper, attendance sheets, etc. outside of the game. That's absurd, and that's my point.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#70 May 11 2013 at 10:24 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
Here's how I would do it.

Have a sub menu available to a shell holder and pearlsack holders called "Events."

This menu would have a list of options:
"Start Event"
"End Event"
"Display Points"
"Adjust Points"

"Points" are measured in minutes, so they're going to quickly bloat like gil, but that's the fairest and easiest way to measure.

Anyone who is on the shell when the sackholder hits "Event Start" gets credit for being on at event start. Anyone who logs on during the event gets their attendance calculated starting from the time they log on. Anyone who logs off during the event stops getting calculated for points. Hitting "End Event" stops calculating points for all members.

"Display Points" spits out a running list of all current accumlated points.

"Adjust points" allows for manual deductions of points. Adjustments must have a reason included, such as "-50 :: Won lot on X item." It could also allow leaders to deduct points for someone who suddenly AFK'd for 30 minutes in the middle of the event, or add back 5 minutes if someone disconnected and sent a txt that their PC crashed and they'd be right back on as soon as they could.

All data is mirrored on the Lodestone's equivalent of the Linkshell Community site from XI, including the timestamps for start and end of the events, the points of each member earned at beginning of the event, and the reasons listed for any deductions.

Display Points could be done to allow folks without easy access to the Lodestone site to see exactly what their points are at the event start.

We're talking about a very simple database built using data the game already collects anyway, with minor abilities for the linkshell leaders to manipulate the data however they see fit. A first year SQL student could program this in a day.

Edited, May 11th 2013 12:25pm by Catwho
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#71 May 11 2013 at 12:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
**
837 posts
So i have a question. As i said i didn't like the point system but it is true that other than that occasion i haven't really used it. So my question is this...if there is a "casual" raider and by that i mean that he wont be able to join all the raids cause of real life reasons. How is he gonna fair in a point system based guild/Shells if there are "hardcore" raiders that join every raid and then some more meaning they will always have more points than him.
____________________________
YaY signature!! (i was never good with signatures >_<)

Grim Reaperz (Ultros server)
#72 May 11 2013 at 12:25 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,386 posts
Teravibe wrote:
So i have a question. As i said i didn't like the point system but it is true that other than that occasion i haven't really used it. So my question is this...if there is a "casual" raider and by that i mean that he wont be able to join all the raids cause of real life reasons. How is he gonna fair in a point system based guild/Shells if there are "hardcore" raiders that join every raid and then some more meaning they will always have more points than him.


The answer to that is that you don't keep your loot distribution system a secret.

A casual raider simply won't join a raiding guild that uses a system he can't possibly keep up with. Or if he does (maybe he has friends in there and doesn't particularly care about raiding all the time), then he'll get into side events that aren't using the point system, or he'll come just to help out and get whatever people don't need.

My point is there are ways for him to participate, but in general he simply doesn't join at all.
____________________________
svlyons wrote:
If random outcomes aren't acceptable to you, then don't play with random people.
#73 May 11 2013 at 2:02 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Catwho wrote:
Here's how I would do it.

Have a sub menu available to a shell holder and pearlsack holders called "Events."

This menu would have a list of options:
"Start Event"
"End Event"
"Display Points"
"Adjust Points"

"Points" are measured in minutes, so they're going to quickly bloat like gil, but that's the fairest and easiest way to measure.

Anyone who is on the shell when the sackholder hits "Event Start" gets credit for being on at event start. Anyone who logs on during the event gets their attendance calculated starting from the time they log on. Anyone who logs off during the event stops getting calculated for points. Hitting "End Event" stops calculating points for all members.

"Display Points" spits out a running list of all current accumlated points.

"Adjust points" allows for manual deductions of points. Adjustments must have a reason included, such as "-50 :: Won lot on X item." It could also allow leaders to deduct points for someone who suddenly AFK'd for 30 minutes in the middle of the event, or add back 5 minutes if someone disconnected and sent a txt that their PC crashed and they'd be right back on as soon as they could.

All data is mirrored on the Lodestone's equivalent of the Linkshell Community site from XI, including the timestamps for start and end of the events, the points of each member earned at beginning of the event, and the reasons listed for any deductions.

Display Points could be done to allow folks without easy access to the Lodestone site to see exactly what their points are at the event start.

We're talking about a very simple database built using data the game already collects anyway, with minor abilities for the linkshell leaders to manipulate the data however they see fit. A first year SQL student could program this in a day.

Edited, May 11th 2013 12:25pm by Catwho


That's similar to what I had in mind; thank you for taking the time to offer an example. You could also give leaders the ability to change point-per-minute values (so some events are worth more than others), even weight player points differently on an individual basis if you wanted to (say, earning more points for leading events), and to restrict attendance to players in the event zone.

My righteous indignation stems from the fact that solutions like this are glaring omissions in light of the "non-design" approaches (chaos approaches, almost) that games are employing in end-game content. Tools like this should be de facto inclusions in any system where players have to compete with their cohorts for drops.

I also don't think players should necessarily have to compete with their cohorts for drops, and MMOs have historically made certain efforts towards that approach, like token/currency systems. But these solutions are also artifacts of a poorly designed system where players are expected to earn rewards by completing a task many more times than they should have to, or really even want to.

The bottom line is that tomorrow's MMOs have to significantly raise the bar in ways other than graphics if they want to really compete. If they don't innovate in design as well by "bothering" to design effective systems and solutions to the problems they invent, then their sales will suffer.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#74 May 11 2013 at 3:37 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
Teravibe wrote:
So i have a question. As i said i didn't like the point system but it is true that other than that occasion i haven't really used it. So my question is this...if there is a "casual" raider and by that i mean that he wont be able to join all the raids cause of real life reasons. How is he gonna fair in a point system based guild/Shells if there are "hardcore" raiders that join every raid and then some more meaning they will always have more points than him.


My group uses a silent auction system. People send the leader a tell with the amount of points they're willing to spend on an item. Highest bid wins.

So a more casual player can save up points and bid 'em all on the thing he really wants, perhaps beating out the more hardcore types.

When I rejoined HNM land a few years ago, I deliberately picked a part time raiding group that only counted formal events three times a week, and which doesn't deduct any points for missing events. So if I have to miss (which I will, when I go on my cruise), I'm not falling too terribly behind and won't be booted from active roster or anything.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#75 May 11 2013 at 3:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
**
837 posts
Catwho wrote:
Teravibe wrote:
So i have a question. As i said i didn't like the point system but it is true that other than that occasion i haven't really used it. So my question is this...if there is a "casual" raider and by that i mean that he wont be able to join all the raids cause of real life reasons. How is he gonna fair in a point system based guild/Shells if there are "hardcore" raiders that join every raid and then some more meaning they will always have more points than him.


My group uses a silent auction system. People send the leader a tell with the amount of points they're willing to spend on an item. Highest bid wins.

So a more casual player can save up points and bid 'em all on the thing he really wants, perhaps beating out the more hardcore types.

When I rejoined HNM land a few years ago, I deliberately picked a part time raiding group that only counted formal events three times a week, and which doesn't deduct any points for missing events. So if I have to miss (which I will, when I go on my cruise), I'm not falling too terribly behind and won't be booted from active roster or anything.



Hm, that does seem nice but then again...its the same as the need/greed with the difference that the points will be removed from you. I do not know. If all raiding groups end up following a point system of course i will have to follow it but for some reason it still doesn't sit too well to me. But it might be due to the fact that i am weird as well sometimes.
____________________________
YaY signature!! (i was never good with signatures >_<)

Grim Reaperz (Ultros server)
#76 May 11 2013 at 4:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Guru
***
1,310 posts
DamienSScott wrote:
I think a lot of people are still looking at this with FFXI tinted glasses. In FFXI yes, you would spend hours/days slogging through 18+ man farming just to prepare for a boss encounter at a later date. I'm finally starting to understand why a point system was needed for these events. Those people that go to every farming run for hours on end deserve just as much, if not more of a chance at loot than those that just go to boss runs. However, FFXIV is not supposed to be nearly as grindy as FFXI was, and I am assuming that loot is going to be tossed at us on a consistent basis. Groups will be much smaller and there will be no more "farm for a week for 10 pops and only get 1 drop". A point system most likely won't be necessary in the vast majority of circumstances and would probably be detrimental to LS/Company growth if not altered properly for the game.


If Yoshi makes the game according to plan, there could (or at least should) be things like grinding, farming end game events for those who wish to pursue them. This is with the understanding that most people probably won't be interested in going that far, but a devoted base of hardcore players will (or will get bored too fast if there are no such things to pursue). The system to auto-group players into PUGs for challenges should be a middling approach for those who don't have the time for large groups, but there ought to still be events for large groups all the same.

The secret is that the "best" gear should not be so far ahead of "good enough" gear that there's no way a casual player could dabble in endgame whatsoever, or be locked out of essential skills and upgrades needed for their class / job. There needs to be a balance between a feeling of accomplishment for going the extra mile for good equipment but without making the good equipment the only way you'll be taken seriously at your class / job (e.g. no invite unless you have a fully upgraded relic weapon!)
#77 May 11 2013 at 4:43 PM Rating: Good
*
130 posts
I feel like if there was a good way for devs to do it, we'd have had it 7 years ago :/

Edited, May 11th 2013 6:44pm by benjjjamin
____________________________
Peregrine Falcon
Rendezvous Zone LS
Mrd/Con/BS/GS/Min
#78 May 11 2013 at 4:49 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,386 posts
benjjjamin wrote:
I feel like if there was a good way for devs to do it, we'd have had it 7 years ago :/

Edited, May 11th 2013 6:44pm by benjjjamin


Not necessarily. I think it's more a matter of dev teams prioritizing their resources. There's no particularly compelling need to design a system like this for a tiny fraction of your playerbase that's going to use it when that fraction is handling it fine by themselves.

Given a glut of developer resources, it might be worthwhile it integrate some of the management into the game. But for the most part, I suspect it just isn't worth the time investment.
____________________________
svlyons wrote:
If random outcomes aren't acceptable to you, then don't play with random people.
#79 May 11 2013 at 5:04 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
benjjjamin wrote:
I feel like if there was a good way for devs to do it, we'd have had it 7 years ago :/

Edited, May 11th 2013 6:44pm by benjjjamin


You're vastly overestimating the development process and the people who work within it.

Archmage Callinon wrote:
benjjjamin wrote:
I feel like if there was a good way for devs to do it, we'd have had it 7 years ago :/

Edited, May 11th 2013 6:44pm by benjjjamin


Not necessarily. I think it's more a matter of dev teams prioritizing their resources. There's no particularly compelling need to design a system like this for a tiny fraction of your playerbase that's going to use it when that fraction is handling it fine by themselves.

Given a glut of developer resources, it might be worthwhile it integrate some of the management into the game. But for the most part, I suspect it just isn't worth the time investment.


And you're vastly overestimating the difficulty of these systems, while vastly underestimating their value. They're not difficult to implement and the value is much higher than you're giving credit. Consider a game like FFXI, for example. How many players in FFXI are at endgame and would like to participate in that type of content? Probably the majority of them, if not the considerable majority. Certainly in many games, it's not some insignificant fraction. Even in WoW, we'd be talking about hundreds of thousands of players. It depends on the game, because as I've said half a dozen times, the designers are the ones who determine these systems and their needs. But if you LIKE player based systems, then simple tools like these which take very little time to design are a no-brainer, and if you DON'T like them, then you'd have to agree that designers need to do a better job with loot distribution systems.

Devs aren't failing to include these things because they're "prioritizing their resources." If they were, they'd be implementing these features (else they're just really bad at prioritizing). Compare to other features that they implement and this is obvious. Primarily it's because of an unwillingness to solve simple problems. In the best defense, it's because higher-ups won't let them do anything too different, even if it smacks of common sense.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#80 May 11 2013 at 5:21 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,386 posts
Quote:
Consider a game like FFXI, for example


FFXI is a horrible example because it's the exception to most of the rules that MMOs have developed around after WoW shifted the paradigm.

Quote:
Even in WoW, we'd be talking about hundreds of thousands of players.


Out of tens of millions over its life.

To be sure, content is developed for these people, they're called raids. They're pretty well done most of the time. The guilds that handle them casually are fine with rolling dice and letting fate be the judge. The guilds that take them more seriously need something a little more controlled, and infinite loot systems are born to fill the myriad levels of need there.

Actually I think WoW may also be a bad example because addons help tremendously in this regard.

Maybe SWTOR? Are their raids complex enough to require progression? I don't actually know. I know that SWTOR has (or at least had) this kind of modified loot system that tailored the boss drops to the classes that were present.

Anyway.

What I meant by "prioritizing resources" is that a system like this isn't a priority. The guilds that want it will handle it themselves, and the guilds that don't need it are 90% of your playerbase.
____________________________
svlyons wrote:
If random outcomes aren't acceptable to you, then don't play with random people.
#81 May 11 2013 at 8:32 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
We're just not going to agree on this one. These are easy fixes that improve the group's ability to manage leadership through the content. More leadership, equals more content experience for players, equals greater engagement with the game. You either create a game that needs loot distribution mechanics and benefits significantly from these systems, or you create one that doesn't and you have to use a design-oriented loot distribution approach.

Frankly, I'm sensing that you don't know enough about the subject to articulate a strong defense, and are just being an apologist for game designers (which, if you knew them in person, you'd probably better understand how deeply jaded, flawed, and uncritical they can be regarding their work). I genuinely don't mean that as an attack or insult, just that I think we've reached an impasse in the conversation, where you're starting to tread on my pet peeve of making excuses for people who aren't doing their job. I feel that the discussion has been productive, and I don't want it to turn into an argument, but I don't think I can be any more convincing than I've been, nor should I need to be.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#82 May 11 2013 at 10:34 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,386 posts
Quote:
Frankly, I'm sensing that you don't know enough about the subject to articulate a strong defense, and are just being an apologist for game designers


I'm not sure exactly how you thought that wouldn't be insulting.

I'm also fine not agreeing with you on this. It will not, however, stop me from presenting my position in conversation with other people in those areas where I have experience. Dealing with endgame leadership structures happens to be one of those areas. Game design is not my primary background, however I do possess critical thinking skills and the ability to be objective.

Quote:
(which, if you knew them in person, you'd probably better understand how deeply jaded, flawed, and uncritical they can be regarding their work)


This parenthetical is actually quite illuminating when it comes to understanding where your position is coming from. I suspected it, but I didn't have quite enough information to draw a conclusion until then. In general I've found that designers (of all sorts) tend to be their own harshest critics. Of course that's never stopped anyone from armchair quarterbacking (or armchair game designing as the case may be).

Clearly I'm not going to convince you of my position, but I think you might want to take a step back and examine yours a little more objectively. You may be assigning a little too much emotional bias to it. Don't get me wrong there, it's good to be passionate about things, that's how things get done. But maybe look and see if what you're saying really makes sense critically.
____________________________
svlyons wrote:
If random outcomes aren't acceptable to you, then don't play with random people.
#83 May 11 2013 at 11:15 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
My view on it is that the devs can provide these tools easily. Sure, it's not a "priority" for the resources today, and probably wouldn't be until the game is live for a month, but under requirements I'd stick this under "It would be nice if..." which is usually a wishlist for the next big patch for a program.

Again, a first year SQL student could program this in a day. I could fire up MySQL right now and make the back end of it. It's just names and timestamps and simple math.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#84 May 12 2013 at 5:09 AM Rating: Good
**
618 posts
My experience with EG from FFxi stems from this,

The Linkshell I joined had a list on their website of all the gear drops from the events they did (sky, limbus, dynamis, HNM's... etc). They also had a set amount of points associated with each item. You got points from attending events, HNM claims/kills, getting TOD's... etc. When any gear dropped those that wanted it and had the points would place their bid in open chat (this allowed everyone to see how bad some one wanted the item). At times people would drive the bid up higher than what one might of normally bid. It sucked when the drop was fairly common and paying with more points than originally wanted.

For our linkshell this worked rather well. To determine how many points you had at any given time before the event started you could go to the website the linkshell had created and look on there to see how many points you had. If you didn't have access to the web you could ask before the event or during the event (in between kills, pulls) any one of the officers that was assigned to cover points could give you your totals. The winning bid, player and drop would be added to the site after the event so people can see who got what.

Depending on how many subscribers the game has after launch or even before setting up the database and the way to manipulate it for such a thing would be rather easy for a programmer to do. The key is: Lets say the game is a huge success and draws in millions of players (this is just a example) maintaining a separate server for this (maintenance, cost) would be rather high, so they would have to do something to help alleviate this cost. With that in mind would you be willing to pay more than the normal amount for any MMO just to accommodate this added feature? How much would be to much? The average person who isn't familiar with the IT aspect of the gaming wouldn't have any clue on it while the others would, the average person who doesn't know any better would be saying it's a rip off to be playing what the normal avg is for mmo's in the market today.
____________________________
FFXIV Gilgamesh: Nghthawk Evenfall
FFXIV Gilgamesh: Nytehawk Evenfall


Time is but a window,
Death is but a doorway,
I'll Be Back
#85 May 12 2013 at 8:28 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
It wouldn't need to be a separate server. Compared to the thousands of tables associated with character data already, and the hundreds that will likely be involved in the Free Companies and that are already involved in linkshells, sticking in another 4-5 table database will be negligible in terms of cost. They already have the Lodestone for the external, front facing part of it.

____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#86 May 12 2013 at 1:25 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
I'm not sure exactly how you thought that wouldn't be insulting.


Well, what I was trying to suggest was that you were arguing from a place of ignorance. I don't consider accusing someone of ignorance an insult--everyone has their ignorance. And I don't take offense to it when you suggest the same of me. That's why I say we're at an impasse--you think my opinion is too uninformed, and I think the same of you. And that could easily devolve into ad hominem and/or an argument about who knows more and why, and that really just doesn't interest me. So, I wasn't trying to be disrespectful. On the contrary, I was trying to bow out respectfully. So please forgive my faux pas, and allow us to adjourn from a place of mutual respect.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#87 May 12 2013 at 10:29 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
**
728 posts
Xoie wrote:
If Yoshi makes the game according to plan, there could (or at least should) be things like grinding, farming end game events for those who wish to pursue them. This is with the understanding that most people probably won't be interested in going that far, but a devoted base of hardcore players will (or will get bored too fast if there are no such things to pursue). The system to auto-group players into PUGs for challenges should be a middling approach for those who don't have the time for large groups, but there ought to still be events for large groups all the same.

The secret is that the "best" gear should not be so far ahead of "good enough" gear that there's no way a casual player could dabble in endgame whatsoever, or be locked out of essential skills and upgrades needed for their class / job. There needs to be a balance between a feeling of accomplishment for going the extra mile for good equipment but without making the good equipment the only way you'll be taken seriously at your class / job (e.g. no invite unless you have a fully upgraded relic weapon!)


I agree and hope so completely. When making my comments I was thinking of things such as relics being a separate entity from the typical end game of dungeons and whatnot where specific items in their entirety can drop off of a single boss. The majority of people will be able to feasibly obtain this dungeon loot given enough time and I think that SE will make dungeon gear progress fairly well. When first heard that they were raising the level cap in FFXI the first thing i thought of after OMFG /REFRESH WUT? was what about those that put all of that time/money into Relics/Mythics. I was pleasantly surprised when I found out that they were still the strongest weapons in the game if you completed a few more quests to raise their levels as well. I think that they have a very good system to look at when working with gear progression and power creep in the future.

I agree with what you mention about various group sizes. I think that at the time I was derping and was thinking that Alliance size was smaller in XIV, but I don't believe that is the case (still not entirely sure as to how that system works yet). However with instances being the norm SE could, in fact, limit the maximum amount of players allowed in to the Alliance cap. This would hopefully mean no more 64 man events with 3+ alliances (unless it was some insanely awesome world event that nearly anyone could join).

As a "semi-hardcore" player I've never had issues with there being stuff that I knew I could never do/get. ****, I'm sure a lot of us in FFXI felt that way for a long time XD. When I first heard about Relic weapons and saw Saphari I knew I had to have it... Then I learned what you had to do for it and decided that it wasn't worth my time and I was okay with that. When I saw what people had to do for Mythic Weapons I blinked into an alternate reality somewhere in that timeline's future and slapped my firstborn son. (I may have watched the first season of Heroes this weekend...) These items need to be there for those that truly want to take up that journey, but it doesn't mean that they have to be an integral part of everyone else's end-game either.

/end rambly mood
/begin playing Dungeons of Dredmor and Thief Trilogy
____________________________
FFXI: DamienSlvrblade Race: Elvaan Nation: San d'Oria Server: Sylph 2002-2007, Phoenix 2012
PUP WHM PLD MNK BLU BST SAM WAR BLM 99 BRD THF NIN DNC SMN RDM 50+

FFXIV: Damien Scott Race: Duskwight Elezen GC: Limsa Lominsa Server: Ultros
DoW GLA50 ACN50 PUG50 MAR 50 Rest30+
DoH/DoL All 40+
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 101 All times are in CDT
xizro, Anonymous Guests (100)