The problem of this thought-line is that ploot would then be superior to FFA in terms of loot drops.
Many of us do not want that to happen.
Ploot needs to be a mode that is more or less equivalent to FFA, so that players can decide between a competitive high risk, high reward and a cooperative low risk, low reward mode.
If ploot drops 8x as much loot, then obviously noone would play FFA anymore. Many of us do not want that.
It is factually incorrect.
D3 has a completely different loot system and you know it. Stop pulling fake arguments out of your hat. You name yourself after a philosopher, yet you are a shameful debatter. Not a single honest or consistent thought has been brought fourth by you in the past days.
Take the quote i gave you yesterday as a hint. Stand in the back of the class and listen for a year. Only once you learned to listen can you call yourself a philosopher.
Let me give you some simple math that even you can grasp.
Leecher in ploot: 1/8 - best case, 1/8 - worst case, 1/8 - mean value
Leecher in FFA loot: 8/8 - best case, 0/8 - worst case, 4/8 - mean value
Now take into account that a leecher in FFA mode has far higher chances than other players because a leecher actually only has to concentrate on one simple thing (clicking fast), while other players actually have to do all the killing as well.
So inherently the leecher has a higher chance to get each drop, bringing him even higher up in the ninja-loot gains.
So even if you argue conservatively, the leecher will still have 4 times as much loot in FFA as in ploot.
Your statement is so easily proven wrong that you must either be the dumbest math person on the planet earth (actually 1 step in front of fury) or the most blatant liar (tied with fury).
Congratz for that achievement. Now you can sit down and listen to the grown ups do the talking.
I have a point about this. To me, Ploot just means you see what drops you have recived had you farmed a run solo. If four people solo farm Baal. In four separate games. Their loot is not the same and the drop chance is the same as the original game.
Now if they were in the same game with Ploot. It could be no different than 4 players doing it solo. The only difference is that they can benefit from each others skills. Passive aura paladins would be more valuable. Like wise shout barbs. If ploot were implemented in a way that encouraged group farming we wouldnât have to rely on a CTA because we can just have a barb in our party. A bear druid with oak sage would be loved by all instead of a character with limited use in D2 LoD current state.
That is not a little difference.
It is actually already quite a high incentive to play as a group. The main problem with pubs is the toxic loot grabbing.
I dont think it is a good idea to change the overall balance of things. Sure, you could argue that you might as well play a solo game so a 8-player game should have the same outcome as a solo game. But i dont think that will be a good thing.
In many games (e.g. d3) playing a multiplayer game has alot of advantages already, so solo players are at an inherrent disadvantage (less exp, less loot, etc).
In d2 the balance is somewhere in the middle. You can play 8player pubs for exp and solo games for loot.
What i want to change about pubs is simply that it shouldnt force you to click for every loot drop to not end up with nothing. I dont think the chances are the problem, just the distribution between the players.
If you want to increase drop chances, you can still make that argument. But i dont think most of the ploot people on this board will follow through on that. We took great care to not increase the drop rates in our suggestion. Trading is very important, balance is very important and the long grind of d2 is also one of the main characteristics of the game. You are not supposed to get everything, maybe ever. It is a game where you need to take the short end of the stick when you cant find something better.
What i wanna fix is that some people simply have no chance or no enjoyment in pubs, because toxic looters (which i also am one of) are picking away all items they can.
I think that will already help many people and allow those who are currently forced to play solo or even not play d2 at all to enjoy the game.
Not going to chime in on the whether ploot is good or bad because all arguments have been rehashed countless times beforeâŚ
What I will do is share the fact that I routinely get a good chuckle out of the fact that even pro-plooters have accepted the word âplootâ to describe this proposed loot system, despite the fact that it is a perfect onomatopoeia of a little turd falling into toilet water.
Kudos to whoever chose to abbreviate âpersonal lootâ as ploot, it has provided me with much entertainment!
Wth, dude, you need to see a doctor⌠Thatâs not a normal sound.
Yes, that is just another way of saying it.
Alright, you got a point. Because some FFA people seem to be very adamant to continue leeching off others in their games.
Point taken.
D3 has a different version of ploot. But leeching is not really possible to the same extend as in d2.
In d3 leeching âjustâ costs you time. In d2 leeching costs you time and items.
Also leeching in d3 is not very common. If you are slow in ladder, surely you will encounter more leechers, but it is something that can be easily avoided. Nowhere even close to the loot grabbing in d2.
You are just comparing apples with oranges.
You are basically saying that soccer is a harder sport than rugby because soccer has more red cards.
False equivalencies and of course the good old âplooters are leechers, because plooters are leechersâ logical inception.
If you were smart you would come up with better arguments.
Itâs not babble. It is the sad truth that you have no idea on how to even bring a noteworthy argument to the table. All you are saying is just crazy conconctions.
The only thing that you put into the dumpster is your logic. In every post. It is sad to witness and hard to bear. Not because of you, not because of me, but because you disgrace the name of one of the greatest minds of history.
You are like one of those little kids who name themselves CR7 in Fifa and think they play better that way. It is ridiculous. Artistotel was a major influence on multiple diciplines: math, logic, philosophy, history, physics, nature science, poetry and many more. Giving you that borderline-god-complex name with that abysmal ability to stand your ground in a discussion is an insult to his legacy.
Yes, FFA loot is quite bizarre. That is why we are suggesting ploot. Took you quite a while to make that discovery, but i congratulate you. Maybe there is a little philosopher in you afterall.
Maybe a Nietzsche.
Nope. My parents told me, do not give too much credit to idiots.
Wont be fact check for sure. Cause that would be a house of glass for you.
The real joke is that no anti-plooter has yet come up with the best and most obvious word-play for it.
It also brings me great entertainment. It is right in front of them.^^
I think you are way overestimating the anti-ploot side.
That youâre wrong? Indeed. It warrants repetition, since youâre living in some bizarre delusion.
Indeed, I know I do. But letâs have a refresher because youâre so excited to reply to my posts - like a child trying to learn virtue:
Are you familiar with the phrase âat least someâ, or do you need that explained to you?
No, I am making a basic point about a part of the ploot community: the leech. And it is one that is incontrovertible, for anyone who has played an arpg, hence your babbling.
Leeches in arpgs? Crazy talk! Facilitating leeching in D2 by adding ploot (as guaranteed allocated loot) - woah! Thatâs some high level gameplay!
Indeed - but you wouldnât be the first person to have a breakdown when faced with inescapable facts.
You should re-check your âmathâ, child. First you want ploot for (reasons), now you claim that leeches have an advantage since they can click super quick while others do all the killing.
Too bad they had no clue they had bred one themselves.
Itâs impossible to deny the leeching sub-culture of arpgs, and as well to deny that ploot will make leeching easier in pub runs.
What were you saying about glass houses? 
Funny how you ignored the actual numbers that clearly showed that FFA is far easier to leech in than ploot.
Intellectual dishonesty to the brim.
Oh, great. Another mindless babble with no real connection to what i wrote.
Yes, i want ploot for reasons.
And yes, leechers have an advantage in ninja-looting.
These two things are facts. And quite obvious ones i might add.
Now letâs see what you have to say about the math. The thing you just kept ignoring while posting some other non-content stuff to smoke-screen your way out of your logical dead-end.
What was it again that you said the other day? âJuvenileâ. Why did you use that word back then? Can you recall by any chance?
Ploot does not make leeching easier. As a matter of fact it removes it from the game.
No glass house needed, but the view is better much clearer than in your smoke-screened house.
Especially if your pLoot design only allocates loot based on how much damage you did to the dropping monster.
Said with a Johnnie Cochran accent:
If you didnât hit it, you donât get itâŚ"
I would agree, but i posted already earlier that i had that idea ~2 months back and it just does not compute.
If you base it on total damage by player, then static field sorceresses have a high superiority on getting loot.
If you base it on âtaggingâ enemies by damaging them to a minimum amount x, you make ranged aoe characters stronger (multishot, frozen orb, trapsin).
You will also not account for any supporting skills such as curses, shouts, auras and so on.
I would love it to be based on damage, but i dont see any way it could work because it just has too many avenues of abuse.
Again, depends on implementation. But, youâd never want to completely remove the random element to the drop.
In a âquantitativeâ loot distribution, youâd get a number of items based on the percentage your damaged the monster. Say a Sorc took out 50% of the monsterâs HP. The algorithm would give her âaboutâ half the loot.
In a âqualitativeâ distribution, the algorithm would score an item based on its actual value in the game (not what Charsi throws at you if you cash it in). The character that delivers the most damage has the best chance to get the best items. And so on.
Of course, there is a good argument to use both of these techniques, but still with a degree of randomness that allows anyone participating in the combat a chance to get the best gear no matter how much damage they dealt.
For example, your design says that 25% of the time, any character participating has a chance to get the âbestâ drop. The other 75% of the time, weâll use both qualitative and quantitative methods to allocate loot. If a character delivers 50% of the damage, they get half the loot items, and âmostâ of the time the individual items will be the best items dropped.
And so on. These schemes are used in several non-APRG type problems, and are well-known in the statistics/game theory realms. There is no need for Blizz to reinvent the wheel here. The complaints about âfairnessâ (whatever that really means) have been mathematically solved.
So, people can complain that thereâs no fair way to allocate personal loot, but this is simply not correct.
I still say Iâd only use these advanced techniques for bosses, and let the white and blue monsters remain FFA, just to save network bandwidth. But even then, these techniques arenât technically demanding.
In both your examples you distribute items based on damage dealt. I have stayed out of this argument for a while but Iâll bring up the same thing I did last time I saw this argument. Damage dealt does not account for any âsupportâ type character or any other roll than damage dealer.
Take a Sorc, Trapper, Conviction Pally, and Summoner all running Baal. The sorc and trapper are dealing the most damage and since the sorc jumped in and used static she will automatically get the most damage in. The summoner held the meat shields (well bone shields) so that no one faced any danger this whole run, he also used LR. The Conviction PallyâŚwell he used conviction that allowed the damage from the sorc and trapper to virtually double.
So in this type of synergized group the sorc gets the bulk of the loot, this gives a few complications. Without the summoner, the Sorc would have been in danger and would have needed to act defensively and she would have done less damage. Without the Pally the sorc would have done a fraction of the damage. The Trapper did significant damage but was outshined by the sorc basically because of static.
So is it fair to distribute loot based on damage done? If this is the case why would the pally, summoner, trapper or other want to play with the sorc?
To the OP, as I hope has been mentioned, your argument is self defeating: Not wanting to play with other people for fear that they will claim your drops. Other players claiming your drops becomes a 100% certainty when you have pLoot implemented in any way that would be reasonable in D2, that of assigning loot. In assigned loot others will take your drop as the game assigns it to them. You still have the incentive to farm solo.
editâŚso ya I just reiterated Bashâs postâŚ
No. You do not need âqualitativeâ distribution. The law of large numbers takes care of that.
(mind experiment: just replace the random distribution of any item with the random distribution of every specific item. Now scale things up until enough drops have happened for the law of large numbers to be applicable. â even loot chances for every single item)
In the end you will always have (roughly) the same outcome as others if you all have the same chance for loot. No need to add complicated rules when they are not needed.
Trust me. I fought hard for this loot variant. Very hard.
In the end it wasnt disproven by others. I disproved it myself.
I would still love to see it. But i cannot argue for it unless you come up with a really good solution.
So far you still seem at the start of it. It is alright. Just giving you a headsup.
I"m not sure the rules are all that complicated. Generally, a set of about 5 heuristics could account for almost every drop scenario.
The qualitative distribution is a reward to the player doing the most damage. The Celts call it the âheroâs portion.â It provides a qualitative spike in getting quality gear, to round out the quantitative approach, which is much more random with respect to the relative quality of an item dropped.
Sounds like a good concept.
But that heroes potion would go to the 1-point in static field sorx in almost every case. You know, the class that is already the easiest to build an early-season mf character on.
But, if sheâs doing the lionâs share of the damageâŚ
I know. It is a difficult take. On the one hand she is doing most of the damage (on the boss). On the other hand, she probably needs the other classes to clear some of the waves, give her buffs and so on.
If she would be able to do it on her own, she would do solo baal runs. She benefits from the group, so she does group runs. So the loot should be shared.
And since damage (unfortunately) will not be very fair (imho), plain chance seems to be the best bet.
Feel free to read up on my âjourneyâ regarding damage-based-ploot in this thread:
This is a good point, and one that almost demands that any allocation scheme must retain a degree of randomness in it.
Thatâs an idea, for sure. But:
It isnât âyour ideaâ. This is how loot is handled in DI, and there are many problems with âgetting a hit inâ, ranging from: âkill stealingâ by ranged classes vs melee, to âburning an important mob downâ before some players can get a shot in. It was so bad that some players would call out in all chat âH2 Pizza do NOT burn downâ knowing someone was about to hit.
Yours, indeed. Jumping from âFFA loot is bad since no one has guaranteed loot and pickit/grabit take everythingâ to âitâs easier to leech in FFAâ. Truly an example of:
Which is the simple fact that ploot enables people to join D2 pub games and have guaranteed loot (unless something like a hit/damage requirement is added, which would be a terrible idea). Far more than they do in FFA games. Your numbers donât actually track the matter at hand - one that should be very simple to understand.
Even for you.
No - pickit/grabit have an advantage, and are not necessarily leechers. Fast clickers have an advantage over slow clickers. Those near the drops have an advantage over range, etc. Leechers have a hard time in FFA, and will have a far better time in ploot games.
Iâm happy to walk down memory lane - yours is littered with base insults which obscure any point you try to make - typically to aggrandize yourself. Like in this post - and you were wrong.