Author Topic: The Winning Item Factor  (Read 2217 times)

Kuiper7986

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 1031
    • View Profile
The Winning Item Factor
« on: May 13, 2003, 03:33:13 am »
lets say I\'m on a team of five and we kill a monster. And that Monster Drops on item, who gets it. There\'s a few ways.

One way, they do in FFXI, you roll a random number from 2-300 or something, and whoever has the highest number gets the item.

The second way is, who ever made the last kill gets the item.

Third way would be, whoever can get to the corpse first and picks the item first, gets the item.

Number four would be, total random distribution. (Which I hope to God it won\'t be put in)

Number five is (which I don\'t think is a good idea) The item is duplicated to the amount of people that were fighting the monster. Ex: 5 of us kill a monster and the monster drops a potion. That potion would duplicate itself 4 times and everyone would get one.
My name is NOT pronounced, \"Kway-per,\" it\'s pronounced \"Kye-per.\"

explorer

  • Hydlaa Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 290
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #1 on: May 13, 2003, 03:52:21 am »
I like that duplication idea.. I\'d like it if the item duplicated itself, but then its named for that person (so they\'d all have different names) and then that specific item would never spawn again, unless some of the origionals broke/deleted. That way you wouldnt have millions of people running around with \"teh one and only uber sord\" that kills in one hit.
Terragen manipulator, photoshop wannabe.

Planeshift name: Demoritus, but you can call me \"god\"
Avast.

Kuiper7986

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 1031
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #2 on: May 13, 2003, 05:01:06 am »
That\'s a good idea. It\'s either that or make that uber sword, so rare that its almost damn near impossible to get.
My name is NOT pronounced, \"Kway-per,\" it\'s pronounced \"Kye-per.\"

Vengeance

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 1452
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #3 on: May 13, 2003, 07:57:15 am »
How is #1 different from #4?

I believe something like #1 will be what we go with, but we haven\'t done that part yet either.

Wormtail_

  • Hydlaa Notable
  • *
  • Posts: 500
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #4 on: May 13, 2003, 04:35:51 pm »
In my opinion, numbers 1 and 4 are just too... random. There might be an archer who just happened to shoot a single arrow at the creature and gets the item, due to random distribution. The second way has the same coomplaint from me. An archer or mage just steps in and shoots the creature and kills it. Or a warrior just happens to pop up and slash it, grab the item, and run away laughing evilly. Choice number 3 is not the best, mainly because lag, speed, and so on will affect who gets the item. Especially if an archer or mage at the back aided the group tremendously. They can\'t get the item due to being at the back. Choice number 5 is interesting, although it depends on the amount of items dropped, quality, and perhaps rarity.

I might have another suggestion, although it probably is not the best of suggestions. Basically whoever did the most work gets the item. Like damage, healing, and so on. However, I can\'t figure out a way to figure out who did do the most work if there was an archer in the group... And anyway, only one person gets the item.

The duplication idea seems best right now, in my opinion. Or we can choose the random distribution with amount of effort spent (damage, spells, archery skills, and so on) equalling a higher percantage of getting the item. If there\'s only one item dropped, or one that can be likened to the Uber Sword of Mightiness.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2003, 04:37:38 pm by Wormtail_ »
You pay the same price for doing something halfway as for doing it completely. So you might as well do it completely.
-Richard Nixon

Despise the enemy and you will lose.
-Li Tien (or Dian)

Join the BISM!

pmnox

  • Traveller
  • *
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #5 on: May 13, 2003, 06:22:31 pm »
hmm, but there is #6 way
for example if there are 4 players and monster has 100 energy.
player 1 did 20 points of damage
player 2 did 45 points of dammage
player 3 did 35 of dammage then
player 4 did 0 dammage
each player will have different probability of getting items.
First player 20 %
Second player 45 %
Third player 35 %
and four player which will not do  any dammage will get 0 % probability of getting new items


this metod is better that total random distribution, better that metod \"wchich player takes it first will get it\" and better that \"last person who killes monster will get item\"
because if player 1 will do 99 % of damage, and player 2 will kill monster then player 1 should take it on 99%
« Last Edit: May 13, 2003, 06:29:00 pm by pmnox »

Mehallie

  • Hydlaa Resident
  • *
  • Posts: 121
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #6 on: May 13, 2003, 06:51:59 pm »
The problem with awarding the person who does the most damage is that this usually means the melee \"tank\".  Therefore, the healers, other but less powerful melees, mages and other folks will probably, more often than not, get nothing.

As it stands, the only thing that you\'ll be able to get off a monster is money anyway, right?   There aren\'t going to be items dropping off anything (this has been addressed in another thread), at least no \"lewt\".  The occasional items for crafting, but swords?  Jewels and other rare things dropping of giant mosquitoes?  Nope, no joy.

Put an \"autosplit\" on while in group and done- it automatically splits money in the entire group.  Everyone gets a fair share as long as they\'re doing what needs doing; healers heal but don\'t melee anyway, monks do decent damage but aren\'t tanks usually, and rogues are pretty good at sneaking in, sneaking out and doing other stuff, but they can\'t do much damage - but they\'re all working together, and therefore deserve equal kudos.  No hassle, no fuss about who\'s turn the loot is or negotiating the Need before Greed or any of that mess.  It\'s automatic and no-one needs to get bent out of shape because they\'re not getting their share.

End of problem
« Last Edit: May 13, 2003, 06:56:03 pm by Mehallie »

Yann

  • Guest
(No subject)
« Reply #7 on: May 13, 2003, 07:35:05 pm »
Well, i really hope there will be dropping items from the dead bodies...

For exemple, if you kill a King or a Dragon, it s no cool if they don\'t drop any powerfull item(s)...

Concerning mosquitos, i understand they shouldn\'t drop anything except wings lol... But for orc and all humainoids, they are supposed to be able to carry things so they can drop items...

As to me the best solution for looting an important item would be the /roll 1d100 and the best win the loot, to avoid \"i did the most damage so i take the loot\" system, or the \"I killed it, the loot is mine!\" and the \"everybody keeps on right-clicking on the almost-dead monster to be the first to loot\".

Thynett

  • Hydlaa Resident
  • *
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #8 on: May 13, 2003, 09:06:36 pm »
Quote
I might have another suggestion, although it probably is not the best of suggestions. Basically whoever did the most work gets the item. Like damage, healing, and so on. However, I can\'t figure out a way to figure out who did do the most work if there was an archer in the group... And anyway, only one person gets the item.



I cannot but agree :

- giving the loot fhr the last shooter is unfair (the archer coming close and shooting a lucky arrow is exlicit enough)
- if duplicating, you would see huge groups to kill a dragon, with useless newbies just here to get the \"unique draconscale\"
- I thought it had been said that monsters would ot carry gold (exept \"evolved\" ones like minotaurs or few primal societies) so the automatic gold sharing would be too rarely applied (even though for those few monsters it is to my mind the best solution)


I know I\'m not being very constructive with no alternative proposal, but at least am I trying to point out the fails of those proposals.

But a bit of random isn\'t always bad, after all if you could predict everything where would be excitement and surprise ?

Kuiper7986

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 1031
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #9 on: May 14, 2003, 03:14:21 am »
ya I think random roll or item duplication is the best.  Since everyone then has a fair chance
My name is NOT pronounced, \"Kway-per,\" it\'s pronounced \"Kye-per.\"

pmnox

  • Traveller
  • *
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #10 on: May 14, 2003, 05:51:32 pm »
well, but there is only a point system

for example doing 1 damage to monster 1 point
casting spell which will decrease defence of dragon (1 point for any additional dammage it will add)
healthing other person who was hitter for dragon( for each 1 point of health restored 0.5 points)
etc

player 1 - 40
player 2 - 90
player 3 - 25

there will be random number choosen from 1 to (40 + 90 + 25) person who own this number will get item.
this system is better that previous which i proposed, because mags or monks also can get points to increase probability of getting items.

pmnox

  • Traveller
  • *
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #11 on: May 14, 2003, 05:56:56 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by Kuiper7986
ya I think random roll or item duplication is the best.  Since everyone then has a fair chance


do you really think random roll is good?
for example if one good player will kill dragon and two newbies will be rearby there is 66.6% that newbies will get good items.
and for item duplication it\'s not a good system, because going to fight alone doesn\'t make any sense, if ten players will be going each will get 10 times as much equipment as they would get trying to kill mosters they own.

Kuiper7986

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 1031
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #12 on: May 15, 2003, 12:13:04 am »
I still like the rolling a number better. Also the chances of getting the number closest is not 66%. It isn\'t based on how many players there are. It is dependent on how many items there are over the likeness of getting the closest number.

But I agree with you on the item duplication thingy. Rare items could become too common that way.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2003, 12:13:30 am by Kuiper7986 »
My name is NOT pronounced, \"Kway-per,\" it\'s pronounced \"Kye-per.\"

explorer

  • Hydlaa Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 290
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #13 on: May 15, 2003, 12:21:26 am »
For duplication, I did think over the noobs thing, and I think it work out a little better if there was a system, of how much you contributed to the battle. That way noobies could get stuff, IF they did their part, like they healed all the players. So everybody would have to have 20 contribute points or something if they wanted the item.

Random draws I dont like too much. If its random, what stops the computer from giving one guy the highest number more than once?
Terragen manipulator, photoshop wannabe.

Planeshift name: Demoritus, but you can call me \"god\"
Avast.

paxx

  • Hydlaa Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 312
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #14 on: May 15, 2003, 08:35:12 am »
Wonderful topic.

Now, if any of you can come up with a way that is more fair then random wonderful. Right now I can not see any way other then random to do it. A perfect system would be able to put an accurate price value on every object and calculate not only the price but who gets the most out of a given piece of loot based on skills. Then it comes up with some calculation so that over an hour each player has gotten an equal share of treasure, both monetarily and usefulness, and if certain people get nothing useful to them they get the biggest money gain.

However to do this all prices need to be static, and in this game it will be anything but that, prices will fluctuate in all sorts of manners, so how does the system keep track, and how useful is a shiny mallet, when the character already has 15 in storage. So with all those variables in play, it seems easiest to be random.

If anyone can come up with a 2 line script that would check usefulness Vs. value on all group members and distribute correctly?and not slow down the server in a noticeable fashion, since this will be occurring hundreds of times per minute on the server?please inform me.

But on a more serious note, it is a basic attempt at fairness to distribute loot as fairly as possible.

I had a concept that all mobs would drop everything they are equipped with, and depending on who loots them they might see more or less?do players really want to take the time to dissect the giant Lizard and see if he has anything cool in his innards?

But in many ways it can also be said that it would ruin the experience for a lot of people, as party members will be running to sell items every 3 or 4 kills, and if in a remote location, you have 20 minutes of fun killing and 40 of running and selling?not cool.

Another alternative is to just have most the mobs drop money, and the unusual drop that is useful for something or another.  In that vision, we take the ?go to town to sell? out of the equation. Quest items drop for the person doing the quests at the appropriate time, automatically into their inventory. The cash value of the mob is based on how the mob is equipped the value is roughly 20% of his goods. That may seem like a little, but vendors usually only give that to people selling and that is what this takes out, for the cool drop it is distributed randomly.

Yet another alternative:
For every kill based difficulty and activeness during the battle, each member in the group gains group points. And all loot is put in a virtual ?group hoard? the weight is distributed evenly among all players based on active str bonus, so as they start getting weighed down they are losing certain abilities, so eventually the group will want to distribute loot, if people vacate the group they get a couple random items of small value based in the weight they where carrying (you get the things the server deems of least value to equal the weight) then once the group decides to distribute loot.

Every player sees all the loot available (that they where part of the group when that creature was killed, so new members don?t see what they are not getting) and they then use their character points to bid on (no one knows what others are bidding) once round one of bidding is done, those items go to the person who bid the most for them, then round two?once a player has no more group points or is not interested in anything he clicks done.
Once all the points are gone, or all the wanted items are accounted for, (everyone clicked done) then it randomly is distributed. Some players might not want the random crap items and can select to not accept it, and the stuff goes to others, and those who saved group points keep them for the next item distribution.

But after 5 distributions, the points saved from then get killed.

This system is nice in that people get what they are willing to give for. The problem with the system is it can take a few minutes. Specially if some in the group are slow, or there is a lot of loot to go through. And at the end?you still will want to go and sell so even longer to start killing again.

Now that we have a few ?fair systems? them being
1.   Random
2.    convert to cash
3.   group points  

we can also have combinations of this, like one round of group points and then random, or one round of group points and convert to cash, or one group point selection and then convert to cash, (lets 5 members select the same item, the one who bid the most gets it and the 5 losers can select other items but their original choice is no longer available) and once that round is done?rest is random, or rest is cash. So we now have

1.  random
2.    convert to cash
3.   group points till done then random
4.    1 round of group points then random
5.   1 round of points then cash
6.   1 round of points (all getting one item or opting out) and random
7. 1 round of points (all getting one item or opting out) and cash

The random rolling for each item would really take forever so I am not entertaining that.

Now?what if we had all 7 possibilities, who chooses?
Well I?d have to say the group leader.

For him to change the setting 50% of the group has to agree, for the group to change leader 30% (at least 2) have to agree that a change is needed and a vote is taken, majority rules, whoever gets the most points. If there is loot in the group loot it is distributed randomly at the point that a leader changes.

Ok, there are some stupid ideas I came up with based on this thread?are there any other ideas that can augment this list or perhaps top it?


And if you took the time to read this all?I?m impressed :-)  

But this is an example of the thought needed to apply to a system like loot distribution. Or almost anything?cause and effect.
-Paxx