I’m comfortable going on record as saying that I like the new LFR looting system about to be implemented in Mists of Pandaria. It’s unfortunate that an imperfect system (and it is) is still viewed as significantly better than what’s going on, but I’m honestly not sure I could come up with something better than what’s mooted. For those wholly unfamiliar with the notion, normal raiding will see looting continue in the vein it has since time immemorial.
Kill a boss. See what he drops. Dish it out.
The LFR set up is the same right now, and that’s what’s causing the problem. People are taking items they don’t queue for, want or need and are proceeding to vendor them just to make those who may have needed said item miserable. That’s the community we’re stuck with, and I’m glad Blizzard is choosing to act.
I do have a question, though.
Is this a single roll for each player in the raid, or is it one roll to see how many players win something and a further roll to establish who? Is there a set limit on how many players win something?
Actually, that’s a cack sentence. I’m Scottish, I can provide better clarity than that while drunk.
Here it is again:
What’s the maximum number of players that can win something when a boss dies?
If the game decides how many players win something first, that’s a huge problem – because then you’re STILL fighting against all the other people in your raid because you’re in against them. If, however, the game simply rolls once for each player and decides whether or not they win something, then that’s a huge change for the better and something everyone should realistically support.
Here’s what Greg Street has just said about it:
1) The boss dies.That seems fairly cut and dry to me.
2) The game decides who is going to get loot. Each player has a small and independent chance to win loot.
3) The game picks loot appropriate for those players.
Every time a boss dies, the game will roll against each player to decide if they won something. 25 separate rolls, 25 separate chances for everyone to get a shiny upgrade. To paint an example, say there are four plate melee classes in against the Madness encounter and all want Gurthalak. Each one has a separate chance of winning it and all four of them might do so. They play no part in each other’s rolls, just as they keep the heck out of everyone else’s.
I’ve no idea how that can be considered a bad change unless your desire is to troll or steal.
Now, point three on Ghostcrawler’s list is the one causing the arguments. It’s hard to say exactly what “appropriate” means at this stage, and I suppose we’ll need to wait for more commentary before finding that out. But even if that’s simply a case of picking something your class can use, ignoring spec and what you already have, it’s STILL preferable to seeing some Unholy death knight with a heroic Slicer take a Souldrinker “because he might play Frost”.
Personally, I’d like “appropriate” to mean something for your current spec that you don’t already have, but I suspect the system won’t be that generous.
Does anyone have any sources or links with that type of info on it? I know one of the blues spoke about it at length a month or so ago, but I can’t find the discussion. >.<
Also, how do you feel about the new system? Like it? Loathe it? Answers on a postcard (or the comments)!
"The LFR set up is the same right now, and that’s what’s causing the problem. People are taking items they don’t queue for, want or need and are proceeding to vendor them just to make those who may have needed said item miserable. That’s the community we’re stuck with, and I’m glad Blizzard is choosing to act."
ReplyDeleteSorry, but no. Well, let me rephrase that: that behavior is occurring, but that's not the issue. Why?
Let's say you have six healers in LFR who don't have the mace from Madness. Therefore, as one of the six, you have a 1/6 chance of winning.
Now imagine you have five healers who have the mace in LFR and you need it. Ideally you'd have a 100% chance to win, right? Well, even if all five decide to be jackasses and hit need to spite you...you still have that same 1/6 chance mentioned above. And if any pass or trade, your chances drastically go up.
On the flipside, the MoP system assumes you roll need on everything you can. You can't pass on stuff you don't want or give an item you won to someone else. In other words, it's the same scenario as everyone needing on everything in the current live system.
So the worst case live system is equivalent to the MoP system. That's not good. In fact, if people give items they won away, trade, or pass (even if a small portion of the raid does it), your chances to get the items you want dramatically improve.
I have a whole thread about the issue here:
http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/5836093756
But the bottom line is the MoP system has everyone the same or far *worse* off than the live system.
I'm aware of what you're describing, but there are three things to note (one of which I only touched on, so should have been clearer):
ReplyDelete1) The system ain't perfect, by any stretch, but you're looking at it purely from the angle of gearing up. LFR isn't about gearing up; it's about allowing people who aren't raiders to see the content.
2) The most significant problem about LFR item distribution is the extreme resentment caused when someone who AFK's wins the item you want or, worse, plays DPS (badly) and walks off with your tank/healer drop.
3) Like my post, your entire premise is speculation; we've no idea what the percentage chance of a player winning loot is yet. You've drawn the absolute worst-case scenario, a case nobody has yet seen.
Assuming the percentage is, say, 10% for a player to win something - there's nothing wrong with that.
I've actually followed the thread you quoted (not recently, I confess) and, like your comment, it picks out an almost impossibly bad scenario and asks "what if?"
It's about the same percentage chance of the new system seeing all six of your healers be selected for loot and win the mace; the new system just deals with my first and second points far better because it accounts for griefers.
As hinted; not perfect, but the community we play with in LFR is why we can't have nice things.
1, they only need to do it once or twice to see the content. After that, it's all about trying to get gear. And people who see the normal and heroic content (like myself) have no reason beyond gear to go to LFR.
ReplyDelete2, how is that different from the person AFKing and the system assigning them the item you wanted? Maybe people will think it's entirely different. But that's assuming people are smart enough to "blame the system" but dumb enough not to realize the equivalent of everyone rolling need on everything (plus no trading and the worst/afking player will still win items)
3, my scenario assumes the same loot/week as Dragon Soul. The developers have never stated people aren't getting enough loot/week in Dragon Soul, they've stated people are annoyed.
"I've actually followed the thread you quoted (not recently, I confess) and, like your comment, it picks out an almost impossibly bad scenario and asks "what if?""
The thing is, my comment is just pointing out that it doesn't matter, in terms of your chances of winning, whether a person needs because they want to use the item or because they want to vendor it. You might feel differently about "losing" to a person you think "legitimately" needs it, but your odds are the same either way, assuming everyone acts like a complete asshole.
But if even a few people cooperate and act like decent people, your odds go way up.
I should start by stipulating that I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying, merely that I have far less faith in LFR players than you maybe do. For me, a system where other players play no part in each other's gearing is almost better than a system where they can by default.
ReplyDelete1) I reckon this is a different problem; there is absolutely nothing that convinces me that legitimate raiders such as yourself should be going anywhere near the LFR. The cynic in me says it's intended to be that way, but it's an issue that needs a different solution.
2) It's different because they're not taking an item you COULD have won and are now without. Either you won it or you didn't, the AFK monkey had no part to play in it. The result might be the same, the route isn't and that's what the change is aimed at.
3) In my post, I'm weighing up (though unclearly) what the percentage to win something is against what "appropriate" means. If "appropriate" means something for your current spec that you don't already have, it's a winner. If it's something your class can use, no other considerations, that would be awful.
I know you're talking about odds, but that's not what this change is about in my opinion. It's about trying to stop everyone in LFR viewing other people as competition because I think that might be a reason why the atmosphere is so caustic. If you know someone wants to roll against you on the sole Gurthalak drop, and he's absolutely terrible, it's much harder to take when the one Gurthalak is won by that individual.
Or a Frost DK who "mebbe play unholy lol".
"For me, a system where other players play no part in each other's gearing is almost better than a system where they can by default."
ReplyDeleteWhen you have things like needing a four piece in order to not sit yourself for Heroic Spine (as the raid leader and GM), I'd rather have a system whether others can help improve my odds (at the cost of their time, of course, there's a price attached).
I guess I don't see the difference between five undergeared players "legitimately" rolling need and a group of five friends rolling need. Same odds for the person on the other side. Only people getting hurt, so long as the raid has a reasonably balanced composition, might be the people not even in the raid because their spot was "taken" by someone who doesn't actually need the gear.
1, It's things like the spriest four piece and tank four pieces (plus crazy proc weapons and trinkets) that were the issue. The four piece bonuses were needed, and some of the 384 gear was better than 391 H Firelands gear. Unfortunately, especially at the beginning of an expansion, it seems likely LFR will be extremely useful as a method of gearing initially. I wish that wasn't the case.
2, yeah, I mainly just care about the result, and as you pointed out they seem to be the same. The rest is smoke and mirrors as far as I'm concerned.
3, the blue posts seem to indicate it will be something for your current spec. And it can be an item you already have. If they made it so you couldn't get a duplicate except weapons for dual-wielders, the MoP system would be a solid improvement. But that doesn't seem to be the case.
"It's about trying to stop everyone in LFR viewing other people as competition because I think that might be a reason why the atmosphere is so caustic."
True, especially since a person winning a different item doesn't really improve your chances going forward since it's not a set group and there is a constant influx of new characters. So they really are competition and the cooperative social norms of a raid group don't exist.
"If you know someone wants to roll against you on the sole Gurthalak drop, and he's absolutely terrible, it's much harder to take when the one Gurthalak is won by that individual."
Honest question: how do you feel about the following statement?
"If you know someone else wants Gurthalak, and he's absolutely terrible, it's much harder to take when he's the only one who wins a Gurthalak."
Like I said a post back, Blizzard is assuming people are smart enough to blame the system but dumb enough to not see through the system.
And it's the raiders who suffer the most.
I must admit that I had a bit of a laugh during your latest post. Not because it's saying anything bizarre, just that I agree with almost all of your general principles; it's only your conclusion I don't share.
ReplyDeleteWe clearly agree on the bizarre necessity of progression raiders working on hard modes, then needing to fill gear slots via LFR. Whether it's set bonuses or unbalanced weapons and trinkets, nobody should have to go in LFR if they're raiding a level (or two) above it. Honestly, I think that's the design intent moving forward and the proc weapons/trinkets were anomalies for this tier only. The reason I say that is because the average item level in LFR was lower than heroic Firelands. Minus the last-tier procs and the like, I shouldn't think you'll need to be hitting up LFR in the future.
I do worry about the particulars of the system, though. If it does end up spec-only, I'd be cool with that - if you end up getting the same thing twice, I'd be far less cool about it.
"True, especially since a person winning a different item doesn't really improve your chances going forward since it's not a set group and there is a constant influx of new characters. So they really are competition and the cooperative social norms of a raid group don't exist."
I'm not sure I'd consider it raiding at all. The push-pull of learning something and then successfully executing doesn't exist, and the encounters are tuned for a group working in spite of each other rather than with each other. On my paladin I've been considering LFR more of... An escort quest.
As for Blizzard assuming things about their players, it's hard to put a finger on exactly what's up with that. I understand they may believe they know the game better than their players, but Cataclysm has shot a hole in that particular notion - particularly with the wholly disappointing Dragon Soul raid.
"I must admit that I had a bit of a laugh during your latest post. Not because it's saying anything bizarre, just that I agree with almost all of your general principles; it's only your conclusion I don't share."
ReplyDeleteWell, I was assuming we'd see the broken tier bonuses (primarily all tanks and spriests for H Spine in DS) and crazy procs going forward. Which means you get a situation like the following currently:
Serious raiders: going in groups of 3 mains/22 alts if it's a 25 man guild or just taking a large group of people period to try to get specific people the crazy bonuses quickly.
Intended LFR audience: queueing up, going in, and (for at least some of the audience) complaining when they lose their gear to someone else who already has it or whatever
In Mists, the intended audience is under the perception they'll be better off. I think they'll be worse off, or maybe the same, but generally in the same ballpark. The raiders, though...they can't do the 3/22 runs. They can't group up to get those set bonuses. They have to funnel specific items to specific people for broken bonuses or fall behind. And bad RNG can screw them over, especially 10 man guilds. So especially if we assume the intended audience is correct and they're better off, then it's the raiders who are penalized compared to the current system. Even if the intended audience is wrong (which I suspect), the raiders still fall a far greater amount and are hurt far more.
Hence my conclusion.
"We clearly agree on the bizarre necessity of progression raiders working on hard modes, then needing to fill gear slots via LFR. Whether it's set bonuses or unbalanced weapons and trinkets, nobody should have to go in LFR if they're raiding a level (or two) above it. Honestly, I think that's the design intent moving forward and the proc weapons/trinkets were anomalies for this tier only. The reason I say that is because the average item level in LFR was lower than heroic Firelands. Minus the last-tier procs and the like, I shouldn't think you'll need to be hitting up LFR in the future."
We'll definitely have to hit up LFR while gearing up for t14 at the beginning of an expansion at the minimum. So that's one problem. Beyond that, if we don't have to go to LFR mid-expansion, that would be ideal, but I don't see that happening. I guess we'll see.
"I do worry about the particulars of the system, though. If it does end up spec-only, I'd be cool with that - if you end up getting the same thing twice, I'd be far less cool about it."
You can get the same item from the same boss more than once, yes. If that wasn't the case, it would be leaps and bounds better than the current system and would provide a roughly linear (but still random) gearing process. But it is, so your chances sharply diminish of getting a usable item as the weeks go by in LFR and there will be lots of wasted loot. And it'll be spec only.
"I'm not sure I'd consider it raiding at all. The push-pull of learning something and then successfully executing doesn't exist, and the encounters are tuned for a group working in spite of each other rather than with each other. On my paladin I've been considering LFR more of... An escort quest.
As for Blizzard assuming things about their players, it's hard to put a finger on exactly what's up with that. I understand they may believe they know the game better than their players, but Cataclysm has shot a hole in that particular notion - particularly with the wholly disappointing Dragon Soul raid."
Fair enough on the escort quest. But the encounters are tuned for people far too terrible for normal mode, which was the idea. The people pulling 4k DPS in heroics. And yeah, Blizzard's assumptions are odd.
I’m not 100% sure, but I think it was stated that pre-made LFR runs would be able to trade the loot that dropped; I’ll see if I can find the comment that makes me believe that (feel free to correct me if I’ve gotten it wrong).
ReplyDeleteAnd I could be misunderstanding, but the example you’re giving about funnelling loot to specific players is a form of disincentive to competitive raiders – which is, I think, working as intended. If we don’t want heroic raiders in LFR, potentially hoovering up loot for new players/baddies, making it difficult for them to game the system may well make it sufficiently discouraging for them to bother doing it at all. Sure, some guilds might get lucky, but that’s part and parcel of the gearing game, anyway.
If Blizzard considers that a problem, watch out for LFR dropping no loot for you if you’ve killed a boss on normal/heroic.
“You can get the same item from the same boss more than once, yes. If that wasn't the case, it would be leaps and bounds better than the current system and would provide a roughly linear (but still random) gearing process. But it is, so your chances sharply diminish of getting a usable item as the weeks go by in LFR and there will be lots of wasted loot. And it'll be spec only.”
I’m really hoping that’ll see a change. It’s a simple thing to fix, and can be done fairly by lowering the percentage chance of each character winning something. Seeing the same thing drop three times in a row from a boss you need something else from will be horribly aggravating.
Entirely pre-made LFR runs could set their own loot system. They said they'd consider allowing partial groups to trade within the group.
ReplyDeleteWhen you say "hoovering up loot," do you mean the raiders are taking up raid slots that the intended audience wants? Because even in the current situation, they're usually not hurting the intended audience within the actual raid, but they are taking up space in the queue, I guess.
And yes, the inability to trade/funnel loot would be a disincentive for raiders to all go at the same time, but they'll still be obliged to do it regardless. And it makes them bitter, because they don't want to be in LFR but they feel like they're forced to run it.
And frankly, being able to get RNG screwed on stuff like the spriest 4t13 bonus simply isn't acceptable. I should not have to potentially sit myself on the harder fight in the tier because I don't have a set bonus that doubles my tendon damage. The current LFR allows us to overcome that if we want to use LFR. It's not a good situation, but it's better than simply being screwed.
Finally, yes, winning the same item multiple times that you don't want will be horribly aggravating. Welcome to the new system.
Hi there i am kavin, its my first occasion to commenting anywhere,
ReplyDeletewhen i read this article i thought i could also make comment
due to this sensible paragraph.
Look into my blog post ... Http://Pornharvest.Com/Index.Php?M=2084353