[SUGGESTION] 'Open Loot' Slider

From Darkstarrs post it sounds like looting will be based on value of the items in a persons inventory. So if you are allowed to loot 5%, then only 5% worth of items would be in play for being looted.

It got me thinking, what if you could have a Loot Slider. The more risk you want to take on, the higher you can slide it up. But at the same time, you dont want the person who turned their slider all the way up to be picked apart by someone who isnt taking on that same risk.

So the slider would work like this. Between the two people(the looter and the looted) who ever has the least participation will be the amount that can be looted.

If someone is set to 5% they cant have more than 5% of value looted even if the looter is set to 100% risk. And the person that is set to 100% cant get more than 5% of their stuff looted by the 5%'er.

It makes it fair WHILE encouraging people to participate more to reap the rewards for the risk they take in a fight. I dont know what the other guy's setting is... but I do know that if the other guy has it high and I win, I would like to get as much for my work as I can.

Naturally you would need some kind of loooong cool down so people cant slide up the risk, then after battle turn down the risk. I'm thinking it shouldn't be taken lightly, the cool down between switching it should be real world days.

 

The main problem with this, I believe, is that now we segregate the PvP population even further if everyone can set a loot slider to various percentages. What is my reward if I fight another player that, even though flagged for PvP, has the loot slider turned all the way down?

As long as the reward percentage is based on MY setting, should I be victorious, then I'd be OK with that. However, I'd be set for full loot and we already know that's not going to happen. So now we're right back where we started - a universal, one item with ransom loot rule.

 

What if the minimum on the slider is whatever the default would be by Starr's plan?

 

I'm not utterly opposed to this if it isn't a difficult feature to add and doesn't take focus away from other critical systems. However, I'm not sure how many people will crank this up. I think many if not most of the people who were pushing for full loot only wanted it in conjunction with non-consensual PvP so they could group up and grief weaker players, taking everything from them.

There are some who want to experience risk themselves for the thrill, but I don't know how many people would opt into such a system.

 

It's an interesting proposal precisely because both players involved in an encounter have to more or less agree on a loot level, meaning both parties have equal risk and opportunity for reward.

The big balancing problem IMO is that Player A and Player B might both have their sliders set at 25%, only player B might have way more valuable items than player A. This can be fixed by tweaking, but the fix wouldn't be easy.

Also, while this approach is interesting for 1v1 fights, I wonder what happens when the fight involves more than just two people.

Ultimately, for simplicity's sake, I'd guess we're probably better off without this option for now at least, though it's definitely an interesting idea that could add some spice to the PvP experience in a future episode.

 

I do think it is an interesting compromise.

 

"Compromise?"
I don't believe that "compromise" is the correct word... because it's only the protest poster of what is to come in wanting their own way pushed forward.
Though I am a player that enjoys an open loot and larger and more open instancing of people, that's not what choice is all about when purchasing such an optional game. I somewhat like the proposal for it's insightfulness, yet I'm looking forward to PvP and PK to take on an entirely new way of play (which we will not see or be consulted on until we can criticize after release).
It's about this new "instancing" that creates a dilemma within the PvP and PK's plight in adjusting to a new world. You could say that in a way, RG invented PvP/PK's terms. Thus I don't believe that it's fare to judge something new by using old terms precisely.
It's the want of an unwilling player that this subject being debated in wanting or forcing is offered. There will be those who wish that will be there for such engagement, yet those that do not wish it (the unwilling who chose another game style) will not have their playtime unwillingly taken from them, which the PvP/PK want to do.
Pleading for any forced consent in any degree, is only force provided by this want of the PvP/PK to disturb the unwilling.
~Time Lord~

 

A potential way to balance: have the looting be based on the total lootable item value instead of a percentage.

So, if you think about an almost naked fighter with the slider set to 100% and just 50G worth of gear, he would be able to loot at most 50G from the player he defeats. If he faces a player with 10000G worth of gear and the slider also set to 100%, and manages to defeat him, he would still only get 50G worth of gear. Every player then can only earn as much as he is willing to risk.

 

Total lootable item value according to what? How would the engine decide the value of an item?

 

The Devs have mentioned item value, so there will be some sort of value to an item. After all they have to keep track of stuff like this to manage the economy.

I think there are merits to a slider. My only concerns are the cost to implement. I would think we will get some sort of unified system at launch and variable looting (or loot slider) would be added later. However, hard to say until we get to testing the features.

 

Don't lawyer them bro. Calculating an item's value according to the player is extremely challenging, especially in a system that lets you build an item's history according to actions.

 

Oh, you can never gauge that based on the player. Value would be based on the economy and the item's value within it. They need that to determine how much a vendor will buy/sell it, so that will be in for sure: no lawyer required.

In many cases, I doubt "history" will input in the items value at all. The rarity of that item based on a specific histories (this is the only sword that killed LB,etc.) could be worked in, but for the most part that history will be sentimental value which means nothing to anyone but you (well and maybe an avid collector). Any items values used for looting will be based on its economic value not sentiment.

 

I want more people participating in PvP, not less. So I'd really prefer no looting at all. I don't really care if some other guy wants to dual over loot, as long as it doesn't affect anyone else, but it seems awfully silly.

 

Same way it calculates ransom, I expect.

The slider as a whole, as posted in the OP, doesn't make any sense anyway unless the game can calculate the value of the player's items in order to determine what will drop.

 

Interesting concept you can only win what you're prepared to lose.

 

Why do you think no loot would attract people to PvP.

 

Because PvP has nothing to do with loot. It's about taking the castle, defending the town, etc. I don't start wars to steal someone's shoes.

I don't want people opting out of PvP because they have fear of personal loss. If the town is being attacked, I'd love to see every farmer out there holding a pitch fork trying to hold the raiders off. Losing the town is what matters, not losing the pickfork.

 

I think people who fear losing loot also fear the tedium of dying and respawning, and ultimately the loot issue isn't the big thing.

And, I think most people who do like PvP don't necessarily care about the loot, but like consequences to loss. And unless you're actually talking about physically losing control of the town...

 

I really enjoy PvP. But part of the appeal of PvP is being able to join the fight again to get right back into gameplay that you enjoy. Losing all your gear and having to leave the fight isn't fun, and it removes players from the battlefield.

PvP is only fun if you have opponents there to fight.

 

Ok, but am I right that you don't like the idea of having to respawn somewhere else or having heavy death penalties that make it difficult for you to rejoin the fight? And looting isn't the only issue..