Grouping & Magic Find

  • #103
    I really like what Bojer, Tenhi, and Giuver has to say.

    One thing I would like to point out that may have not been clear in my previous posts is, I do enfact like the current system better than the old one. The old one was too exploitable and Blizzard was proactive in stopping a problem before it started.

    I do believe the new shared mf has its problems... but even then I don't think they will be as dramatic as people think. My idea that was posted on the official website is a step in the right direction, but it too as I and many others stated still has its problems. I'm sure blizzard has tested my idea or are in the process of testing something similar because they are too good to not try different options before just doing a quick kneejerk fix to an exploitable issue.

    My suggestion was to reward people who put in the time or money with better gear that are doing more damage even though their MF was higher. They would be doing the opposite of what the optimal dpser crowd said they were doing, doing their fair share. I pointed out the major downfall to this idea would be people rushing elites/champions and bosses once one appears and ignoring the trash mobs. Of course, as some pointed out, some may have builds that won't do dps as fast as others but have other attributes like heals that help. I suppose you could add heals and damage taken/absorbed to the formula. One of the odder complaints I saw was people complaining that it would cause people to rush and zerg all over the place. My point to that is sooo? Is that not what we do when we farm anyway? By the time you start farming, you have already played the game through 4 times. As a matter of fact, I'd say those not rushing are leeching my time. Optimal DPS levels mean nothing if we spend half our time kicking white items around instead of killing monsters.

    But back to less combative talk. First I will tell you what I don't like about the new shared MF and then I will tell you why in reality it probably won't be a big deal. I like to join pugs with people I don't know. I like to be randomly generous to a fellow player that doesn't quite have the gear he needs yet but often I can help myself in the process too. So in D2, I would join games where a player would be questing and I'd help him clear a quest or an act or whatever. I maybe searching for an item that drops in this area alot but pretty much anything else on the ground, I'd not even pick up so my fellow player or players in my group get all the drops. Sometimes if no good items dropped, I'd even bring a mule in and give them something. I didn't have to join this game, I could have made a private game and farmed my item all by myself. Now, I will be penalized for helping these lower geared players and it will be less likely for my item to drop. People are worried about a gear score as well. I think this will be an issue as well.

    Now why for the most part, the shared mf won't be a big deal. Most players will have some MF. Most of us won't reach high MF that is viable for sometime (i would hope.) So we won't be having a lot of 0% averaged against us. Most of us will have around the same MF whatever that number will be. The average movement of the MF% from single player to shared group won't be worth all the fuss I would think and hope. I think the issue of less high gear level guys helping low level guys is actually a good game mechanic. It will slow the rate at which people increase their gear which will slow the rate they can farm which inturn slows the rate gear ends up on the AH or RMAH. In short, its almost like a built in inflation debuff.

    One way to look at MF vs DPS is horsepower (DPS) vs fuel economy (MF.) Everyone needs a certain amount of horsepower to survive on an interstate but you don't need a 200 mph sports car. Sure, it might be fun but its unnecessary unless your racing (pvping ) Fuel economy will save you lots of money (rmah or time which is also money.)
  • #104
    My suggestion was to reward people who put in the time or money with better gear that are doing more damag

    you obviously have not thought it through well enough, its a bad idea. And the reason u mentioned is just one of many. Some specs focus on crowdcontrol etc, some specs boost other party members by lowering defense of enemies or amplifying damage of other party members in many different ways, your suggestion discourages those specs. Rushing and zergn non stop isnt always fun or cooperative either.
  • #105
    Quote from Frozenkex

    My suggestion was to reward people who put in the time or money with better gear that are doing more damag

    you obviously have not thought it through well enough, its a bad idea. And the reason u mentioned is just one of many. Some specs focus on crowdcontrol etc, some specs boost other party members by lowering defense of enemies or amplifying damage of other party members in many different ways, your suggestion discourages those specs. Rushing and zergn non stop isnt always fun or cooperative either.


    Like I said, its not a perfect Idea, but also like I pointed out, neither is mf sharing. As far as rushing, zerging and farming are pretty much the samething in my opinion. Some may share another viewpoint, but when you are farming, you are being efficient as possible. Standing around doing whatever is not farming. If you are not farming, then MF is a bit less important. Sure its still important but your goal wasn't obviously to get the best gear as fast as you can so MF by extension would be less important. When having fun with a group is the goal, MF will take a backseat. This design does not hurt casual players (yet.)

    I know I am gonna sound like a nostalgist, but in D2 farmers were encouraged to join games with other because there would be more loot drops. Even if they were not in your group, sometimes they would join up to help you overcome a mob that overpowered you. (of course this was before bots were running 24/7) It feels to me, now that farming is being encouraged to either group with people with close to the same mf or go it solo. I don't want to play an online game and be encouraged to be antisocial. That is also a bad idea. Gear Scores are a bad idea but... in reality both D1 and D2 had gear scores. If I remember right, you could actually look at someone else's gear in game in D1(plus you could see their health/mana number) In D2, by looks alone, you mainly knew what the other player was wearing. In D3, you will already know the tier of their gear and have an idea on what some of their affixes will be.

    My point is I don't think MF sharing in its present form will stay long term (too many shortcomings.) I think it will change in a patch sometime down the line after release. My idea was a suggestion in a possible change. And like I said previously, I think blizzard probably has done some extensive testing on this and probably already has an idea on how it will look in the future. I never viewed Blizzard as a kneejerk reaction type of company. I don't think they are kneejerking here. I believe they believe this has the least amount of negative side effects early on, but as the game progresses overtime, the more negative the current MF design will be.
  • #106
    Quote from HeyseusKristos

    I know I am gonna sound like a nostalgist, but in D2 farmers were encouraged to join games with other because there would be more loot drops. Even if they were not in your group, sometimes they would join up to help you overcome a mob that overpowered you. (of course this was before bots were running 24/7) It feels to me, now that farming is being encouraged to either group with people with close to the same mf or go it solo. I don't want to play an online game and be encouraged to be antisocial. That is also a bad idea.


    As far as I know, we are not yet aware of how the loot tables are affected by the numbers of players in a game in Diablo 3. In your quote that doesn't seem to be factored in, when mentioning the D3 aspect of farming. If loot does get more plentiful within a full populated game versus a single player game (still online, I know), then I don't see the big issue in sharing MF to a group. On the other hand, if it doesn't, then, as you say HeyseusKristos, the players are prompted to play alone, when their MF is so high that they always are the MF contributer to a group.

    I think the suggestion of a fair share of the loot according to the effort in killing a mob is very neat, and would be the optimal solution, but I also think it is too difficult to factor in all the different aspects of how you could contribute to the succes of a group (E.g. the value of kiting a mob is hard to grade). It would require means to grade everything on numerical scale, which can be turned into a degree of contribution that in the end decides the MF given to each character based on the MF they each brought themselves to the group. If this was the mechanic of MF, I would definitely make my MF character so that it does the most valued thing, be it damage, healing or whatever - and most other would probably too. When all people are choosing the most beneficial playstyle, the group must be lacking in other terms. Again, this is not because I don't like the base idea, I just don't think it could be implemented to the full extent. It's like communism being the most fair social order in principle, but in reality it doesn't work out as the ideal. I'll admit that I do not have a better solution myself, other than the quick and rather cheap one I've mentioned earlier:
    Make an option when creating a new game to choose whether or not you want the game to force a sharing of MF/GF/EXP.

    I agree there sould be some form of incentive to play with other people, but then again, some enjoy playing alone more, and why should they be forced to group in order to obtain better gear on the same rate as people already in groups? The incentive given doesn't have to be better loot, but rather tougher challenges. I know there are some other interests here as well. I figure the longevity of a game is composed of many different things, one of which is the social side of the game, so if Blizzard want the game to last, they must (also) give the players the incentive to form groups and be social, to an extend of course.
    Diablo 3.. can't wait!
  • #107
    Quote from Bojer

    As far as I know, we are not yet aware of how the loot tables are affected by the numbers of players in a game in Diablo 3. In your quote that doesn't seem to be factored in, when mentioning the D3 aspect of farming. If loot does get more plentiful within a full populated game versus a single player game (still online, I know), then I don't see the big issue in sharing MF to a group. On the other hand, if it doesn't, then, as you say HeyseusKristos, the players are prompted to play alone, when their MF is so high that they always are the MF contributer to a group.


    I am fairly sure - even though I do not find the quote now - that Blizzard stated that loot per time unit did not change in multiplayer compared to single-player (at least that is what they are trying to achieve design wise).
  • #108
    Quote from Zaagazug

    Quote from Bojer

    As far as I know, we are not yet aware of how the loot tables are affected by the numbers of players in a game in Diablo 3. In your quote that doesn't seem to be factored in, when mentioning the D3 aspect of farming. If loot does get more plentiful within a full populated game versus a single player game (still online, I know), then I don't see the big issue in sharing MF to a group. On the other hand, if it doesn't, then, as you say HeyseusKristos, the players are prompted to play alone, when their MF is so high that they always are the MF contributer to a group.


    I am fairly sure - even though I do not find the quote now - that Blizzard stated that loot per time unit did not change in multiplayer compared to single-player (at least that is what they are trying to achieve design wise).

    Now that you mention it, I think you're right about this one :)
    Diablo 3.. can't wait!
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.
Posts Quoted:
Reply
Clear All Quotes