What makes anyone think Blizzard hasn't already thought about this? Diablo 3 is the development team's job, they are paid to think about Diablo 3.. What makes anyone think they'd miss something so obvious? There are plenty of solutions for this assumed problem, all of which have likely been mapped out with color coded sticky notes, tested in game, reiterated, tested again, then swapped for the next idea until they all choose one.
Well, obviously the Diablo 3 team has figured it out. There is probably nothing we can think of that they haven't figured out or are working on right now. But, to paraphrase Richard Feynman, it's fun to imagine!
This is true, it's fun to discuss such topics with the intent of expressing and sharing opinions. I just don't understand when people approach these topics with the idea that there is this big problem, and we need to solve it. I enjoy discussion, thus my lack of a social life in place of online forums lol, I just feel the need to point out Blizzard likely is 10 steps ahead of us. They may even be watching these forums at this very second
“We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about.” - Albert Einstein
I would rather have my own loot than having to give it to someone else because they RNGpwnt me and rolled higher. Screw wow in that aspect. And the more I think about it, Screw d1/2 in that aspect. I dont like giving up loots YALL
You would rather keep a wand while playing a Barbarian then give it to a Wizard that can use it?
For me it doesnt matter the way coz i have already 5 Diablo VETARANS that i will group up and play. We've been in the same clans-guilds in many MMOs but for others its really unfair to "run" to get an item...
Drops will be like in Diablo 2, but each person can only see their own drops. IE, each boss drops loot for each player, and each player can only see their own loot.
This is true, it's fun to discuss such topics with the intent of expressing and sharing opinions. I just don't understand when people approach these topics with the idea that there is this big problem, and we need to solve it. I enjoy discussion, thus my lack of a social life in place of online forums lol, I just feel the need to point out Blizzard likely is 10 steps ahead of us. They may even be watching these forums at this very second
Lol, I can see it now. "Wow, are they really arguing over loot? We figured that out before we even bought the Diablo3.com domain!"
Bashiok (or someone from Blizzard) already said that a player in a 4 man group will find less loot per kill than playing solo. In the other hand a group can kill bosses way faster than a solo person, so its still good to party up for mf even with a lower drop rate.
We won't see people gearing themselves 4 times faster in D3, at least not because of the individual drops.
Unless you cut individual drop rate by the number of players in the game (one fourth if there are four players, one third if there are three players and one half if there are two), it will still be faster to gear up in a group.
I tweeted about this post last night, and Bash came to the rescue (mostly).
Official Blizzard Quote:
Playing with others works exactly like Diablo II. Enemies are tougher, and you have a better chance at getting nicer loot.
To be honest I'm not exactly sure how the percentages worked in diablo 2 as you get more players (I'm going to do research on this when I get some time), but I do know that the loot drop amount was a lot more so I'm still wondering if that is also true for d3.
Playing with others works exactly like Diablo II. Enemies are tougher, and you have a better chance at getting nicer loot.
He didnt mentioned MORE loot but NICER loots, so maybe hes not talking about extra drops per monster, maybe its just like D2 where mobs have their base level increased when new players join the game, allowing new types of items to drop.
Playing with others works exactly like Diablo II. Enemies are tougher, and you have a better chance at getting nicer loot.
He didnt mentioned MORE loot but NICER loots, so maybe hes not talking about extra drops per monster, maybe its just like D2 where mobs have their base level increased when new players join the game, allowing new types of items to drop.
That runs counter to the belief that all content will be available in co-op or sp. The "nicer" loots may have higher stats affixes but I should still be able to find a legendary sword of uber awesomeness whilst playing solo. :-D
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The blind mind's eye replies with a sigh and a tear of contempt for those who see the world as it truly is.
Playing with others works exactly like Diablo II. Enemies are tougher, and you have a better chance at getting nicer loot.
He didnt mentioned MORE loot but NICER loots, so maybe hes not talking about extra drops per monster, maybe its just like D2 where mobs have their base level increased when new players join the game, allowing new types of items to drop.
Except that in Diablo 2, more loot did drop the more players there were...
@cherubdown Sorry that was an incorrect answer. Drops don't change while playing in a group vs. alone.
He went on to clarify it here:
Official Blizzard Quote:
I've gotten this same question wrong in the past, I don't know why it continues to confuse me. Drops are not different in co-op. The fact that you're killing faster (which you will) in a group means more items in less amount of time, means we don't need to provide other incentives. Your own drop modifiers will affect your personal drops, such as magic and gold find. But that's the same while playing alone or in a group.
So there you have it. Neither drop percentages change NOR do drop rates, ever. This is very much unlike Diablo 2 where drop amounts would increase as party increases.
I like it. It's very simple and straight forward. We won't be wondering now if we're getting the most bang for our time spent. If you want to get better lootz, you'll just have to get better Magic Find.
My question is if loot doesn't scale with qty of players does this mean people will not be getting items on boss kill occasionally? (if they are in a group of 4)
My question is if loot doesn't scale with qty of players does this mean people will not be getting items on boss kill occasionally? (if they are in a group of 4)
I think what he means by drops don't change in multiplayer is that you would have the exact same probability of getting an item from a boss going solo as you would with 1, 2, or 3 other people. Whether or not someone else gets a drop is irrelevant to you getting one, so it's possible that everyone could get an item, no one could get an item, or somewhere in between. The advantage of playing with other people is that you could kill the boss more quickly.
Theoretically being in a group will help you kill things faster, and be funner, so in theory you will be getting loot faster.
the real question is not the quantity of loot dropped, but quality, im not 100% sure if this is unscaled depending on players in game, but i think it is unchanged
Theoretically being in a group will help you kill things faster, and be funner, so in theory you will be getting loot faster.
the real question is not the quantity of loot dropped, but quality, im not 100% sure if this is unscaled depending on players in game, but i think it is unchanged
The problem is that ppl think that if a item drop for certain player, it will count as a drop for the others, and that’s not entirely true.
When something drops for me, it drops for me alone. No one is able to pick it. The only way an item I dropped will be considered a drop for any of the other 3 player is if I give it to them. And I can't see it happening. D3 is surely a game with a large amount of loot. We also know that this loot will surely not drop that easily. In other words, if I just give away a super OP legendary axe to my barbarian friend just because I’m a WD and his a barb and we are at the same party, I’ll have to pray that some good WD drop or else I will be poor.
Let me try to explain it in another way. Diablo is a game largely based on trades (it's a modern game w/o a item bind system omfg). Let's consider that when you drop an item that is not good for your class/build you can easily sell it on the market and use the gold acquired to get the gear you need. In other words, it doesn't matter if you actually drop something you need. Only the value of the drop matters. Trade value > use value. Free market effect.
Also consider that the players may organize their party in two different ways. The "selfish" way where no one shares the loot: if I drop something it's mine even if I can't use it and any of the other players can. The "altruistic" way where people will share, at the end of each run, the items their drop based on the needs of each one. Under this system, if I drop something good that I can't use it and someone else need it, I will give it to him.
Some people in this thread are thinking that gearing up under the "altruistic" party will be easier but they are wrong. In the altruistic way you really have 4x times the chance of dropping something you need, true. However you also have the 4x times the chance to drop something other people need and have to give away your loot. Since only the monetary value of the items matters, you have a equally high chance to lose what you got. At principle the probability of gearing yourself up is exactly the same in both systems. However the altruistic system suffer from a few distortions:
1) It depends too much on the trust between each player. In order to not end up losing in this system you have to be 100% sure that each of your allies will actually share the loot. If they don't share and you share you're only loosing. And the worst is that people have major incentives to not share, especially when they drop something really, really rare. This distortion is easily fixed by playing with only (real) friends.
2) If you're playing a class/build which the gear is cheaper, you're in disadvantage. When you share your expensive loot with other players you will lose x. When other players shares with you the cheap gear you will gain something smaller then x. You will be losing, in the long run.
Since we expect that gearing up different class/builds will requires different amounts of gold, there will be always someone in disadvantage. Ironically, the altruistic system promotes inequality. And inequality promotes discomfort and conflict. It also creates disincentive for playing with alternative "cheap" builds.
3) A similar distortion occurs when we take MF in consideration. When you trade power for MF, under the altruistic rule set, your marginal gain with MF is smaller (because you share a fraction of what you get expecting a return of equal amount from MFless players. You're basically sacrificing your own power to increase other's success chance of gearing then self up). Tbh, if you see this matter in the whole party perspective, this distortion actually do not exist at principle. If you use more MF and less power the effect is that the whole party is a little weaker and everyone has a little better drop rate. BUT, when you decrease your own power, you increase the probability of dying and spending gold on repairs. The gain of MF is smaller, so people will use less MF.
In more simple words: wearing MF under the altruistic rules will increase your chance of dying and spending gold more than increase the chance of dropping more items and get richer. Part of your MF benefits is transferred to the other party members. To fix this distortion people need to:
* choose the exactly same point in the tradeoff between MF and power. This probably impossible due to different class/build item dependence and gear options, not to mention different personal points of view of what is the optimal point in this trade off.
* When someone dies, everyone have to share the cost of his repair. This will solve the economical problem (value distribution in the party) but create a social one (people will troll hard the party member that dies too much).
This is another really serious distortion and the one that truly defines that under altruistic rules, the chance of gearing yourself up is smaller. Basically because people will surely use less MF then the optimal.
Conclusion: under the selfish rules the chances of gearing yourself between solo and party is exactly the same (obviously). Under the altruistic rules the chances of gearing yourself up is smaller (compared to solo/selfish). So there is no need to reduce the drop rates while playing in party. It should remain the freaking same - so playing with 1, 2, 3 or 4 players have no different in drop rates.
Edit: Fixing grammar issues. Sry for the huge post.
Well if you put it down to the monetary values I agree with you there, but then again if I play with friends I can assume they don't care about that as much as they do about me ;-)
As I stated in the newer post by ScyberDragon, the more realistic approach would be to think that you could trade your items with the other players.
This would also increase your chances of getting the item (generally, not drop rate) by small probabilities but there's an increase nonetheless.
On the other hand your party members can be that big retards that they won't trade with you even if it was an advantage for them as well and we would be back at the solo drop chance.
I think it's pretty hard to come up with a realistic model, I've never had Game Theory so I don't know if there's a better way to calculate this ^^
You don't need game theory to calculate this (but you can use it and prove that share itens is a unstable equilibrium - once someone decide to break the deal, everyone will also break the deal).
The chance of getting what you want do not increase if people share their itens. Take the monetary value in consideration has nothing to do with party members affection for each other. It's a consequency of D3 free market reality: you can trade anything for anything (in the right proportions). So if you drop something you don't need, you can sell it and buy something you need. You will not have to drop your own loot - you just need to drop some really valuable loot and trade for what you need.
Imagine the follwing situation:
* A is a item that you need and you ally don't need. B is a item that your ally need and you don't need.
* A and B worth the same in the market. If you drop B and you can sell it and buy A.
* A and B have the same drop rates.
The probability of your ally drop A and give it to you is the same probability of you droping B and give it to your ally. Since theres no difference in between droping A and B, the probability of you drop B is actually a negative probability of you droping A.
Your chance don't increase unless:
* A worth more. In this case your ally is in disvantage: if you drop B you loose something lower then what your ally loose when he drops A.
* A have better drop rates. In this case your ally is in disvantage because he will be giving stuff to you more often then you will be giving stuff to him.
It's a zero sum situation. One player will only win if other player loose. Your chance only increase if you decrease the chances of your friends. So the chances of all players gearing thenself up DO NOT INCREASE (share itens will only make the distribution of wealth not equal among players, wich is really bad imo).
You don't need game theory to calculate this (but you can use it and prove that share itens is a unstable equilibrium - once someone decide to break the deal, everyone will also break the deal).
That is game theory, its Nash Equilibrium.
It's a zero sum situation. One player will only win if other player loose. Your chance only increase if you decrease the chances of your friends. So the chances of all players gearing thenself up DO NOT INCREASE (share itens will only make the distribution of wealth not equal among players, wich is really bad imo).
Now D3 is a zero sum game? isn't that solved with Nash Equilibrium.
I dunno, using logic, if there are 4 players in the game and you are all sharing. Your chances should increase. If your playing with a friend, you should assume he/she will get you back as soon as they find something for you. If your playing with a random player, you could always trade something of worth(scraps, gems, gold)in game for that item.
Again logic, game pace is faster with four player, more items will drop, and your chances to gear will increase.
You don't need game theory to calculate this (but you can use it and prove that share itens is a unstable equilibrium - once someone decide to break the deal, everyone will also break the deal).
That is game theory, its Nash Equilibrium.
It's a zero sum situation. One player will only win if other player loose. Your chance only increase if you decrease the chances of your friends. So the chances of all players gearing thenself up DO NOT INCREASE (share itens will only make the distribution of wealth not equal among players, wich is really bad imo).
Now D3 is a zero sum game? isn't that solved with Nash Equilibrium.
I dunno, using logic, if there are 4 players in the game and you are all sharing. Your chances should increase. If your playing with a friend, you should assume he/she will get you back as soon as they find something for you. If your playing with a random player, you could always trade something of worth(scraps, gems, gold)in game for that item.
Again logic, game pace is faster with four player, more items will drop, and your chances to gear will increase.
I will not explain again. Read my post, if you can't understand, read it again.
Also, this have NOTHING to do with game theory and nash's equilibrium. Theres not even a game to begin with ( a game theory's game - a situation were your pay off depends not only on your choice but in other ppl choice. And even if use game theory, the problem is solved by strictly dominated strateges iteration, not nash equilibrium). Ofc if you focus on the problem "will someone break the deal and not share their drop?" the game theory problen arises, but i not even talking about it. I'm assuming you're playing with good trustworhty friends and everyone will follow the rules set. And even in thoes situation, in the best scenerium, the problabilty DOES NOT CHANGE.
A tip: you're not taking in consideration what you LOSE for sharing and that this item you lost can be traded for gold and gold traded for what you need.
A tip: you're not taking in consideration what you LOSE for sharing and that this item you lost can be traded for gold and gold traded for what you need.
Your not taking consideration in what you can GAIN for sharing.
A tip: you're not taking in consideration what you LOSE for sharing and that this item you lost can be traded for gold and gold traded for what you need.
Your not taking consideration in what you can GAIN for sharing.
You don't know how to read. I CLEARY considered it on my post.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"In time the hissing of her sanity
Faded out her voice and soiled her name
And like marked pages in a diary
Everything seemed clean that is unstained
The incoherent talk of ordinary days
Why would we really need to live?
Decide what is clear and what's within a haze
What you should take and what to give" - Opeth
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is true, it's fun to discuss such topics with the intent of expressing and sharing opinions. I just don't understand when people approach these topics with the idea that there is this big problem, and we need to solve it. I enjoy discussion, thus my lack of a social life in place of online forums lol, I just feel the need to point out Blizzard likely is 10 steps ahead of us. They may even be watching these forums at this very second
You would rather keep a wand while playing a Barbarian then give it to a Wizard that can use it?
Drops will be like in Diablo 2, but each person can only see their own drops. IE, each boss drops loot for each player, and each player can only see their own loot.
Hope that made sense.
Lol, I can see it now. "Wow, are they really arguing over loot? We figured that out before we even bought the Diablo3.com domain!"
We won't see people gearing themselves 4 times faster in D3, at least not because of the individual drops.
Official Blizzard Quote:
Playing with others works exactly like Diablo II. Enemies are tougher, and you have a better chance at getting nicer loot.
To be honest I'm not exactly sure how the percentages worked in diablo 2 as you get more players (I'm going to do research on this when I get some time), but I do know that the loot drop amount was a lot more so I'm still wondering if that is also true for d3.
Official Blizzard Quote:
Playing with others works exactly like Diablo II. Enemies are tougher, and you have a better chance at getting nicer loot.
He didnt mentioned MORE loot but NICER loots, so maybe hes not talking about extra drops per monster, maybe its just like D2 where mobs have their base level increased when new players join the game, allowing new types of items to drop.
Official Blizzard Quote:
@cherubdown Sorry that was an incorrect answer. Drops don't change while playing in a group vs. alone.
Official Blizzard Quote:
I've gotten this same question wrong in the past, I don't know why it continues to confuse me. Drops are not different in co-op. The fact that you're killing faster (which you will) in a group means more items in less amount of time, means we don't need to provide other incentives. Your own drop modifiers will affect your personal drops, such as magic and gold find. But that's the same while playing alone or in a group.
I like it. It's very simple and straight forward. We won't be wondering now if we're getting the most bang for our time spent. If you want to get better lootz, you'll just have to get better Magic Find.
the real question is not the quantity of loot dropped, but quality, im not 100% sure if this is unscaled depending on players in game, but i think it is unchanged
When something drops for me, it drops for me alone. No one is able to pick it. The only way an item I dropped will be considered a drop for any of the other 3 player is if I give it to them. And I can't see it happening. D3 is surely a game with a large amount of loot. We also know that this loot will surely not drop that easily. In other words, if I just give away a super OP legendary axe to my barbarian friend just because I’m a WD and his a barb and we are at the same party, I’ll have to pray that some good WD drop or else I will be poor.
Let me try to explain it in another way. Diablo is a game largely based on trades (it's a modern game w/o a item bind system omfg). Let's consider that when you drop an item that is not good for your class/build you can easily sell it on the market and use the gold acquired to get the gear you need. In other words, it doesn't matter if you actually drop something you need. Only the value of the drop matters. Trade value > use value. Free market effect.
Also consider that the players may organize their party in two different ways. The "selfish" way where no one shares the loot: if I drop something it's mine even if I can't use it and any of the other players can. The "altruistic" way where people will share, at the end of each run, the items their drop based on the needs of each one. Under this system, if I drop something good that I can't use it and someone else need it, I will give it to him.
Some people in this thread are thinking that gearing up under the "altruistic" party will be easier but they are wrong. In the altruistic way you really have 4x times the chance of dropping something you need, true. However you also have the 4x times the chance to drop something other people need and have to give away your loot. Since only the monetary value of the items matters, you have a equally high chance to lose what you got. At principle the probability of gearing yourself up is exactly the same in both systems. However the altruistic system suffer from a few distortions:
1) It depends too much on the trust between each player. In order to not end up losing in this system you have to be 100% sure that each of your allies will actually share the loot. If they don't share and you share you're only loosing. And the worst is that people have major incentives to not share, especially when they drop something really, really rare. This distortion is easily fixed by playing with only (real) friends.
2) If you're playing a class/build which the gear is cheaper, you're in disadvantage. When you share your expensive loot with other players you will lose x. When other players shares with you the cheap gear you will gain something smaller then x. You will be losing, in the long run.
Since we expect that gearing up different class/builds will requires different amounts of gold, there will be always someone in disadvantage. Ironically, the altruistic system promotes inequality. And inequality promotes discomfort and conflict. It also creates disincentive for playing with alternative "cheap" builds.
3) A similar distortion occurs when we take MF in consideration. When you trade power for MF, under the altruistic rule set, your marginal gain with MF is smaller (because you share a fraction of what you get expecting a return of equal amount from MFless players. You're basically sacrificing your own power to increase other's success chance of gearing then self up). Tbh, if you see this matter in the whole party perspective, this distortion actually do not exist at principle. If you use more MF and less power the effect is that the whole party is a little weaker and everyone has a little better drop rate. BUT, when you decrease your own power, you increase the probability of dying and spending gold on repairs. The gain of MF is smaller, so people will use less MF.
In more simple words: wearing MF under the altruistic rules will increase your chance of dying and spending gold more than increase the chance of dropping more items and get richer. Part of your MF benefits is transferred to the other party members. To fix this distortion people need to:
* choose the exactly same point in the tradeoff between MF and power. This probably impossible due to different class/build item dependence and gear options, not to mention different personal points of view of what is the optimal point in this trade off.
* When someone dies, everyone have to share the cost of his repair. This will solve the economical problem (value distribution in the party) but create a social one (people will troll hard the party member that dies too much).
This is another really serious distortion and the one that truly defines that under altruistic rules, the chance of gearing yourself up is smaller. Basically because people will surely use less MF then the optimal.
Conclusion: under the selfish rules the chances of gearing yourself between solo and party is exactly the same (obviously). Under the altruistic rules the chances of gearing yourself up is smaller (compared to solo/selfish). So there is no need to reduce the drop rates while playing in party. It should remain the freaking same - so playing with 1, 2, 3 or 4 players have no different in drop rates.
Edit: Fixing grammar issues. Sry for the huge post.
You don't need game theory to calculate this (but you can use it and prove that share itens is a unstable equilibrium - once someone decide to break the deal, everyone will also break the deal).
The chance of getting what you want do not increase if people share their itens. Take the monetary value in consideration has nothing to do with party members affection for each other. It's a consequency of D3 free market reality: you can trade anything for anything (in the right proportions). So if you drop something you don't need, you can sell it and buy something you need. You will not have to drop your own loot - you just need to drop some really valuable loot and trade for what you need.
Imagine the follwing situation:
* A is a item that you need and you ally don't need. B is a item that your ally need and you don't need.
* A and B worth the same in the market. If you drop B and you can sell it and buy A.
* A and B have the same drop rates.
The probability of your ally drop A and give it to you is the same probability of you droping B and give it to your ally. Since theres no difference in between droping A and B, the probability of you drop B is actually a negative probability of you droping A.
Your chance don't increase unless:
* A worth more. In this case your ally is in disvantage: if you drop B you loose something lower then what your ally loose when he drops A.
* A have better drop rates. In this case your ally is in disvantage because he will be giving stuff to you more often then you will be giving stuff to him.
It's a zero sum situation. One player will only win if other player loose. Your chance only increase if you decrease the chances of your friends. So the chances of all players gearing thenself up DO NOT INCREASE (share itens will only make the distribution of wealth not equal among players, wich is really bad imo).
That is game theory, its Nash Equilibrium.
Now D3 is a zero sum game? isn't that solved with Nash Equilibrium.
I dunno, using logic, if there are 4 players in the game and you are all sharing. Your chances should increase. If your playing with a friend, you should assume he/she will get you back as soon as they find something for you. If your playing with a random player, you could always trade something of worth(scraps, gems, gold)in game for that item.
Again logic, game pace is faster with four player, more items will drop, and your chances to gear will increase.
I will not explain again. Read my post, if you can't understand, read it again.
Also, this have NOTHING to do with game theory and nash's equilibrium. Theres not even a game to begin with ( a game theory's game - a situation were your pay off depends not only on your choice but in other ppl choice. And even if use game theory, the problem is solved by strictly dominated strateges iteration, not nash equilibrium). Ofc if you focus on the problem "will someone break the deal and not share their drop?" the game theory problen arises, but i not even talking about it. I'm assuming you're playing with good trustworhty friends and everyone will follow the rules set. And even in thoes situation, in the best scenerium, the problabilty DOES NOT CHANGE.
A tip: you're not taking in consideration what you LOSE for sharing and that this item you lost can be traded for gold and gold traded for what you need.
Your not taking consideration in what you can GAIN for sharing.
You don't know how to read. I CLEARY considered it on my post.