Weekly Developer Activities - 5/19/08

[Milolyen]

No, they were not explicit about it. Not only did they not comment on their motivation in a general sense, but they especially didn't use the term "short man". The reasoning they gave was no more involved than "Now we can reassign loot in chests, so let's do that".

It is possible that you are correct about their intention- but just because something was intentional doesn't make it a good idea.

Anyhow, there already was an existing disintcentive to use a non-full group: it lowers the chances that a group member can use the item that drops, and raises the chance that good items will rot in the chest with nobody who wants to take it.

There was ALWAYS that chance and the changes they made REDUCED that chance not increased it.

*Edit* While at the same time increased the benieft of going into raids with a larger group.

Milolyen

[MysticTheurge]

By that logic, nobody should wear seatbelts driving their cars, because it's most often irrelevant.

Nice straw man.

You're line of reasoning relies on a scenario (multiple desirable items and not enough people to take them) which, as has been pointed out by several other people, happens a truly minuscule portion of the time. Your desire to inflate that to true importance is no less fallacious than my desire to disregard those scenarios.

[moorewr]

No, they were not explicit about it. Not only did they not comment on their motivation in a general sense, but they especially didn't use the term "short man". The reasoning they gave was no more involved than "Now we can reassign loot in chests, so let's do that"..

I felt their intent was clear, but feelings are subjective. We can agree on the result.

[MysticTheurge]

but just because something was intentional doesn't make it a good idea.

Meanwhile, just because you say so doesn't make something a bad idea.

[Angelus_dead]

First off the chance of your 2 bracers dropping in a two man raid would be like 1 billion to 1 (rough estimate but prolly not to far off and prolly underestimated : D ) and you are baseing your arguement of "group size alters the likelihood" of one person getting raid loot on something that has next to NO CHANCE of ever happening?

No, it is NOT based on a rare situation. That particular example was uncommon because it was using a simple set of conditions: exactly two kinds of characters who desire exactly two kinds of raid loots.

Real player characters have more complex desires for variable types of loot, but the category of result still happens to them very frequently.

The most commonplace scenario is that a particular player desires one certain item from a raid. Say for example that my cleric hopes to get a Madstone Shield from Reaver's Fate. For any particular raid item, it probably is not desired by most characters: either the item is not helpful to my class at all, or I've already got something else using that equipment slot, or I've already gotten that exact item from a previous raid run. The final situation becomes more and more prevalent as time goes on.

So, supposing you're Mr. Cleric wanting a Madstone Shield. Your choices are to do Reaver with 12 players, 5 players, or solo. Which gives you the best chance of getting loot? The bigger group is by far more likely. It is improbable that someone else in the raid will compete against you to roll for the shield- and even if someone does, it's almost certain that more non-competing players than competing players were added to the pool when you choose the bigger group.

That is the choice DDO players face every day: a character has a "shopping list" of 1-3 raid items he wishes to obtain, and to get the best chance to obtain the item, he must join a raid with as many players as is allowed.

[Angelus_dead]

You're line of reasoning relies on a scenario (multiple desirable items and not enough people to take them)

Incorrect. That is a special case of the general scenario, which is as follows:
An item drops which somebody desires, but that somebody is not in the group with us.

If raid loots were not binding and could be traded after the quest, then this would not be an issue. But they do bind, so it behooves you to raid in the largest groups possible, to maximize the chance that someone who can benefit from the item is there to use it.

which, as has been pointed out by several other people, happens a truly minuscule portion of the time. Your desire to inflate that to true importance is no less fallacious than my desire to disregard those scenarios.

It's not rare at all. Think of almost any single raid loot you could name, and then suppose you had a character that's hunting for that item. Even assuming you could beat the raid solo, would it be better for you to do it alone, or with a small group, or with a big group?

The answer is that in almost every situation, the additional loot-drops from more players will heavily outweigh the additional contention for items. More players will always increase the drops from the chest, but they will not necessarily add contention, because not all players want all items.

[Angelus_dead]

There was ALWAYS that chance and the changes they made REDUCED that chance not increased it.

That's my point: there already was a penalty for finishing a raid with a small group- a bigger chance that nobody wants the item that drops. So the new system not only added another penalty for small groups, but also kept the old one intact.

Old:
Small group penalty: Harder battle, chance that nobody can use the item that drops
Big group penalty: Longer organizing time, fewer items per person.

New:
Small group: Harder battle, chance that nobody can use the item that drops
Big group penalty: Longer organizing time

So, what they've done is forced players who want loot to spend time padding out the raid to a full 12 players, even if you'd already gotten more than enough players to complete the quest. For something like the Laliat raid, the effort to assemble a group of 12 players absolutely dwarfs the battle itself. The raid is trivial compared to signing up for the raid, which indicates flawed game design.

That is a bad way to make a raid take more players. It's a cop-out: The encounter isn't challenging enough to give more than 3-4 players anything to do, so let's change the loot so they need to bring another 8-9 players simply to maximize chest output.

[Aesop]

gee Mister Peabody when did we use the wayback machine?

I seem to recall conversations about this several months ago.

http://media.movieweb.com/news/09.2006/peabody.jpg

Sherman... er...I mean

Aesop

[Laith]

It is improbable that someone else in the raid will compete against you to roll for the shield- and even if someone does, it's almost certain that more non-competing players than competing players were added to the pool when you choose the bigger group.

that's a very situational assumption. try applying it to raids that aren't run as commonly as reaver, and items that are more popular and/or less commonly looted than the madstone shield.

[Borror0]

Even assuming you could beat the raid solo, would it be better for you to do it alone, or with a small group, or with a big group?

The answer is that in almost every situation, the additional loot-drops from more players will heavily outweigh the additional contention for items. More players will always increase the drops from the chest, but they will not necessarily add contention, because not all players want all items.

So, what they've done is forced players who want loot to spend time padding out the raid to a full 12 players, even if you'd already gotten more than enough players to complete the quest. For something like the Laliat raid, the effort to assemble a group of 12 players absolutely dwarfs the battle itself. The raid is trivial compared to signing up for the raid, which indicates flawed game design.

That is a bad way to make a raid take more players. It's a cop-out: The encounter isn't challenging enough to give more than 3-4 players anything to do, so let's change the loot so they need to bring another 8-9 players simply to maximize chest output.

Exactly.

[Angelus_dead]

Anytime you add a cleric, sorc, or wizzy to a DQ raid, for example, you can almost guarantee that they would like to roll on the Torc. It has all 3 of the above factors against it.

The same can be said for ANY strength based melee and the sword of shadows.

Those things are true, but they do not change the bias towards larger groups.

It is true that if you have one barb in a Velah raid who only wants SOS, the addition of another barb wanting the same item would be detrimental to him. But to the group as a whole it is beneficial, because he is not really in contention with other players wanting other items. The chance he'll want to take the Kundarak Delving Suit or Helm of Mronanon is much lower. And although Kundarak Delving Boots are valuable to everyone, the chance that he'll contend for them them is generally lower than the increased drop rate he brings to the quest as a whole.

[Laith]

Those things are true, but they do not change the bias towards larger groups.

wait, so you're saying that 12 people should run in one quest as opposed to 6 seperate ones to get loot that binds on pickup. why are you even arguing this?

You could say the same thing about The Cursed Crypt: It's harder to run if you solo it, and the binding necklace only benefits one person (or no one if you dont' need it). It's the entire nature of Bind on Pickup equipment.

It is the game mechanic aimed at getting people to group.
It does its job.

[ahpook]

And it's your choice to play the way you do, nobody is forcing you to. You don't seriously expect Turbine to weigh and consider every single playstyle possible when planning releases, do you? Expecting to be thrown a bone just because you choose an alternative playstyle from the majority of the playerbase is, well, self-serving at best.

Hey, no worries, not expecting them to cater to my playstyle. If this is where the majority is at, good for catering to them.

When I joined, 99% of the content was not a raid. Every module since then has placed more emphasis on the raids. If the new modules are going to 100% raids and that is what will keep the most players active, great! Just letting them know that it is not necessarily what I signed up for nor what I am interested in playing. No bitterness, just feedback.

Try making some friends, DDO is a lot more fun if you branch out rather than sticking with the same group of people.

However, condescending remarks like this could make me bitter. I have more than enough friends and please don't tell me what I will enjoy.

[Angelus_dead]

wait, so you're NOT talking about the benefit of the individuals, but instead the bias toward larger groups.
umm... welcome to DDO: where EVERY chest creates an amount of loot in direct proportion to the number of hands reaching inside.

The group size bias effect is not similar between quests and raids.

If we're looting Planar Girds from Xorian Cipher, then two groups of 3 players has exactly the same output as one group of 6 players. There is no incentive for them to merge their groups, except that teamwork can make it easier and faster for them to travel through the quest.

But if we're looting Madstone Boots from Reaver's Fate, then two groups of 3 players has a lower chance of getting the item to someone who can use it than if they had merged into one group of 6.

This discrepancy would not occur if it were possible to trade raid loots after the raid was over. It also wouldn't occur if it were impossible to reassign raid loots within the chest. But, because you are allowed to exchange raid loots during the raid, but not afterwards, there is a bias towards having the largest group possible, which increases the pool of potential characters to whom the loot can be assigned. In turn, that increases the chance the loot goes to someone who can use it, instead of someone who view it as vendor trash.

[ahpook]

That is a bad way to make a raid take more players. It's a cop-out: The encounter isn't challenging enough to give more than 3-4 players anything to do, so let's change the loot so they need to bring another 8-9 players simply to maximize chest output.

Generally what you say is correct, but I don't think the changes had much to do with getting more people to run the raid. It was simply about slowing down the flow of raid loot getting generated. The "more people" was a side effect but certainly not the primary reason.

[Angelus_dead]

wait, so you're saying that 12 people should run in one quest as opposed to 6 seperate ones to get loot that binds on pickup. why are you even arguing this?

The proximate reason I'm discussing it is because someone came into this thread and claimed that the bias towards larger groups didn't exist, which is false. Using false conclusions as the basis for future game design leads to problems.

In the bigger picture, the reason I dislike the new raid loot system is that it made DDO noticeably less fun. It increased the ratio of time spent LFM versus time in quest, and it also increased the proportion of players in a raid standing around waiting to loot instead of participating in the mission.

You could say the same thing about The Cursed Crypt: It's harder to run if you solo it, and the binding necklace only benefits one person (or no one if you dont' need it). It's the entire nature of Bind on Pickup equipment.

No, it's not the same. If I have 5 players almost at the end of Cursed Crypt and we're ready to jump down and blast the final boss, then I have no loot incentive to add another player to the group. We might want to bring in another player if we want to help him get loot for himself, or if we think he'd help accomplish objectives, or maybe just because of his winning personality.

But in terms of the loot we receive, we don't need to invite anyone else. Each of us will get exactly 1 Silver Flame Talisman, and it is impossible for one character to hold more. For raids that is different, because another player could get an item you'd like, and he can give it to you during the raid, but not afterwards.

[MrCow]

*Looks through to find several pages of statistical theory and application to game mechanics in regards to high-end bound item acquisition*

So... ummm... yay for stealth attacks granting two hits for two weapon fighting?

[Borror0]

It was simply about slowing down the flow of raid loot getting generated.

What's so bad about it? It makes it easier for those who don't play/raid much to have their raid loot, and those who raid/play more will have it no matter what.

[Angelus_dead]

So... ummm... yay for stealth attacks granting two hits for two weapon fighting?

Yay indeed! That was a bug report I submitted.

Actually, now that you mention it, I see that it's actually a fairly important point. In fact, it probably majorly increases the power of the Way of the Assassin II death attack.

You see, the most recent revision of Death Attack has it only usable in sneak mode. Active melee special attacks (such as Trip and Stunning Blow, and even Smite Evil) apply to both of the attacks in an animation at once. A person who uses Stunning Blow with GTWF forces the monster to roll two saving throws, so even if his fortitude is super-high there's still a 10% chance of a successful stun.

Before the change to stealth TWF, there was no way to get double Death Attacks in one action. Now, presumably, there will be.

[Laith]

But if we're looting Madstone Boots from Reaver's Fate, then two groups of 3 players has a lower chance of getting the item to someone who can use it than if they had merged into one group of 6.

who'd a thunk: a multiplayer game that rewards those who play well with others.