Major concern regarding teaming and shared loot in Loot 2.0

wizz said:

Let's say that if all you guys say is true, and honestly, I think you're all right, then still, what's the problem?

Click to expand...

I'm going to try to ignore the parts of your post which are off topic.

It's not a theory, there is no question of whether it is true or not true, it's a very easily provable and obvious issue.

The problem is that all of this is caused by them having failed to revamp the loot splitting rules to function correctly in loot 2.0, and it's a problem which they've acknowledged several times but have yet to actually address.

The purpose of this topic is to raise awareness for this problem and to put pressure on MindArk to hurry up and address it, as they have stated previously they would.

Darkaruki said:

I'm going to try to ignore the parts of your post which are off topic.

It's not a theory, there is no question of whether it is true or not true, it's a very easily provable and obvious issue.

The problem is that all of this is caused by them having failed to revamp the loot splitting rules to function correctly in loot 2.0, and it's a problem which they've acknowledged several times but have yet to actually address.

The purpose of this topic is to raise awareness for this problem and to put pressure on MindArk to hurry up and address it, as they have stated previously they would.

Click to expand...

Darkaruki, with all due respect, what I said was 100% on topic.
I just dare to argue about it as it being a problem.

So if some don't agree with the rules, they should be changed??

I see it more as a feature.

But of course, feel free to disagree.

wizz said:

Darkaruki, with all due respect, what I said was 100% on topic.
I just dare to argue about it as it being a problem.

So if some don't agree with the rules, they should be changed??

I see it more as a feature.

But of course, feel free to disagree.

Click to expand...

You consider them updating one part of their game and forgetting to update another part of their game to follow suit and acknowledging that failure as being an issue multiple times as being a feature? I think we may fundamentally not share the same definition for the word "feature" in that case.

Given that it obviously is a problem and MindArk have acknowledged it as such, I don't see how sitting around debating whether or not this problem is *really* a problem makes any sense.

Darkaruki said:

Hopefully this arrives sooner rather than later

Click to expand...

And when you get what you want the market for all dpp related items is going to crash, because the effect on solo loot is minimal. Purchasing of loot boxes/keys will probably drop considerably considering the value of what is inside will have dropped by at least half. This also means the loot boxes that are looted during seasonal events will not be worth as much.

Just so MA and everyone are prepared...

If MA doesn't see a problem with the existing system, then they won't change it. If they choose to change it then they see a problem with it, regardless if that problem is because it is genuinely an issue that lets some players invisibly take advantage of others, or because they decide it would be detrimental to their bottom line if people are unhappy.

At the end of the day, they will change it if they think it needs to be changed. Right now my common sense tells me to not hunt in shared loot or in teams with anyone other than a very small handful of people I absolutely trust. The distribution is not encouraging me to want to play with others. If that's what MA wants then so be it.

Xen said:

And when you get what you want the market for all dpp related items is going to crash, because the effect on solo loot is minimal. Purchasing of loot boxes/keys will probably drop considerably considering the value of what is inside will have dropped by at least half. This also means the loot boxes that are looted during seasonal events will not be worth as much.

Just so MA and everyone are prepared...

Click to expand...

They already had their prices cut quite a bit with the advent of Loot 2.0, it has been nearly a year at this point and if you're saying the price of certain items would be slightly lower if an issue in the game which allows players to use those items to leech off of other players then that's completely acceptable if you ask me.

I don't think people will be opening less boxes, perhaps the price of a few of the items that drops from boxes will be lower and as a result the MU of boxes will be lower, but that's about it. There are still many valuable items within boxes and people will still want to open them even if their average MU is lower, so I don't see how this logic works.

I think you're also massively understating the negative impact of players being leeched from and having negative experiences caused by predatory players at Shared Loot areas, and the negative impact of players being even further disinclined/pushed away from Team Hunting knowing the loot split will be blatantly imbalanced.

Anyways, this thread is really not the place to discuss the following things, so I'll be trying to do my best to remove them from now on since I really feel way too much time has been wasted pointlessly arguing them:

• What about item split?? A noob got an ESI once!
• I hate Loot 2.0!!
• I deserve to leech off of those idiots!
• All of this completely provable stuff is made up!
• One time a noob told me his loot was good!
• I don't care if MindArk admits it's a problem, I'm benefiting from it so clearly it isn't!
• Personal attacks

Just a final reminder, this is the topic of the thread:

Loot 2.0 has changed loot calculations to be based on Cost Incurred after Efficiency, however, in Shared Loot and Team Hunting scenarios loot is being split, incorrectly, by Damage Dealt, and this results directly in imbalanced loot splitting which is being exploited currently. It is a problem. It needs to be addressed. MindArk admits it is a problem and have said they plan to address it. They are overdue currently on addressing it.

Thanks everyone for your co-operation.

...bump...

Darkaruki said:

Loot 2.0 has changed loot calculations to be based on Cost Incurred after Efficiency, however, in Shared Loot and Team Hunting scenarios loot is being split, incorrectly, by Damage Dealt, and this results directly in imbalanced loot splitting which is being exploited currently. It is a problem. It needs to be addressed. MindArk admits it is a problem and have said they plan to address it. They are overdue currently on addressing it.

Thanks everyone for your co-operation.

Click to expand...

Can you please resend me the link to the quote where MA stated that loot on shared mobs (or team hunts) should not be split based on dmg but on costs?

Loot is generated based on cost to kill. that much was said by MA in regards of loot 2.0.
But I cant remember MA stated that loot 2.0 incurred that loot split should also be based on cost to kill instead of dmg done.

I guess I missed that quote, so please resend it.

Thanks.

Darkaruki said:

Anyways, this thread is really not the place to discuss the following things, so I'll be trying to do my best to remove them from now on since I really feel way too much time has been wasted pointlessly arguing them:

• What about item split?? A noob got an ESI once!
• I hate Loot 2.0!!
• I deserve to leech off of those idiots!
• All of this completely provable stuff is made up!
• One time a noob told me his loot was good!
• I don't care if MindArk admits it's a problem, I'm benefiting from it so clearly it isn't!
• Personal attacks

Just a final reminder, this is the topic of the thread:

Loot 2.0 has changed loot calculations to be based on Cost Incurred after Efficiency, however, in Shared Loot and Team Hunting scenarios loot is being split, incorrectly, by Damage Dealt, and this results directly in imbalanced loot splitting which is being exploited currently. It is a problem. It needs to be addressed. MindArk admits it is a problem and have said they plan to address it. They are overdue currently on addressing it.

Thanks everyone for your co-operation.

Click to expand...

The way you wrote... are you saying players who doesn't spend on expensive gears, should not have a chance to loot an esi ?

yeeck said:

The way you wrote... are you saying players who doesn't spend on expensive gears, should not have a chance to loot an esi ?

Click to expand...

not even remotely in any way shape or form did I write anything like this

To my surprise I saw this today:



So...

that should clear things out for this thread, right?

"how much loot someone gets depends on how much damage they dealt to that enemy" as MA CLEARLY stated.
Nowhere it says anything about the costs involved.

So, as I said, it was a feature and it's not broken. The total amount of loot is depending on the costs to kill, but the distribution depends on dmg dealt

So, can this thread be closed now since we aren't addressing a "broken" issue anymore.

wizz said:

To my surprise I saw this today:



So...

that should clear things out for this thread, right?

"how much loot someone gets depends on how much damage they dealt to that enemy" as MA CLEARLY stated.
Nowhere it says anything about the costs involved.

So, as I said, it was a feature and it's not broken. The total amount of loot is depending on the costs to kill, but the distribution depends on dmg dealt

So, can this thread be closed now since we aren't addressing a "broken" issue anymore.

Click to expand...

Amen brother!

wizz said:

To my surprise I saw this today:



So...

that should clear things out for this thread, right?

"how much loot someone gets depends on how much damage they dealt to that enemy" as MA CLEARLY stated.
Nowhere it says anything about the costs involved.

So, as I said, it was a feature and it's not broken. The total amount of loot is depending on the costs to kill, but the distribution depends on dmg dealt

So, can this thread be closed now since we aren't addressing a "broken" issue anymore.

Click to expand...

The "broken issue" is that it should not function in this way in loot 2.0.

We all know that it does, it should not, MindArk knows that it should not, they admitted three times that it should not and said that it would be looked at because it does not make sense to have damage based loot splitting in a cost based loot system, it's an oversight. That is the "broken issue".

The person agreeing with you spends all day every day abusing this discrepancy for personal gain. I don't blame them for seeking personal gain, but I do blame MindArk for failing to address this issue after saying they would, considering this is relatively big problem in the game at the moment.

If you're still struggling to understand the basic content of this thread I would recommend reading from some of the many posts already written.

Darkaruki said:

The "broken issue" is that it should not function in this way in loot 2.0.

Click to expand...

It should function this way, as it is MA who made these rules and is clearly communicating them with us!
Maybe you dont agree, and I can fully understand that.
Start a new discussion about that if you like.
But please stop addressing this as it being broken only since you dont agree with it.

Darkaruki said:

We all know that it does, it should not, MindArk knows that it should not, they admitted three times that it should not and said that it would be looked at because it does not make sense to have damage based loot splitting in a cost based loot system, it's an oversight. That is the "broken issue".

Click to expand...

It DOES make sense!
Loot determined on cost. Ok.
But now comes the split part, why should a guy with a tt+1 ped weapon have the same "rights" as the guy with a +10000 ped weapon? Are you a communist?

If I dmg half the mob, I should get half the loot.
And if I did it more efficient than you, than that good/smart of me. To bad for you, but that's the rules.
So now you know, so, if you want to compete, be prepared then.

Also, I think I asked before, please post the 3 times MA said that it was broken.

Darkaruki said:

The person agreeing with you spends all day every day abusing this discrepancy for personal gain. I don't blame them for seeking personal gain, but I do blame MindArk for failing to address this issue after saying they would, considering this is relatively big problem in the game at the moment.

Click to expand...

He's doing nothing wrong. He's just doing what he's doing best and thats appearantly shared mobs.
All the others "being milked", they might be the ones that should give it a second thought if they want to keep doing what they are doing if they loose so much.
Exactly what I did, so I dont do the pit. To bad, but I accept and adept.

Darkaruki said:

If you're still struggling to understand the basic content of this thread I would recommend reading from some of the many posts already written.

Click to expand...

Darkuruki, not agreeing with you (on this topic) does not mean I dont understand the point of the thread.
It's good to warn people about this. Absolutely.
People should know what they get into. So yes, a fair warning is in place.
MA thought the same, so they decided to throw in the communication window to inform peope about it.
Kudo's to MA for that!


But I have been arguing with you in the thread about it NOT BEING BROKEN. Which you simply dont want to accept.
Now, who's being the stubborn one here?

Go on with warning people, as I said before in this thread, that's a noble cause.
But stop with attacking people who are prepped for shared mobs and try to get the most out of it.

Blame the stupid guy for being stupid. Dont blame the smart guy for being smart.

wizz said:

It should function this way, as it is MA who made these rules and is clearly communicating them with us!
Maybe you dont agree, and I can fully understand that.
Start a new discussion about that if you like.
But please stop addressing this as it being broken only since you dont agree with it.




It DOES make sense!
Loot determined on cost. Ok.
But now comes the split part, why should a guy with a tt+1 ped weapon have the same "rights" as the guy with a +10000 ped weapon? Are you a communist?

If I dmg half the mob, I should get half the loot.
And if I did it more efficient than you, than that good/smart of me. To bad for you, but that's the rules.
So now you know, so, if you want to compete, be prepared then.

Also, I think I asked before, please post the 3 times MA said that it was broken.




He's doing nothing wrong. He's just doing what he's doing best and thats appearantly shared mobs.
All the others "being milked", they might be the ones that should give it a second thought if they want to keep doing what they are doing if they loose so much.
Exactly what I did, so I dont do the pit. To bad, but I accept and adept.




Darkuruki, not agreeing with you (on this topic) does not mean I dont understand the point of the thread.
It's good to warn people about this. Absolutely.
People should know what they get into. So yes, a fair warning is in place.
MA thought the same, so they decided to throw in the communication window to inform peope about it.
Kudo's to MA for that!


But I have been arguing with you in the thread about it NOT BEING BROKEN. Which you simply dont want to accept.
Now, who's being the stubborn one here?

Go on with warning people, as I said before in this thread, that's a noble cause.
But stop with attacking people who are prepped for shared mobs and try to get the most out of it.

Blame the stupid guy for being stupid. Dont blame the smart guy for being smart.

Click to expand...

Those rules made sense in the previous system. They are dysfunctional and outdated in the current one. MindArk acknowledges and admits this, have said they will revamp them, and are currently behind schedule in doing so.

This "right to leech" argument is illogical and unrealistic and I strongly doubt it is a view supported by MindArk, as this only became an issue because they changed the loot system and neglected to change the loot share rules to make sense in their new system. As for players with superior setups receiving the same results as players with inferior setups, this is not the case, we have in loot 2.0 the Efficiency stat to ensure players with superior setups are able to achieve better results. Loot is determined by Cost after Efficiency. It can and should be split by Cost after Efficiency in Shared Loot and Team Hunting as well.

There were two forum posts where they acknowledged the split by damage being outdated/unfair and needing to be looked at that I'm too lazy to dig up, because they also then mentioned this problem and stated it would be looked at and fixed in the Developer Notes 16:



Did you read my post at all? I specifically said I don't blame that player, or the others, for using the current imbalance between loot 2.0 and the outdated loot split rules to their advantage. I blamed MA for being very slow at dealing with something they know is an issue.

You didn't "not agree" with me, you showed a lack of understanding of the topic being discussed, which is why I made that comment, since your entire post was easily answered, addressed, and rebutted by other posts already made in this thread.

That communication window is not one they created to warn people about loot 2.0 and the outdated loot split rules the game is currently using, it even is content which was created before the advent of loot 2.0 and it does nothing more than state the loot split rules, it doesn't contain any opinion or insight or warning, though even if it did I would consider it to be a band-aid for the fact that they currently are lacking a dedicated Software Developer and are literally actively interviewing for that position at the moment, which probably has a lot to do with why this issue has yet to be addressed after all this time.

Loot is split by damage currently and it is, indeed, split loot by damage. I know, we know, everyone knows, nobody is saying it doesn't split by damage currently. The topic of this thread is that this method of splitting loot is inherently unfair and dysfunctional in loot 2.0. That's not an opinion, it's a fact, and practically the only people in this thread who have argued against it are people who are currently using that issue to their advantage, are friends with others who are, or are worried about losing some part of an investment in an item which has part of its current value being created by this issue. In your case I think you're just arguing for the sake or arguing or because you're confused.

Since you're just repeating a previous point: I specifically said I don't blame that player, or the others, for using the current imbalance between loot 2.0 and the outdated loot split rules to their advantage. I blamed MA for being very slow at dealing with something they know is an issue.

The reason I'm trying to champion this cause is because I actually care about this game and this game's community, it's the same reason I've poured thousands of hours into various community projects and have nearly 25000 edits on EntropiaWiki. If you don't care and don't want to see MindArk improve their game and address issues, that's fine, but there is nothing forcing you to get in the way of that.

wizz said:

You say it's an unfair split.
I say it's not un unfair split.

Click to expand...

Hey guys! Can we untangle this?
First off, the current situation with shared is more than just a remnant of loot 1.x, where you got loot based on the damage you did. Now you get loot ALSO based on the differences between your dpp. The worse your teammate, the better your loot share.

So, while in solo hunting we now have (close to) equality of (tt) outcome no matter what (stupid?) setup you use, the outcome in teams is MORE pronounced than it was before.

Yes, you can argue the merits of the old system. I, personally, preferred 1.x, where efficiencies and skills and gear mattered more, but it is also perfectly ok to highlight what 2.0 not thoroughly implemented means for shared loot nowadays.

So, I say can say I dislike both shifts (currently) in loot 2.0, solo and the effect on team loots.

Looter skills are possible part of a rebalancing mechanism, yes, but that is not directly part of this topic I think...

Ok, so you did use your power as moderator to win an argument?
just to delete my entire post?
But ok, fair enough, you have that power. I'll abide. nothing I can do about that but to ask you not to use your power to win an argument.


Now, lets get back on it.
First our dispute is that you see it as an unfair split and I dont see it as an unfair split.
Some agree with you some agree with me.
Perfectly normal.

But now, please give me an answer to the questions I asked in the deleted post.
I'll ask them again:

People with high efficiency invested much to get that high eff.
So again I ask, why should a shit eco tt+1 weapon give the same result as an uber tt+10000 weapon?
Whats fair about that?

Also, the link you posted said that MA would look into it. And change it if needed.
You say it's needed, I say it's not.
Also I miss the other 2 links of the 3 you mention.

I say, it's fair that someone who heavily invested should have advantage (even though I dont belong to that category so I have nothing to win here).
You say that we all should have the same rights, even with crap equipment.
(At least that's how I interpret it and I could perfectly be wrong)

As in my post with athe printscreen MA clearly states the rules. So how can you call it an unfair situation?
It's just the rules. And that you dont agree with those is your good right.
And your good right to try to have it changed.
But it's my good right to fight against a change of those rules. You're not the only one with a strong devotion to Entropia here!


But, if this thread is to just warn people, ok, that's good for me. As I said many times before, that's a noble cause. (And I mean this and dont say it as a joke.)
But if this thread is about wanting the rules to be changed, then I'm fiercely against it for reason which are mentioned by me and others as well in this thread.

wizz said:

...

Click to expand...

This thread was never about this. We know how shared loot works right now. While total loot is based on cost as of 2.0 but shared loot is still based on damage split, and our argument here is that the shared loot mechanic, which is an artifact of the older system, is out of date and extremely unbalanced, and something MA has not gotten around to fixing.

As discussed before, if loot 2.0 returns is supposed to be efficiency parameter and cost based, then shared loot should be a compatible system. As it stands, someone with the same efficiency parameter, but much higher DPP can claw 10 or 15% of loot away from the lower dpp player, despite having the same efficiency.

Another way to look at it, if that player doing shared loot with lower dpp, were to hunt solo, they would get a maybe 10-15% better return in tt.

In the old system, MA controlled these problems by limiting the amount of DPP available to players. However, with loot 2.0, they've removed this limit for DPP on weapons/attachments, etc. But by not also correcting shared loot, they've left a large imbalance in the game.

Long story short. MA implemented Loot 2.0 to make the loot cost based, freeing them to make very high DPP weapons. They failed to implement a solution for shared loot yet so have left the system as is. However, because the shared loot system is based on old pre 2.0 mechanics, the newer high DPP weapons have a huge advantage, one that players with lower DPP would not see if they hunted solo.

Darkaruki said:

I specifically said I don't blame that player, or the others, for using the current imbalance between loot 2.0 and the outdated loot split rules to their advantage. I blamed MA for being very slow at dealing with something they know is an issue.

Click to expand...

Have you ever thought about that it could be very complicated to adjust/remake a loot algorithm, and this takes some time.
MA is a very small company compared to other game developers, they simply don´t have the manpower to do it faster.
Beside that it is a complicated problem.

Make the shared loot distribution by costs, the most uneco gear gets the biggest part, as those simply paid most, even if it was extremly inefficent (low DPP).

Is it fair, that someone using a 2 DPP gun doing the same DMG than one with a 4 DPP gun, gets more out of the shared loot than the more eco guy? Maybe many may think it is fair as the 2 DPP guy paid double than the 4 DPP guy, for the same DMG but: 2 DPP gun MU+1 or even TT food, 4 DPP gun MU+25k upwards. Why invest in damn expencive gear if there is no longer any advantage?

Especially when you look into Loot 2.0 where the eco in solo hunting no longer matters, the only thing where eco still matters is the shared loots.

So even if MA bring on a fix on the issue and makes a shared loot algorythm based on PED spent instead DMG dealt, it will just start another shitstorm, from the other side.

They can´t make it fair, no matter how they do it one side will be pissed, so why not leave it how it is?

Personally I don´t see it as a problem at all, as said somewhere earlyer: without the high end eco hunters many shared mobs wouldn´t be doable for biggest part of EU players at all. And even if average loot return will be bad for you due to bad eco gear, you still have the chance to loot nice items in shared mobs (independant from DMG or Eco).

And on top, if you don´t take part because your eco is bad, there is lots of other activitys beside shared mobs or team hunts.

For team hunts its even less a problem as you can speak with your teammates and agree on weapon to use, so that all go the same eco, which makes loot distribution fair, without changing anything.

Once if you get yourself a good eco setup you might decide that you are ready now to do shared again. So long take a break from it or just accept that there is an disadvantage atm for low eco.

This is what many players say all these years since EU exists, something changes.
You have to adapt, or you will lose.

You did your warning, that is ok.
Everybody who read this thread knows about it now, if they still go on shared mobs with low eco guns its totally up to them.
Noone to blame, its ok.

Here is an image from entropiawiki of how the differential between 3 and 4 DPP could be achieved.

wizz said:

Ok, so you did use your power as moderator to win an argument?
just to delete my entire post?
But ok, fair enough, you have that power. I'll abide. nothing I can do about that but to ask you not to use your power to win an argument.

Click to expand...

I did not delete your post to "win an argument". I deleted your post because over 80% of it was off-topic/personal dispute, I then sent you a private message encouraging you to re-create the post with only the on-topic contents.

wizz said:

Now, lets get back on it.
First our dispute is that you see it as an unfair split and I dont see it as an unfair split.
Some agree with you some agree with me.
Perfectly normal.

Click to expand...

It's an objectively unfair split caused by a mismatch between the way loot is calculated and the way loot is split currently. It is an issue that is being widely and deliberately taken advantage of and it needs to be addressed. MindArk made two forum posts acknowledging the existence of the problem and included it in their Developer Notes because they also are aware it is an issue. They currently are behind schedule on addressing it.

wizz said:

But now, please give me an answer to the questions I asked in the deleted post.
I'll ask them again:

People with high efficiency invested much to get that high eff.
So again I ask, why should a shit eco tt+1 weapon give the same result as an uber tt+10000 weapon?
Whats fair about that?

Click to expand...

This isn't about Efficiency, it's about DPP and as I already said in several previous posts, they should not give the same result, they should work as they are meant to work in Loot 2.0, which is, rewarding players with higher levels of Efficiency with higher return rates. Loot should be being split by Cost after Efficiency. That is fair because that is how the game works on Loot 2.0, if you don't like Loot 2.0 that's fine, but has nothing to do with this thread.

wizz said:

Also, the link you posted said that MA would look into it. And change it if needed.
You say it's needed, I say it's not.
Also I miss the other 2 links of the 3 you mention.

Click to expand...

The Developer Notes entry specifically talks about investigating the existing issues with the distribution of loot in Team Hunting and Shared Loot scenarios and speaks of implementing changes in 1-2 months (It has been nearly 4 months) after completing a full review and testing phase. The other two acknowledgements of the issue were forum posts that I'm not going to waste my life digging up when it's right here in Developer Notes #16.

wizz said:

I say, it's fair that someone who heavily invested should have advantage (even though I dont belong to that category so I have nothing to win here).
You say that we all should have the same rights, even with crap equipment.

Click to expand...

1. I say so too, and they do.
2. I do not, see above.

wizz said:

As in my post with athe printscreen MA clearly states the rules. So how can you call it an unfair situation?
It's just the rules. And that you dont agree with those is your good right.
And your good right to try to have it changed.
But it's my good right to fight against a change of those rules. You're not the only one with a strong devotion to Entropia here!

Click to expand...

We know those are the rules.
Those rules are problematic in Loot 2.0.
It is an issue that has been acknowledged and needs to be addressed.
This thread is for discussion regarding this issue.

wizz said:

But, if this thread is to just warn people, ok, that's good for me. As I said many times before, that's a noble cause. (And I mean this and dont say it as a joke.)
But if this thread is about wanting the rules to be changed, then I'm fiercely against it for reason which are mentioned by me and others as well in this thread.

Click to expand...

This thread is both for discussing the issue, raising awareness of the issue, and reminding MindArk that this is an issue that needs to be looked at.

The majority of the people in this thread who are against this issue being resolved are just players who are taking advantage of the issue and do not want to see it properly be understood or resolved for this reason, which is why the majority of their posts are attempts to change the subject, undermine discussion, or raise doubt about the existence of the issue. I do care a lot about seeing this issue addressed, but I also care about important forum threads remaining on topic as well. This is why I gave a warning to deter people from continuing to make such posts.

GoNi said:

...

Click to expand...

DPP is not supposed to be more eco in the new system...

Your 'eco' is supposed to depend on your efficiency parameter.

Hate me for saying this, but they changed it specifically because higher DPP players was taking too much out of the pool, so they had to limit the damage.

Jhereg said:

This thread was never about this. We know how shared loot works right now. While total loot is based on cost as of 2.0 but shared loot is still based on damage split, and our argument here is that the shared loot mechanic, which is an artifact of the older system, is out of date and extremely unbalanced, and something MA has not gotten around to fixing.

Click to expand...

Yes, loot based on costs done.
Split based on dmg done.
Simple. You say it's unfair, I say it's not.

Jhereg said:

As discussed before, if loot 2.0 returns is supposed to be efficiency parameter and cost based, then shared loot should be a compatible system. As it stands, someone with the same efficiency parameter, but much higher DPP can claw 10 or 15% of loot away from the lower dpp player, despite having the same efficiency.

Click to expand...

Yes correct. but you forget to mention that that higher DPP made a huge investment to get that high DPP.
Shouldnt that be rewarded?
This should inspire people to also invest and skill up.

Jhereg said:

Long story short. MA implemented Loot 2.0 to make the loot cost based, freeing them to make very high DPP weapons. They failed to implement a solution for shared loot yet so have left the system as is. However, because the shared loot system is based on old pre 2.0 mechanics, the newer high DPP weapons have a huge advantage, one that players with lower DPP would not see if they hunted solo.

Click to expand...

yes, but I fail to see that what you suggest is fair.
If you get your way and everything is cost base split, someone with very expensive gear with high DPP will be totally fucked over since their loot will be drastically reduced due to their econess.
Is that fair?

So when doing shared mobs it doesnt make a difference anymore if you throw dung at a mob or shoot with a Mayhem weapon.

Jhereg said:

Long story short. MA implemented Loot 2.0 to make the loot cost based, freeing them to make very high DPP weapons. They failed to implement a solution for shared loot yet so have left the system as is. However, because the shared loot system is based on old pre 2.0 mechanics, the newer high DPP weapons have a huge advantage, one that players with lower DPP would not see if they hunted solo.

Click to expand...

You speak about fairness here. So why you don´t ask for healerloot on shared mobs, there is none!
Is it fair if serious DMG dealer has to stop shooting when he gets the aggro and needs to FAP?
No matter if shared loot is based on DMG dealt or PED spent, those who get the aggro and need to heal have an disadvantage.
DMG based the tanks can´t shoot, sometimes several shots untill aggro switches to next shooter.
Cost based well most FAPs especially the good ones cost way less than shooting the weapon.
So no matter how it works, the tanks have a disadvantage, which could be solved by healer loot % which simply does not exist on shared mobs.

There is always anything "unfair" or "unbalanced".
If everything would be perfectly balanced there wouldn´t be any reason to play at all, as no matter what you do outcome would be the same. All would be equal. Very boring!
No thanks.

I prefer a system where top end gear has an advantage over lower efficent gear. (Reason to invest in gear)
I prefer a system where higher skilled players have an advantage over lower skilled players. (Reason to skill)

If you remove this, what is the reason to play at all ?

GoNi said:

You speak about fairness here. So why you don´t ask for healerloot on shared mobs, there is none!
Is it fair if serious DMG dealer has to stop shooting when he gets the aggro and needs to FAP?
No matter if shared loot is based on DMG dealt or PED spent, those who get the aggro and need to heal have an disadvantage.
DMG based the tanks can´t shoot, sometimes several shots untill aggro switches to next shooter.
Cost based well most FAPs especially the good ones cost way less than shooting the weapon.
So no matter how it works, the tanks have a disadvantage, which could be solved by healer loot % which simply does not exist on shared mobs.

There is always anything "unfair" or "unbalanced".
If everything would be perfectly balanced there wouldn´t be any reason to play at all, as no matter what you do outcome would be the same. All would be equal. Very boring!
No thanks.

I prefer a system where top end gear has an advantage over lower efficent gear. (Reason to invest in gear)
I prefer a system where higher skilled players have an advantage over lower skilled players. (Reason to skill)

If you remove this, what is the reason to play at all ?

Click to expand...

As I also mentioned, MA's failure to fix shared loot while implementing huge DPP items makes this a big mess.

You want to go back to loot 1.x. But MA's already made a decision on that, and they've decided it is untenable, and they had to move to a cost system. If you do not like 2.0 and prefer to go back to DPP, then make another thread and discuss how much you hate loot 2.0.

But remember, going back to 1.x means losing all the new high DPP gear anyways.

Darkaruki said:

The majority of the people in this thread who are against this issue being resolved are just players who are taking advantage of the issue and do not want to see it properly be understood or resolved for this reason, which is why the majority of their posts are attempts to change the subject, undermine discussion, or raise doubt about the existence of the issue. .

Click to expand...

Yes, and did you ever wonder why??
Since they've spend so much ped on equipment and skills to get there!
You just want to take away their advantage they worked and paid so hard for.

It's the competition for shared mobs. Who can do the most dmg at the least costs.
Don't compete if you dont have the equipment!

It would be so lame if everything with just cost base split.
Just use a super uneco swine. Just pump as much costs as you can into the mob. WHo cares how much damage I did.
I just pumped ped into and now I want them back.
No brains. Just click.

GoNi said:

...
There is always anything "unfair" or "unbalanced".
If everything would be perfectly balanced there wouldn´t be any reason to play at all, as no matter what you do outcome would be the same. All would be equal. Very boring!
No thanks.

I prefer a system where top end gear has an advantage over lower efficent gear. (Reason to invest in gear)
I prefer a system where higher skilled players have an advantage over lower skilled players. (Reason to skill)

If you remove this, what is the reason to play at all ?

Click to expand...

Yes, this.

wizz said:

...
yes, but I fail to see that what you suggest is fair.
If you get your way and everything is cost base split, someone with very expensive gear with high DPP will be totally fucked over since their loot will be drastically reduced due to their econess.
Is that fair?

So when doing shared mobs it doesnt make a difference anymore if you throw dung at a mob or shoot with a Mayhem weapon.

Click to expand...

There's a different metric, it is called the efficiency parameter.

The new system is not supposed to be based on DPP, allowing MA to release high DPP weapons.

You would never see such high DPP weapons in the old system.

So yeah, be as eco as you like, but it isn't about dpp anymore, it is about the efficiency parameter.

With the exception of shared loot which is the consequence of MA not getting around to fixing the mechanics there yet.

wizz said:

Yes, and did you ever wonder why??
Since they've spend so much ped on equipment and skills to get there!
You just want to take away their advantage they worked and paid so hard for.

It's the competition for shared mobs. Who can do the most dmg at the least costs.
Don't compete if you dont have the equipment!

It would be so lame if everything with just cost base split.
Just use a super uneco swine. Just pump as much costs as you can into the mob. WHo cares how much damage I did.
I just pumped ped into and now I want them back.
No brains. Just click.

Click to expand...

Actually, I want Shared Loot to distribute loot the way loot is distributed in Loot 2.0, which would make using high eco advantageous and using low eco disadvantageous. Shared Loot is not intended to some weird hostile competition where unsuspecting noobs get slam dunked and quit the game so that an uber who sits there all day can make a few ped from him, it just ended up being this way because one set of rules was changed without the other being changed accordingly.

Jhereg said:

There's a different metric, it is called the efficiency parameter.

The new system is not supposed to be based on DPP, allowing MA to release high DPP weapons.

You would never see such high DPP weapons in the old system.

So yeah, be as eco as you like, but it isn't about dpp anymore, it is about the efficiency parameter.

With the exception of shared loot which is the consequence of MA not getting around to fixing the mechanics there yet.

Click to expand...

yes, clearly, we all know that. No need to explain the issue as it is clear to me.
But even with shared mobs it's about costs just like any other mobs. So the system works fine.
And that was what MA wanted otherwise eventually the system would been drained due to to many uber eco weapons.
So that's not the issue.

But when we talk about the loot split, you should have a parameter that decides the split.
And this now is the dmg done. Which in my eyes is the fairest way, even though this can be negative for bad eco weapons. And very simple to understand!
Why is it fair, well, due to the simplest reason, if I kill half the mob, I want half of the pie!
I dont care about my costs compared to my fellow entropian next to me.
I killed half so I want half the loot. Simpel as that.

That you need more cost to do half the dmg is your problem, not mine.
And if you see it as a problem, well good! Cuz that means you will skill up and gear up to remove that problem.
And if you can't, well, then dont compete.

I have the feeling you all want a communism system were all treated equal and there should be no differences.
And as Goni said, what would then be the incentive to skill and gear up??

Darkaruki said:

Actually, I want Shared Loot to distribute loot the way loot is distributed in Loot 2.0, which would make using high eco advantageous and using low eco disadvantageous. Shared Loot is not intended to some weird hostile competition where unsuspecting noobs get slam dunked and quit the game so that an uber who sits there all day can make a few ped from him, it just ended up being this way because one set of rules was changed without the other being changed accordingly.

Click to expand...

ok, this might sound off topic, so pretty please with cherries on top, dont remove it as it is just an example.

I always get killed in PVP4. It's unfair!
I always get slamdunked there because an uber sits there all day waiting to loot me and make some ped of me.
The system is broken!!!

I want to have the same chance to kill him as he has to kill me.

Of course, this is a stupid.
I'm warned by signs that I can be looted there, so I dont go there.

Same as with shared mobs.
I'm warned by a msg that loot is split according to a given set op parameters.
If I still go on, it's my own responsibility.