Major concern regarding teaming and shared loot in Loot 2.0

[Jhereg]

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!

Loot 2.0, pie needs to be split by some combination of efficiency parameter and cost, not DPP. We expect behavior in shared loot to mirror that when hunting solo, not to be drastically different. So, yes, if you kill half the mob, and you pay the same cost, and have the same efficiency as the other player, you should get half the pie. But if you kill the mob, pay 25% cost, and the same efficiency, the new system says you should only get 25% of the loot. (Which is obviously not what is happening now).

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.

True. It only matters how much cost YOU incur, it shouldn't matter what costs other players incur right?

But, if you operate under the current shared loot model, it DOES matter what your cost are compared to others. If you have the same efficiency, but pay twice as much as another player to inflict the same damage, MA says only your cost should matter in terms of your loot return. So the total loot is calculated by your cost + their cost.
But currently in shared loot, the other player will claw a portion of your loot away when the split is done by damage.

Just do this simple thought experiment. If you hunted solo with your exact setup as you did for shared loot, should you expect a similar level of return?

Currently, the mechanics of shared loot means this is not the case.

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??

No, I only want the current system to reflect what MA wanted to implement for 2.0
A system where DPP doesn't matter, only cost and efficiency parameter.
What you two are suggesting are still the old system.

 

[GoNi]

I have one question:

Was shared loot fair to you pre Loot 2.0?
Most DMG got biggest share, so every high DPS gun had a serious advantage over a lower DPS gun.
And even back that days, two players dealing same DMG (same DPS), the player who got the better eco gun had an advantage over the other one with less eco.

Nothing changed, if you ask me?

Why you want it changed now?

The situation now is exactly the same as Pre Loot 2.0 - eco matters.

In solo hunting it doesn´t matter anymore, so MA removed a major reson to gear up.

I don´t get why you want to remove the last remaining reason that is left to invest into high end gear?

 

[wizz]

Loot 2.0, pie needs to be split by some combination of efficiency parameter and cost, not DPP. We expect behavior in shared loot to mirror that when hunting solo, not to be drastically different. So, yes, if you kill half the mob, and you pay the same cost, and have the same efficiency as the other player, you should get half the pie. But if you kill the mob, pay 25% cost, and the same efficiency, the new system says you should only get 25% of the loot. (Which is obviously not what is happening now).

All very nice, but that's how YOU would like to see it.
Sure it's your right to want that.

but I think it's so incredibly stupid that if I kill 50% of the mob and I would only get 25% loot.
How is that fair???

What you two are suggesting are still the old system.

No, what I'm suggesting is that the total loot value is based on total costs done (by me + the guy next to me).
So loot 2.0 style, to prevent the loot pool from being drained.
Thats the most important to keep the game alive.

But I simple dont think it's fair that if I do 50% dmg I would only get 25% of the loot.
I did 50% of the job and should be paid 50% for that job.

And if I can do that more cost effective then the guy next to me, than that's good for me.

The system couldnt be more transparant than this.
No hidden calculations or whatever. Just do dmg and get paid for that dmg. And try to do it as cheap as possible!

But I think we both made our points which are in this case the opposite.

 

[Jhereg]

I have one question:

Was shared loot fair to you pre Loot 2.0?
Most DMG got biggest share, so every high DPS gun had a serious advantage over a lower DPS gun.
And even back that days, two players dealing same DMG (same DPS), the player who got the better eco gun had an advantage over the other one with less eco.

Nothing changed, if you ask me?

Why you want it changed now?

The situation now is exactly the same as Pre Loot 2.0 - eco matters.

In solo hunting it doesn´t matter anymore, so MA removed a major reson to gear up.

I don´t get why you want to remove the last remaining reason that is left to invest into high end gear?

Yes it was fair before 2.0, below are the reasons:

1) Because the system was DPP based, if you hunted solo versus shared loot, you would get the same results pre 2.0. Currently in 2.0 you would not.

2) MA limited the range of DPP you could get, not allowing the higher level players to take too much out of the pool, for either solo or shared loot. (Or tried to anyways).

3) System was well understood, meaning most players realize that shared loot was based on DPP. This is currently not the case, as there's confusion about why in a cost based system, should dpp matter in shared loot. This is amplified because, if you hunt solo, you can pay 1 ped and get say 95% of 1 ped back (depending on efficiency parameter). In shared loot, you put 1 ped in, that 95% of 1 ped goes into the loot for the mob, and then the higher dpp player will take maybe 15% of that away.

Again eco matters, but the wrong parameter is used for shared loot. It should be the efficiency parameter not DPP. DPP as an eco parameter was something that ended with Loot 2.0.

 

[Jhereg]

All very nice, but that's how YOU would like to see it.
Sure it's your right to want that.

but I think it's so incredibly stupid that if I kill 50% of the mob and I would only get 25% loot.
How is that fair???





No, what I'm suggesting is that the total loot value is based on total costs done (by me + the guy next to me).
So loot 2.0 style, to prevent the loot pool from being drained.
Thats the most important to keep the game alive.

But I simple dont think it's fair that if I do 50% dmg I would only get 25% of the loot.
I did 50% of the job and should be paid 50% for that job.

And if I can do that more cost effective then the guy next to me, than that's good for me.

The system couldnt be more transparant than this.
No hidden calculations or whatever. Just do dmg and get paid for that dmg. And try to do it as cheap as possible!

But I think we both made our points which are in this case the opposite.

Then shared loot mobs will ever only be accessible to players with DPP approaching 3.8-4.0. Which defeats the purpose of shared loot lol.

Btw, this is also the same issue with team hunting with other players using shared loot setting. So if you are hunting with a friend, and you have much higher DPP, you will effectively claw loot away from the other player.

 

[wizz]

Yes it was fair before 2.0, below are the reasons:

1) Because the system was DPP based, if you hunted solo versus shared loot, you would get the same results pre 2.0. Currently in 2.0 you would not.

2) MA limited the range of DPP you could get, not allowing the higher level players to take too much out of the pool, for either solo or shared loot. (Or tried to anyways).

3) System was well understood, meaning most players realize that shared loot was based on DPP. This is currently not the case, as there's confusion about why in a cost based system, should dpp matter in shared loot. This is amplified because, if you hunt solo, you can pay 1 ped and get say 95% of 1 ped back (depending on efficiency parameter). In shared loot, you put 1 ped in, that 95% of 1 ped goes into the loot for the mob, and then the higher dpp player will take maybe 15% of that away.

Again eco matters, but the wrong parameter is used for shared loot. It should be the efficiency parameter not DPP. DPP as an eco parameter was something that ended with Loot 2.0.

1) so, it was fair because the unfairness was the same with solo mobs as with shared mobs?
So ubers had constant tt profit on solo mobs, so it was fair enough that they should also get that on shared mobs?
What kind of fairness is that????

2)That BS ofcourse, you know as well as we do that the high DPP weapons had a huge advantage there.

3) "the system was well understood." So it was fair because we all knew it wasn't fair?
Well in that case, make the current rules understood as well to make them fair again.
Exactly what MA did with the message window.

 

[wizz]

Then shared loot mobs will ever only be accessible to players with DPP approaching 3.8-4.0. Which defeats the purpose of shared loot lol.

Btw, this is also the same issue with team hunting with other players using shared loot setting. So if you are hunting with a friend, and one player has much higher DPP, you will effectively claw loot away from the other player.

yeah and PVP4 will only be accessible by people with huge HP, big guns and tough armours.

No, there's still a purpose to shared loot for noobs with tiny weapons.
These noobs with tiny weapons would never be able to kill a mob alone so will never be able to get a chance to loot an esi.
With shared they can.

But be real, a shared 10k hp mob, what on earth does a noob has to do there apart from standing there gazing in awe!

And if you really want to do shared, pop some pills, get a nice (L) gun and try to compete with the big guys.
A lvl playing field for all of those willing to pay for it.

 

[Jhereg]

yeah and PVP4 will only be accessible by people with huge HP, big guns and tough armours.

No, there's still a purpose to shared loot for noobs with tiny weapons.
These noobs with tiny weapons would never be able to kill a mob alone so will never be able to get a chance to loot an esi.
With shared they can.

But be real, a shared 10k hp mob, what on earth does a noob has to do there apart from standing there gazing in awe!

And if you really want to do shared, pop some pills, get a nice (L) gun and try to compete with the big guys.
A lvl playing field for all of those willing to pay for it.

Okay so you agree currently, it would be unwise for lower DPP players to even bother doing shared loot mobs right?

 

[wizz]

Okay so you agree currently, it would be unwise for lower DPP players to even bother doing shared loot mobs right?

Yes. I would not advice to go there unless you're geared and buffed up.
As I said, we can all buy pills and very eco (L) weopons.

The same as I would not advice to go into pvp 4 without proper gear.
Or not to advice to go hunt warlocks with your opalo and pixie.

 

[Jhereg]

Yes. I would not advice to go there unless you're geared and buffed up.
As I said, we can all buy pills and very eco (L) weopons.

The same as I would not advice to go into pvp 4 without proper gear.
Or not to advice to go hunt warlocks with your opalo and pixie.

Great! You heard it from Wizz folks, newbies don't go do shared loot right now with your low dpp, it is super not good for your ped card.

(This DPP advantage becomes nonexistent if no lower DPP players show up btw and/or if everyone pretty much has identical DPP. In this case, lower efficiency parameter guns will actually get more loot for what they end up contributing to the total loot of the creature lol).

 

[wizz]

Great! You heard it from Wizz folks, newbies don't go do shared loot right now with your low dpp, it is super not good for your ped card.

Indeed!
Dont do it, unless you pop some pills and get a decent weapon!

But also dont try those warlocks as I told you!
So to bad, no very high MU drops for you.

 

[Slyk]

Here's a tip, MA doesn't like it when a player runs around telling other players they shouldn't be participating in something.

Indeed!
Dont do it, unless you pop some pills and get a decent weapon!

We've come full circle

But also dont try those warlocks as I told you!
So to bad, no very high MU drops for you.

Irrelevant

 

[wizz]

We've come full circle

No,

Indeed!
Dont do it, unless you pop some pills and get a decent weapon!
.

Not telling them they shouldnt do it at all.
Only telling them not to do it when unprepared.

Big difference!

 

[Evey]

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

Not only MA doesn't go around and "fix" this, but every time this thread is becoming very active, MA make a shared event in a super popular place like Twin Peaks, like they just did now. Can you imagine?

 

[GoNi]

It is exactly the same as pre loot 2.0 when it comes to shared mobs.

2 people shooting a 1200 HP mob, both use a gun that does 60 DPS (hypothetical numbers).
So it is 10 shots each player untill this mob is dead.

Now one got a 3 DPP Gun while the other got 4 DPP gun, both do same damage 600 HP, but guy A paid 2 PED the other one only 1.5 PED, both get the same loot. Loot was calculated by the HP to kill, so 1200 HP. Where was the difference to actual system ???

Look at it:
Total PED spent on this kill is 3.5 PED
Now let this mob drop 3 PED loot, both get 1.5 PED
Player A lost 0.5 PED, Player B got break even, due to better eco.
It doesn´t matter at all if this 3 PED loot is calculated from the 3.5 PED spent or from the 1200 HP killed.
The result is the same, lower eco lost, better eco win or break even.

No difference at the result to actual loot calculations on shared mobs! Or did I miss anything here ????

It was exactly the same as we have now.

It doesn´t matter if loot is calculated by the damage done or the ped spent, the one with less eco weapon very likely was/is the loser, except he got the item with MU.

Can´t see that Pre Loot 2.0 there was anything different than past Loot 2.0, when it comes to shared or teamhunts.

So how could it be, that it is unfair now, but wasn´t unfair befor ?

Explain please, I don´t get it!

BTW, noone complained about it pre loot 2.0 - why now ?

Would it be fair if loot is distributed by PED spent?

With the above example maybe:
In this case Player A who spent 2 PED would get 1.715 PED loot, while Player B who spent 1.5 PED would get 1.285 PED. Both lost, the eco player just a little less.
Lets look deeper into it, what if this mob globals: 60 PED small global.
Player A less eco would get 34.285 PED, Player B better eco would get 25.715 PED.
Fair ? 8 PED less loot for beeing better eco ?

I surely can find worse examples, that loot calculated by PED spent is really bad:

Lets do a 3 hunters sample:

Player A very bad eco 2 DPP with a 60 DPS
Player B fair eco 3 DPP with a 60 DPS
Player C uber eco 4 DPP with a 60 DPS

Lets do a mob with 9k HP
Everybody does 3k DMG
Player A pays 15 PED
Player B pays 10 PED
Player C pays 7.5 PED
Total PED spent is 32.5 PED. The mob globals for 100 PED
Player A gets 46.15 PED - 31.15 PED profit
Player B gets 30.77 PED - 20.77 PED profit
Player C gets 23.08 PED - 15.58 PED profit
So the worst gun, made the biggest profit? This is fair ???
Do you really want a shared loot system where loot is distributed by PED spent ???

If you guys get what you want, its simple: grab worst eco gun and win most with it.
Really cool and very fair ?
You don´t even need to do real DMG, just waste more PED than others and you will be fine.

 

[Darkaruki]

too long

Loot wasn't being directly calculated by Cost after Efficiency prior to Loot 2.0, but in Loot 2.0 it is, however, Shared Loot and Team Hunting has loot being split by Damage despite this change and this results in an imbalance which can be taken advantage of at the cost of others.

Yes, in Loot 2.0 loot is calculated and distributed to players based on their cost input after efficiency except in Shared Loot and Team Hunting due to the outdated ruleset. Your example is not taking into account the varying levels of efficiency and how that affects things, but yes, cost is the primary factor in determining loot now, unlike before, so it also needs to be the primary factor for determining loot split for things to be fair to the current system in that context. If you aren't a fan of Loot 2.0 you can go make another thread saying how you aren't a fan of Loot 2.0 if you want, but this is how MindArk have chosen to rebalance their game and it has been a year at this point so it might be time to get over it.

 

[atomicstorm]

Not only MA doesn't go around and "fix" this, but every time this thread is becoming very active, MA make a shared event in a super popular place like Twin Peaks, like they just did now. Can you imagine?

Correlation does not mean causation.

 

[Coelacanth]

Correlation does not mean causation.

It doesn't mean Evey's wrong, either.

 

[jetsina]

No difference at the result to actual loot calculations on shared mobs! Or did I miss anything here ????
..
It was exactly the same as we have now.
..
So how could it be, that it is unfair now, but wasn´t unfair befor ?

Explain please, I don´t get it!

BTW, noone complained about it pre loot 2.0 - why now ?

The bit you don't understand, as far as I can tell is this:
Previously, if you both did the same damage you both got the same loot based on the mob hp (assuming loot can be evenly split). If one was more efficient (lower cost), he/she did better on cost:returns. No big deal.

NOWadays, the loot paid out depends on the costs A+B, so a crazy example of A10peds and B90peds for both to do half damage results in loot of around 100 peds = about 50 peds to each player.
Thus, the efficient player is actually having returns BOOSTED by the extra costs from the inefficient one.

THIS is the change over what was the case before and moves in the OPPOSITE direction to the changes made in solo hunting.

Although I prefer skills and equipment to make a difference, I don't want the best players to be creaming off more from lesser players than even MA's 5% or 10%!

 

[GoNi]

Your example is not taking into account the varying levels of efficiency and how that affects things, but yes, cost is the primary factor in determining loot now, unlike before, so it also needs to be the primary factor for determining loot split for things to be fair to the current system in that context. If you aren't a fan of Loot 2.0 you can go make another thread saying how you aren't a fan of Loot 2.0 if you want, but this is how MindArk have chosen to rebalance their game and it has been a year at this point so it might be time to get over it.

Its not about LOOT 2.0 its about shared loot distribution!
You obviously dont get it, if loot on shard mobs or teams is distributed by PED spent, then lucky whoever owns Unique Legend Waraxe or the Ram Purifier, as there is nothing that can waste PED faster than this weapons.
This at shared loot would take the main part of loot away although it is far away from beeing top damage or beeing eco!
Just PED spent!
Are you really sure that would rock.
Directly after this 2 unique weapons there would be Asg Swine Deluxe in the race, with a lousy 58 DMG/sec, far away from any eco or dmg that is actually used by top players.
No thanks!
That would be fair to you, that loot distributed by PED spent wents directly to worst grab weapons that EU ever has seen? Ok at least the purifier deals some real DMG, so that is not the worst case scenario but Swine ????

I still don´t get it, why you want this!

 

[Darkaruki]

Its not about LOOT 2.0 its about shared loot distribution!
You obviously dont get it, if loot on shard mobs or teams is distributed by PED spent, then lucky whoever owns Unique Legend Waraxe or the Ram Purifier, as there is nothing that can waste PED faster than this weapons.
This at shared loot would take the main part of loot away although it is far away from beeing top damage or beeing eco!
Just PED spent!
Are you really sure that would rock.
Directly after this 2 unique weapons there would be Asg Swine Deluxe in the race, with a lousy 58 DMG/sec, far away from any eco or dmg that is actually used by top players.
No thanks!
That would be fair to you, that loot distributed by PED spent wents directly to worst grab weapons that EU ever has seen? Ok at least the purifier deals some real DMG, so that is not the worst case scenario but Swine ????

I still don´t get it, why you want this!

Repeat after me: Cost. After. Efficiency.

If you want to hunt with a 0% Efficiency weapon and get 90-92% average longterm returns assuming you are level 100 and fully maxed, and if you aren't, also bleeding tons of PED in Skill Misses, go ahead, but that sounds horrible to me both in and out of shared loot. Same with the Swine. I feel like I've repeated to you how Loot 2.0 works and how Loot 2.0 should work in shared loot as well several times now so I'm going to just go ahead one more time and link the 2.0 announcement post:

Cost.
After.
Efficiency.

https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forums/showthread.php?298019-Developer-Notes-11-Loot-2-0

Cost.
After.
Efficiency.

 

[wizz]

Repeat after me: Cost. After. Efficiency.

If you want to hunt with a 0% Efficiency weapon and get 90-92% average longterm returns assuming you are level 100 and fully maxed, and if you aren't, also bleeding tons of PED in Skill Misses, go ahead, but that sounds horrible to me both in and out of shared loot. Same with the Swine. I feel like I've repeated to you how Loot 2.0 works and how Loot 2.0 should work in shared loot as well several times now so I'm going to just go ahead one more time and link the 2.0 announcement post:

Cost.
After.
Efficiency.

https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forums/showthread.php?298019-Developer-Notes-11-Loot-2-0

Cost.
After.
Efficiency.

please point me the part in your link where MA refers to loot distribution on shared mobs.
Well, I failed to read anything about how loot distribution is affected by loot 2.0.
Right, there isn't any.

You do know that loot distribution is something totally different than the amount of loot a certain mob gives, right?

MA needed to change the total loot that mobs gave since the system was bleeding dry due to to high DPP weapons.
They fixed that. THAT was what loot 2.0 was about.

Loot distribution is something TOTALLY different!

Now all of a sudden you got into your mind that loot distribution should also adhere to loot 2.0 rules.
You find this because you find it unfair how it is calculated now.

There is no wrong and right in this thread. Just very subjective personal feelings about how people feel it should be distributed.

It is an endless discussion were we can only express what we feel.

So get of your high horse and listen to others for once. We're all right since there is no truth! As we're all wrong since there is no truth.

 

[Darkaruki]

please point me the part in your link where MA refers to loot distribution on shared mobs.
Well, I failed to read anything about how loot distribution is affected by loot 2.0.
Right, there isn't any.

You do know that loot distribution is something totally different than the amount of loot a certain mob gives, right?

MA needed to change the total loot that mobs gave since the system was bleeding dry due to to high DPP weapons.
They fixed that. THAT was what loot 2.0 was about.

Loot distribution is something TOTALLY different!

Now all of a sudden you got into your mind that loot distribution should also adhere to loot 2.0 rules.
You find this because you find it unfair how it is calculated now.

There is no wrong and right in this thread. Just very subjective personal feelings about how people feel it should be distributed.

It is an endless discussion were we can only express what we feel.

So get of your high horse and listen to others for once. We're all right since there is no truth! As we're all wrong since there is no truth.

Except for the part where he's saying that I'm saying loot should be split entirely by cost and nothing else and anyone can equip anything and it doesn't matter, that's not the case, I'm saying the change to loot 2.0 without the loot splitting rules being updated alongside it has resulted in dysfunctional loot splitting in Shared Loot and Team Hunting scenarios and that the loot splitting rules should be revamped to give results which give players the same level of fairness as solo hunting, like it was in loot 1.0.

So basically, in loot 2.0 loot is calculated and distributed to players by Cost after taking into account Efficiency, it is calculated the same way in Shared Loot and Team Hunting, but is then distributed incorrectly by damage dealt. This discrepancy is the result of an oversight and is an issue MindArk have shown they are aware of and are aware is needing to be addressed but it has yet to be addressed as they currently are behind schedule in doing so.

 

[wizz]

Except for the part where he's saying that I'm saying loot should be split entirely by cost and nothing else and anyone can equip anything and it doesn't matter, that's not the case, I'm saying the change to loot 2.0 without the loot splitting rules being updated alongside it has resulted in dysfunctional loot splitting in Shared Loot and Team Hunting scenarios and that the loot splitting rules should be revamped to give results which give players the same level of fairness as solo hunting, like it was in loot 1.0.

So basically, in loot 2.0 loot is calculated and distributed to players by Cost after taking into account Efficiency, it is calculated the same way in Shared Loot and Team Hunting, but is then distributed incorrectly by damage dealt. This discrepancy is the result of an oversight and is an issue MindArk have shown they are aware of and are aware is needing to be addressed but it has yet to be addressed as they currently are behind schedule in doing so.

Maybe it would change the discussion if you would just for once say:

"I think, or I find, or I feel that loot is distributed incorrectly by damage dealt."

You state it as it being a fact that it's wrong.

The FACT is, that loot is distributed by dmg dealt.
Simple as that.

FACT is that MA never stated anything about shared loot distribution in their loot update post.

And the FACT is that you dont like it that way and you would prefer it to be changed.

And that's absolutely fine by me as we're all entitled our opinions.
But I feel that you wont leave room for others opinions here than yours.

 

[Oleg]

Previously, if you both did the same damage you both got the same loot based on the mob hp (assuming loot can be evenly split). If one was more efficient (lower cost), he/she did better on cost:returns. No big deal.

NOWadays, the loot paid out depends on the costs A+B, so a crazy example of A10peds and B90peds for both to do half damage results in loot of around 100 peds = about 50 peds to each player.
Thus, the efficient player is actually having returns BOOSTED by the extra costs from the inefficient one.

The only thing different in those examples is your reaction to it. Everything else is exactly the same.

 

[jetsina]

The only thing different in those examples is your reaction to it. Everything else is exactly the same.

erm, nope.
One of the reasons for taking extreme examples is so that people can more easily see underlying mechanics, which sometimes throws things off whack too, depending on where curves cross over etc. My example does show that things are different, but places the wrong emphasis on inefficiency, as opposed to super high efficiency.

In my example of 90:10 on what used to have been nominally a 20 ped mob, say, and both players doing half damage, on old loot the two players would have received 10 peds each back.
Now, without MA's rake it would be 50 peds back each. See what is happening there?

In more realistic conditions it is not that severe of course, but the effect IS there in shared 2.0 that was NOT there in shared 1.x! Things have NOT stayed the same. How well do things have to be explained here? I admit that a more realistic example would be to have the super-efficient player incur much lower costs than normal to reduce the loot returns by MA, but still in favour of the better player. In my example it looks like MA is paying out more than before to the useless player, but that is part of an attempt to show that the lines HAVE changed. The actual scenario is more like MA paying out less than 20 peds in a (more) skewed way now... (I agree with the original skewing as part of skills benefits).

Still, the Monty Hall problem even had mathematicians arguing with each other, so not getting it is not something to be ashamed about.... However, are you really trying to understand how things might not be the same, or do you just firmly believe they are?

 

[JD RACING]

what i can see is that whit loot 2.0 you get back a certain % of the cost to kill

but in team loot its like the old day were poeple that use to abuse get more than there tt can still get it in share loot mobs except where there a item go to a lower dps they may loose

other wise its going great for them they didnt fix the share loot yet

so if you want to hunt like the old days and get a garentied over tt in loot go for share loot it not fix yet

 

[Darth Revan]

I think they should just leave shared the way it is, pre 2.0 and have a disclaimer or even a pill that you have to take before doing shared (like PVP4). Then for team hunting, they should have an option to have it based on cost, so instead of people choosing "by damage done", select "by cost" or something like that to give team hunting their own option of how they want it distributed. Team hunting would then still be possible.

That might please both loot 1.0 players and loot 2.0 players in this game and invested gear would still be relevent.
If you think you have the DPP to do well in shared then go for it, if you don't thats entirely on you and no one is forcing you to do shared.

 

[Xen]

Some people are still thinking that in 1.0 cost to kill had little affect on tt return, but in fact it did. With a terrible eco weapon you would still get 85 or 90%+ tt return. Same is true for huge overkill. I tested both myself. You would do better with good eco, of course. But it really has not changed a lot in 2.0, just they kind of bought in the boundaries.

 

[jetsina]

Some people are still thinking that in 1.0 cost to kill had little affect on tt return, but in fact it did. With a terrible eco weapon you would still get 85 or 90%+ tt return. Same is true for huge overkill. I tested both myself. You would do better with good eco, of course. But it really has not changed a lot in 2.0, just they kind of bought in the boundaries.

Yes, a lot of people would say they were seeing 'balancing multis' if they used poor or even terrible eco. However, personal stayed personal back then - and I guess MA was able to monitor that you had accumulated 'wasted peds', even though they denied the existence of the exactly worded "personal loot pool".

The problem now, as I understand it, is that MA is paying out relative to the cost to kill on each kill now, so players will not be stacking up their own imbalances - and if a teammate is super eco this will not even put the kill into overcost territory anyway.

A better example than mine earlier is if two players do equal damage on a what we used to call a 1 ped mob (300 hp).
A has costs of 50 pecs (about normal), but B has costs of only 10 pecs (unrealistic super eco). Instead of paying out an average of 1 ped 50:50 in 1.x, MA now only pays out 60 pecs evenly, 30 pecs to each.

[The loot composition may be quite a lot better of course, and A may benefit from this - but this field has not been explored much publicly, so it is really hard to say how much this is a gain element for the uneco team player. ]

In short - your point about 1.x is a good one Xen, but things have also changed in regard to this in 2.0!