No Drop item rot on Raids :)

[volvov2]

:hug: I hadnt gotten to that thread yet.

 

[jedz]

I didn't know raid stalkers were such a huge problem. I don't think we've hardly ever had that problem in Ruin. I'm sure the location of the spots we currently farm deters it. But for the most part we raid some of the same zones other guilds in our spectrum do.

I'm curious how many guilds have players just following along picking up rotting loot?
Stalkers sounds like they hide out, wait for the raid to leave the area and loot the leftovers. I can see how this would be a problem.

I understand you see the scenario where alts and people showing up late that wern't in the zone initially is just a tough luck situation now. Was the latter really such a problem to warrant this new hinderance?



I like the idea of having more people in raid. In fact having more people allowable in raid alone is enough reason for me to shutup now.

 

[Haphesto]

http://www.shardsofdalaya.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9265

That is appreciated and fixes the raid LD problem somewhat, but what about people who dual box and are asked to log a character so someone elses main can join the raid? Or people asked to bot a needed class for the raid? Should their real characters be deprived of loot in addition to their first sacrifice?

 

[Thinkmeats]

http://www.shardsofdalaya.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9265

That is appreciated and fixes the raid LD problem somewhat, but what about people who dual box and are asked to log a character so someone elses main can join the raid? Or people asked to bot a needed class for the raid? Should their real characters be deprived of loot in addition to their first sacrifice?

I'd think that awareness of what the mob drops combined with reasonable (that is, not ridiculously high) attendance rates and common sense in who to ask to log off would pretty much take care of this problem. Other complaints might be valid, I just don't think this particular one will be.

 

[phlit]

http://www.shardsofdalaya.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9265

That is appreciated and fixes the raid LD problem somewhat, but what about people who dual box and are asked to log a character so someone elses main can join the raid? Or people asked to bot a needed class for the raid? Should their real characters be deprived of loot in addition to their first sacrifice?

I'd think that awareness of what the mob drops combined with reasonable (that is, not ridiculously high) attendance rates and common sense in who to ask to log off would pretty much take care of this problem. Other complaints might be valid, I just don't think this particular one will be.

I have to disagree with you Thinkmeats 100%. In fact, I can tell you you're wrong. While it may not be a huge issue for certain individuals, in the end the raid suffers if X person can't drop their own toon and replace it with a friend's toon /guildbot that is *needed* for any particular encounter. It entirely, totally, 100%, end-of-the-world style screws them over. Okay, maybe not that last one. I can't speak for other guilds, but in PR this happens, and not entirely infrequently. A needed class is a needed class. A necessary class is even worse...

If this 'fix' is in answer to people 'following raids' and looting rots, I'd like to add to a ruin poster's comment and say that we (Phoenix Rising) do *not* have this happen, either. I've seen *once* people follow us in DHK... And we have a policy of destroying any uncalled for loot so....

If this is the sole/primary reason for such a change, surely there are other ways to sort this problem (which seems to not even be a big problem...). Selling loot 'rights' is something I've never seen done (go go /ooc off), and isn't something ever done by PR.

The 'changes' to the raidsystem linked to by Wiz seem useful, but ultimately, I just want to see the raid leader be able to remove people. anyone. LD/zoned/dead whatever. Why's this so hard? It seems like it'd solve a lot of raid bug related problems...

Anyway, back on topic... This change currently sucks imo, hardcore. For most of the reasons mentioned in this thread already... Basically the change negativly effects a lot of people, over time, where as it 'positivly' effects the server seemingly very little (if we're to believe loot rights aren't sold and people really don't 'follow' guilds around looting corpses...).

Wiz says the problem isn't loot being sold... it's 'random' people following raids and looting rots. So how about raidmobs need to be 'flagged' by the first looter (usually raidleader/guild officer) for each person who's allowed to loot it? ie... target corpse, /cm allowloot <xperson>. Maybe this is a lame idea.... and it still allows 'selling' of loot... but it's like twice as good an idea as the current situation.


Moving on slightly from 'raids' - how about cmal3+ loots(and other similar situations)? Everyone knows that 75%+ of the time you need a 'certain' makeup of group here... it's a 'more challenging' zone than most. This often means dropping a person of your own to single box or dropping both your own (if you normally DC..) to play a 'needed' class... With these new changes, you now have to form a raid outside cmal, log the toons, etc etc etc (spend lots of time and hassle basically, only to probably get raidbugged zoning in or at a later stage...). Is it really intended that we can't log in our 'other' character (often/sometimes our 'primary') without all this hassle to loot whatever should drop? This situation can be applied to other zones, but cata/cmal where there's the 1group limit are particularly annoying, cmal3.2 even moreso as X classes are so necessary....

Yes, loot is going to rot. Tough luck. People aren't supposed to get raid loot they can't possibly earn - if I was to accept the argument that rot is always a bad thing then I would have to abolish the NO DROP tag.

I can see that it sucks to be late to the raid and not get loot, but the system is perfectly fair. If you are there to kill a mob, you may also loot it. If you are not, you may not.

I'm sorry to say this, but Wiz, man.... you're idea of fair imo has a lot to be desired today. Let's remember for a second *THIS IS A GAME FOR FUN*. Ahem. Logging on a 'bot' to replace your main because the raid needs it is very nice of people... It sometimes allows raids to happen when otherwise they couldn't. This is, after all, why we're allowed to DC, right? (groups/raids whatever). Where the problem here lies is that Wiz says 'if you are there to kill a mob' and he means X toon. For me, you should mean X person; with the little proviso that X person's toon who wasn't there who wants to loot an item is of the necessary level so that if they had been there they *could* have helped... they just might not have made they crucial difference between win/lose that botting X class made...

I hope I'm making myself clear enough here, because I feel strongly about this... It's *not* fair.

One final thing I might add is that having tmap loots and 'real' raid loots on the same 'system' is perhaps not entirely appropriate.

Anyway, enough rambling from me tonight... I'm sure I'll be back to clarify some points later... Thanks to Zurash for starting the thread I was too lazy to have done yet

 

[phlit]

Selling items was never the issue, leaving the items for raid stalkers to pick over was. No raid guild is going to bother enough to accomondate spots in their raid for people that follow raids around to loot rots.

I didn't think of the workaround at first, but I don't think it's such a bad thing - it enables people to gear characters that they have to keep logged out for guild reasons, but it prevents the mudflation caused by looting raid/tmap/named rots.

Okay so I'm back already! Yes this workaround works. Except in situations where the raid is full or whatever - but in these cases it's probably true that if the raid is full you have all the 'needed' classes or whatever for an encounter. What it does mean is a huge hassle, though. A huge hassle. It's such a timesink already to get everyone raid invited and not bugged when you then zone - especially with the new 'mass port changes' - form a raid, mass port, 50%+ of the time(maybe every time?), raid screwed over and needs to reform. - this means then getting back to port/departure spot, getting in the 'camped but in raid so can loot' people again, etc etc. Do we all ('we all' = active raiders) really have to go through all of this just because of the 'bad apples' following around raids and looting rots?

Again, Wiz, you say selling loot is not the issue here. So why not impliment some system where the loot has to be 'assigned' to a person and only that person can loot it? This fixes the problem, and doesn't cause such huge hassle for everyone else...

 

[Waldoff]

If the idea is to stop people from going behind raids and looting, why not allow people to be retroactivally invited into the raid after the mob is dead? This stops people from following around without the consent of said guild, but allows for the guild to equip their own.

 

[Syalara]

"Raid Stalkers" seem nearly/completely nonexistant to me. Ruin dosent see this issue, PR dosent see this issue, does Forsaken? or Eschoweveryaspellit? The remainder of guilds most likely wont be letting much/if anything rot except maybe some really craptastic pieces. The only issue with people snaggin loot they did not earn by themselves or with their guild that I see is Tmaps and the occasional WW dragon kill when its one grouped for shits and grins.


Rather then causing massive headaches to raiding guilds on a daily basis, I am a fan of making /ooc'ing for loot rights or rot loot jailable. This would punish the offenders and not raid guilds and raiders who show up 5 minutes late, or crash to desktop on zone, or lose internet connection, or yay heres a new raidbug, or whatever. Watching loot rot that is an upgrade to a guild member sounds like 0 fun.

Sure, making /oocing for rots jailable would be an inconvienance to staff but after a short while and a /motd I would assume the number of offenders would be next to nil. Another option would be to reduce the time on chests. Nobody should need 20 or 30 mins w/e it is to loot a chest they allready popped...possible exceptions to the maps which require a raid force/several groups.


Currently, this change is like using a bazooka to kill a gnat.


Adalus wrote:
I'd think that awareness of what the mob drops combined with reasonable (that is, not ridiculously high) attendance rates and common sense in who to ask to log off would pretty much take care of this problem. Other complaints might be valid, I just don't think this particular one will be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


No guild should be put into the position of having to ask certain classes to camp just to accomodate the type of loot that may drop from an encounter. Nor should they be penalized for having a healthy raid force login nightly. What fun is that? Do you really want to see /rs Boss Mob X drops caster loot, please logout all non essential melee and load your casters who need this upgrade.........



Safiya

Lotta edits, deal with it.

 

[purefyre]

True that Safiya. Unknown before hand very rare drop from [farmed] raid targets rot would be an understated shame! :sadf:

 

[shebearcub]

Well spoken Safiya

 

[Thinkmeats]

Er, all I meant was that as long as you were only switching a couple of characters around now and again, you'd be able to avoid a problem by not camping people who wanted a drop from that raid mob. Unless you're having people log their mains off way more often than is sane, I'm not sure why that's a problem. To take a ruin example: when's the last time we had more than two people log their mains off? The nearest I can recall was that big mirrors attempt a while back, but before that?

And before anyone coughs another essay at me, I'm gonna go ahead and quote myself, and bold it this time:

Other complaints might be valid, I just don't think this particular one will be.

I don't think that raid leaders having people log their mains off will be a big problem if these changes go ahead as planned, for the reasons I've already stated, unless large (4+) numbers of mains are getting logged off more often than they really ought to be.

 

[GuiardoTuneweaver]

To solve the concerns here, could:
1. the raid size be expanded but the engage limit be maintined? So only 36 people can be fighting etc, but more people can be in the raid logged out or out of zone?
2. a /cmd be added to add people to the raid who are not logged in? This would save the hastle of logging on chars just go join the raid, then logging them off and logging back in the toon necessary for the raid. (They could still be required to be added before the mob is killed)

 

[Quinthius]

2. a /cmd be added to add people to the raid who are not logged in? This would save the hastle of logging on chars just go join the raid, then logging them off and logging back in the toon necessary for the raid. (They could still be required to be added before the mob is killed)

Similar to this, would it just be possible to raidinvite or even group invite people who are in other zones, so that if someone is en-route to a raid/group, they can go ahead and be added, and if something drops before they get there, they can still loot it when they arrive.

 

[shanara99]

Well, I've been reading this, and, while I agree that it's unfair just comming and looting an uberitem someone else obtained, I also agree that is unfair that, if I have to drop my "main" or prefered player in favor of a bot, I can't lot that item. I'll explain with an example:

Let's imagine I want to change my main, cause Zaira's fully AA'd (she's close, anyway), so I start playing, let's say... Airaz, or Muurian, or whoever. Considering that Zaira's decently geared, she'll be asked for 95 % of raids. This means that my new "main" will never be able to loot a single piece of equipment, cause I'll be playing a bot for guild needs. Is this fair? I think not. But, just complaining is whining. So, I have an idea to solve this.

ONCE you log, and ONLY once you log, you can designate looting rights on ONE and only ONE character of your choice. This character shares ALL your looting rights till you next log in (and not log off) your first character. So, let's imagine I start playing Airaz, I get her to 65, start raiding, but I'm asked to play Zaira instead. Not a problem. I designate Airaz as my looter, and, when a wizard item drops, if it would go for her, I just delog Zaira, and log with Airaz. Airaz would be able to loot it, cause it's my designated looter. Later, I relog Zaira (I re-designate Airaz as looter, in case) and we get a Pally ubermegaitem, but, since there're no pallys on, it will rot. Pity on me, cause I'd love to loot with shilvara, but, since I gave rights to Airaz, I can't loot, even with another character of mine.

Honetly, it seems a good idea for me, since it would prevent the problem of not being able to loot cause you were forced on another char, but still disallows to a "stalker" (never seen those, anyway) looting it, unless someone's stupid enough to grant looting rights to said stalker. Even so, I'm sure if could be coded in a way that you could only grant looting rights to OFFLINE character, this making even harder to jump around it.

 

[Wiz]

To solve the concerns here, could:
1. the raid size be expanded but the engage limit be maintined? So only 36 people can be fighting etc, but more people can be in the raid logged out or out of zone?
2. a /cmd be added to add people to the raid who are not logged in? This would save the hastle of logging on chars just go join the raid, then logging them off and logging back in the toon necessary for the raid. (They could still be required to be added before the mob is killed)

No and no. It should be a hassle to give loot rights to a character that should never have had them in the first place.

 

[phlit]

No and no. It should be a hassle to give loot rights to a character that should never have had them in the first place.

This is completely ignoring the 'camped mains by necessity' problem.
Frankly, the attitude to this is kinda sick - there's just no room for compromise? Someone already made the little 'crushing a flower with a steamroller' metaphore, but jeez, it's worth repeating apparently.

How many things ingame are going to cause 95% of us hassle at some point or another, just to avoid the rare 'abuse' by the few... This 'no drop loot' thing is by no means the first.

 

[Wiz]

No and no. It should be a hassle to give loot rights to a character that should never have had them in the first place.

This is completely ignoring the 'camped mains by necessity' problem.
Frankly, the attitude to this is kinda sick - there's just no room for compromise? Someone already made the little 'crushing a flower with a steamroller' metaphore, but jeez, it's worth repeating apparently.

How many things ingame are going to cause 95% of us hassle at some point or another, just to avoid the rare 'abuse' by the few... This 'no drop loot' thing is by no means the first.

Seeing as how apparently you have access to secret statistics of how much high end NO DROP gear was making it down to the lower levels which contradict my own data, perhaps you could present those statistics to me so I can be shown clearly that it didn't happen nearly at all and was a non-issue?

 

[tinkaa]

I don't know why I got the impression this is to prevent twinking alts more than letting rotting loot for raid-stalkers.
You can avoid raid stalkers by deleting rotting items.
And to exclude twinking alts, the level difference between looter and the mob could be lowered to 6 levels or so.

As far as I've seen, people keep their alts at level 57 and gear/AA them to kill adepts. Once past that, they usually get to 65 anyway.

Even though I have never been asked to sit out or log another toon on (go go only mage on raids+padder :roll: ) or someone else then logged my druid on if I chose to play someone else, some people could really be deprived because of the change.

All in all it's up to guilds and their management. If everyone would deal with rotting loot the way it "should be", we wouldn't even need the change anyway

Nothing personal to anyone, as said, I don't really care what some people do until it influences "innocent" players. The ones that did it already got benefit from it - will their items be deleted now?
<3 u all!

 

[phlit]

I'm going by what people say. You say this regards *only* people 'following' raids to loot items? Well, this doesn't happen on PR raids. Apparently not on Ruin raids. This leaves, Forsaken as the only other 'high' end guild?

You do have access to such stats, so why not give us a little more detail about exactly what's going on and why such measures are needed, so we can understand better and propose more suitable solutions than those already mentioned...

If the problem is simply gear going down to lower levels, then a req'd level *to loot* might be appropriate? Reduce the 20levels below to 0? Something like this? But then, this seems very obvious, so I presume there's more to it than that... But as you say, you're the one with all the statistical data and a complete picture of what's happening... So share a little and we can try to help, or at least understand? Atm, I think we can agree that these measures seem more than a little draconian, from the picture 'we've' painted for ourselves...[/quote]

 

[GuiardoTuneweaver]

No and no. It should be a hassle to give loot rights to a character that should never have had them in the first place.

If you think they should never have had them in the first place, then I think you should make it impossible (i.e. don't allow logged-out/out-of-zone toons to loot a mob). Allowing it, but making it a hassle just to be a hassle in a game designed for fun doesn't seem to make much sense to me.

Seeing as how apparently you have access to secret statistics of how much high end NO DROP gear was making it down to the lower levels...

Is it really a level-based problem or a tier-based problem? Could part of the solution be tightening the levels allowed to loot a mob/chest as others have suggested (to maybe >= mob level for named, 65 for 66+ mobs, and the appropriate level restrictsions for treasure chests)?