Spiral Knights - Drop Distribution

Drop Distribution

66 replies [Last post]

Tue, 04/05/2011 - 18:52

halycon

Legacy Username

As far as I can tell, the game divvies up drops by their individual Star values, since everyone gets more or less the same number of shards, 2* loot and 3* loot at the end of every run. The problem is not all loot that's 2* have the same worth. You're probably familiar with that feeling of rage when you see someone get all the Iron Gears, Bushy Tails while you get stuff like Gel Cores. Statistically speaking, it happens to everyone, so it all balances out in the end. But that doesn't stop me from wanting to stab them for taking my Bushy tails, especially when I'm working on Wolver path and they're doing Cobalt path.

So a suggestion. When handing out loot, keep track of both stars and item types. So if six monster bones drop throughout the course of a full party run, every player can expect to get at least one, and two people will get an extra one.

Tue, 04/05/2011 - 18:59

Shoebox

If I remember right, it goes

If I remember right, it goes by a Round Robin form of distribution, meaning every player gets one drop at a time.
First player to pick up an item, will not receive another loot drop until the last person to receive an item, gets it.
This means it is quite easy to break the system, by picking up terrible items that will go to other players and saving the good stuff for your turn.

I'd much prefer it if item drops were instanced, so that everybody has their own chance of acquiring nice items.
This also stops the chat from filling up 4x as fast when in a group, because only your own item drops will appear.

Tue, 04/05/2011 - 19:10

halycon

Legacy Username

That can't possibly be true

That can't possibly be true can it? Sometimes a single player will get like 3-4 drops in a row.

Instanced items is a good idea too, although I enjoy being able to farm mats by going solo.

Tue, 04/05/2011 - 19:16

SirNiko

Legacy Username

Yeah, Round Robin is no

Yeah, Round Robin is no longer default (and may not be available at all). It's common for the same player to get 3-5 items in a row including rare 2-star items.

Tue, 04/05/2011 - 19:24

Shoebox

Depending on how items are

Depending on how items are distributed, perhaps it would be a good idea to put a rarity index on items, so that they can be distributed more fairly?
Since the star rating is just an indicator of item quality and not item rarity, it does make it difficult for items to be distributed via this new system.
Unless it's just purely randomized.

Tue, 04/05/2011 - 19:29

halycon

Legacy Username

It isn't? I thought the stars

It isn't? I thought the stars also indicate item rarity. 1* drops more than 2* drops more than 3* etc etc.

Tue, 04/05/2011 - 20:18

Fallout

poor njthug got 2 mats in one

poor njthug got 2 mats in one entire run a red shard and a sharp fang.... where as i got a spiral demo suit drop, corrosive acid...etc other rares.

Tue, 04/05/2011 - 20:24

Njthug

Bring back Round Robin

Tantarian, Fallout, and I just did a run and about 3 or 5 of the depths I would get two drops to three MAX and either be red shards or light shards while they would get four to seven drops in a row of pretty materials I dream of owning one day. This was not the first time this happened to me...its been happening a lot in my runs I honestly hate random during the preview I would play on round robin since I just felt it was fair to all players ( I know many agree with me)

Tue, 04/05/2011 - 21:13

halycon

Legacy Username

Well it's pretty clear that

Well it's pretty clear that pure random item distribution doesn't cut it. Either put in some player protection or instance the items. I don't mind getting screwed over by the RNG so much when I don't see someone else profiting off it at the same time.

Tue, 04/05/2011 - 23:34

Franpa

Legacy Username

Yep I miss out on stuff I

Yep I miss out on stuff I need regularly and depend largely on trade/charity to get what I need because the drops system is broken.

Edit: Another thread discussing this http://forums.spiralknights.com/en/forum/1?page=1

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 00:24

#10

StriderSVU

Legacy Username

I detest the "random" drop

I detest the "random" drop system. I was playing earlier with 3 other people and at one point, my entire chat window was filled with drops going to a single person. I'm lucky I'm playing with friends most of the time, because the abysmal drop system means that I'm left scrounging for items because I'm not getting any of the drops I need.

I don't care if Round Robin had flaws. It was less flawed than this. At least I was guaranteed to get -something- every 4 items. The current system is unfair, it's frustrating, and it's not doing much to help the enjoyment of the game.

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 01:23

#11

Njthug

@Strider +!

I agree with you yes people can cheat with Round Robin...its pretty easy to predict, but its better than getting 5 materials instead of 1 a run...honestly random is not fair at all I do runs and I just get annoyed that this kid just got five great drops in a row and then someone else gets the next five and I am left with 1 drop...honestly, its not fair at all.

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 01:48

#12

Otrapas

All of you who are

All of you who are complaining about unlucky streaks are forgetting about the times you were extremely lucky. This system works and encourages fast and fluid play, instead of worrying about loot and/or trying to game the system via round robin. If you want a more "fair" distribution, only play with friends and guildies and decide what to do with the loot ahead of time. I've ran a few groups where we call dibs on certain items. Additionally, you could decide what loot goes where at the end of the run. The "Acquired Loot" window that pops up is pretty convenient for this sort of thing.

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 02:16

#13

halycon

Legacy Username

Of course there's

Of course there's psychological bias to focus on the negative streaks. We're people, this is what people do. It doesn't really matter if the system is fair. If it doesn't feel fair then it might as well not be fair at all.

And playing only with the same group kind of goes against the way the game is set up. The fact that you're not required to build a party beforehand, and that you can join a group mid game should make it clear that they want you to be able to get a run going any time. Mainly because it encourages you to buy energy from them or from someone who's buying it from them.

I don't see how calling dibs can make it seem any more fair. Sure you'll get what you want, but if there's a disproportionate number of, say, monster bones to swordstones, then someone winds up feeling cheated. Besides, what part of manually divvying up loot after every run is considered "fast and fluid play"?

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 04:48

#14

Trias

Why?

Why? Doesn't this say more about you than it does about the system?

The current system simply means, that you get 1/(#players) the normal chance of any item drop. The chance of you getting that fantastic item is completely independent of any of your partners getting it.

In other words, if you play a wolver level, with a party of the chance of you getting a bushy tails is exactly 1/4th of the chance you would get one if you we're playing alone. That fact, that one of your partners picks one up, does absolutely nothing for the chance of one dropping for you in the next kill.

Why do people get upset at others peoples fortune, if it doesn't affect them at all? Is statistics really that hard?

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 11:29

#15

Franpa

Legacy Username

KillaGorillaAll of you who

KillaGorilla
All of you who are complaining about unlucky streaks are forgetting about the times you were extremely lucky.

We want a system that limits the streak of items any one player can receive. Having players be able to receive 3 or more items in a row is just stupid. After a player receives a 2nd item in a row the engine should force a random choice between the remaining players for the 3rd item picked up.

I know this doesn't fully resolve the problem but it does reduce it.

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 11:34

#16

Njthug

@Killagorilla

Yes, sometimes the players who have bad streaks do end up with good streaks, but have you used the Round Robin method of loot or even saw when it was up to the party leader to decide how the loot was distributed?

Most runs I did most players picked round-robin only because it was so much easier for materials to be sorted out amongst players some may have attempted to cheat, but if your doing runs amongst friends who really cheats?? Just having the option to choose would me more fair than making all runs random.

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 11:40

#17

machallboyd

Legacy Username

Over time, your lucky streaks

Over time, your lucky streaks should balance out your unlucky streaks, but man do those unlucky streaks burn.

I'm in favor of a round-robin system, with each star level of gear on a different rotation. At the end of a run, everyone has about the same pile of quality loot.

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 12:19

#18

Splinter

"I'm in favor of a

"I'm in favor of a round-robin system, with each star level of gear on a different rotation. At the end of a run, everyone has about the same pile of quality loot."

Isn't that what it already is? I don't pay too much attention to the loot dropping, just the results, but does it not trade off between people depending on star level of the material dropped?

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 16:31

#19

Shaezerus

Legacy Username

We need round-robin back.

I've gone through floors wherein I have received literally nothing from mob drops under this system. Thanks, game!

Divvying up loot evenly by quality both quickly and efficiently is virtually impossible for a fast-paced game such as this, but a sorting system where one person receives roughly a third of everyone else's haul is crap, plain and simple, whether or not that person is you.

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 23:14

#20

Trias

Why is everybody

Why is everybody comparing what they are getting to what other people are getting?

These two things are statistically independent. (It doesn't matter if the game generates loot at chance p and then randomly assigns it to one of a party of three or that the game just assign loot to each member of the party at a chance p/3.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 01:05

#21

Franpa

Legacy Username

My suggestion reduces the

My suggestion reduces the likely hood of never getting materials at all in a run. There is of course a chance you still won't get any if playing with a party greater then 2 but the chances of it are significantly less.

I am of course referring to the suggestion of forcing it to divvy loot between remaining players after 1 player has received 2 materials in a row.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 01:54

#22

halycon

Legacy Username

"Why is everybody comparing

"Why is everybody comparing what they are getting to what other people are getting?

I think we all understand basic statistics, so stop posting this stuff trying to sound intellectual. That attitude is tiring in every discussion where it crops up. Just because it's ultimately equal doesn't make the individual instances any more tolerable. People are emotional beings, gamers especially so. If you honestly can't understand why some people might get upset at RNGs you must be:

1) A robot
2) A math major
3) A very lucky person

In any case, whether Three Rings decides to change the drop system or not has no significance to you whatsoever, so posting in this thread is most likely a waste of your time.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 01:58

#23

Trias

Problem

I am of course referring to the suggestion of forcing it to divvy loot between remaining players after 1 player has received 2 materials in a row.

The problem is that any such system means that the players have an influence over what loot they get, depending on the order in which things are picked up. In your example, player 1 will avoid picking up that swordstone that just dropped and try to race to pickup that gel core that dropped simultaneously first. Any such behaviour is deeply undesirable.

The only way to prevent such behaviour is to make sure that the loot distribution does not in anyway depend on the order in which the loot is dropped. There are several possible options to do this.

1) The current system. Loot is randomly distributed over the party.
2) Instanced drops. Any material drops for all players. This eliminates the jealousy factor. But for balance this means that the drop rate needs to be divided by the number of players. This increases the chance of no materials dropping at all on a level. (In fact that chance will be equal to the chance of anyone player not recieving any loot on a level under the current system.) Moreover, this means that a group of players has to stay together when looting because everybody needs to pickup the loot. This slowsdown the game. (Currently, a party will split up on treasure vault levels, with one member only having to cover a part of the level.) It also increases the chance of players missing out on loot because they missed it.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 02:22

#24

Trias

This remark shows that you do not understand the statistics at all. Things are not only ultimately equal, they are equal all the time. People get upset because they misunderstand the statistics, and think that and other persons luck is their misfortune. This simply isn't true. The loot that you get under the current system is completely independent of what loot any of the other party members get.

One issue of the current system is that you can see what other party members are getting. This stimulates the illusion that one of the other players getting something good means that you are not getting it. I'll stress again, this is only an illusion. The current system is mathematically equal to materials only dropping in the instance of a player at 1/n the normal rate. The game could simply hide, what dropped in the other instances, which would eliminate the jealousy factor. This would be equal to the way things work for different parties running the same level, they get different drops, and natural variance ensures that at times one party will get vastly better drops than others. Nobody becomes jealous, simply because you do not know what the other party got.

However, the game basically shows the drop instances of all players simultaneously, facilitating that one player can make sure that the others players' drop instances are picked up. This is a very nice feature, and it would pain me to see it go, because some immature players are devastated by seeing a companions good fortune. I'd rather that these players grow up and stop being horrid human beings. (The tenth commandment definitely has some virtue, even if you are an atheist (like me)).

Of course, Three Rings could just eliminate the random element from the game all together. Monsters would just drop generic tokens all the time which you trade for you favorite mats at a vendor, because clear some of the juvenile players of the game are not quite up to the psychological stress of dealing with random drops. Sounds like a lot of fun.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 02:54

#25

halycon

Legacy Username

Internet nerd fight ahoy!

QUOTE: "Things are not only ultimately equal, they are equal all the time. "

That's what ultimate usually means in casual conversation. It refers to the total, the whole, the gestalt.

QUOTE: "This simply isn't true. The loot that you get under the current system is completely independent of what loot any of the other party members get."

You can't claim this unless you have access to the source code. It can simply be a callback function that says:

function OnLootPickUp(e:event)
int randID = rand(3);
Player reciever = gameInstance.getPlayerByID(randID);
recieve.giveItem(e.getParams["itemID"]);

In which case, the loot someone else is getting is exactly the loot you're not getting.

QUOTE: "This is a very nice feature, and it would pain me to see it go, because some immature players are devastated by seeing a companions good fortune. I'd rather that these players grow up and stop being horrid human beings."

I'm sorry, what? What part of being upset at dice rolls makes me a horrid human being? If anything it shows I'm a completely normal human since this kind of faulty misinterpretation of statistics stems from natural mental biases.

And what part, may I ask, of enjoying seeing other people get upset does not qualify you as a horrid human being? You know we have a word for those kind of people, they're called "trolls".

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 02:49

#26

Franpa

Legacy Username

That's uh something I didn't

That's uh something I didn't think of. Item drops are player specific but the game is showing every players item drops and letting any player pickup another players item. If you remove the ability to pickup another players item drop/hide them then it might not be so silly.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 03:09

#27

Trias

Let me explain

"You can't claim this unless you have access to the source code. It can simply be a callback function that says:

function OnLootPickUp(e:event)
int randID = rand(3);
Player reciever = gameInstance.getPlayerByID(randID);
recieve.giveItem(e.getParams["type");

That would be preceded by something like:

function OnMonsterDeath(e:event)
float p =randfloat(0,1);
If p > game.DropChance(e.getParams["Monster"])
game.generateDrop(e.getParams["Monster"])

Together the two are equivalent (mathematically to)

function OnMonsterDeath(e:event)
for i=1, i<=3, i++,
Player reciever = gameInstance.getPlayerByID(randID);
float p =randfloat(0,1);
If p > game.DropChance(e.getParams["Monster"])/3;
Item drop= game.generateDrop(e.getParams["Monster"])
recieve.giveItem(drop);

The only difference is that in the first case you could see what the other players are getting nothing else. What the other players got has no bear at all on what you are getting. If seeing somebody else have good fortune makes you upset, than that makes you a horrid human being IMHO.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 03:22

#28

Otrapas

Legacy Username

If you honestly can't

If you honestly can't understand why some people might get upset at RNGs you must be:
1) A robot
2) A math major
3) A very lucky person

The people who are for this system understand that people get upset. But do I want the system to change? Hell no, I don't. This is the most fair system; every other system either can be exploited or is just boring like the "Every drop is a token" mock suggestion.

It doesn't really matter if the system is fair. If it doesn't feel fair then it might as well not be fair at all.

Yeah, no. This is just ridiculously wrong.

I'd like to add that the complaints about drops would be reduced if we had shops or an auction house to sell/buy materials. The fact it's so difficult to sell what you have further upsets people who don't get the drops they'd prefer, since they can't raise crowns with what they have to buy the drop they need. If everyone was able to buy/sell their loot fast and efficiently, people would care much less when they had an unlucky streak. So I guess we need to wait till that happens. Until then, if the loot distribution is upsetting you to the point where you don't want to play, just don't read chat. Get a piece of paper and block that section of the screen, since there's no way to disable chat afaik. Hey, there's a suggestion: an option to disable chat.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 04:48

#29

halycon

Legacy Username

Wall of Text

QUOTE: "If seeing somebody else have good fortune makes you upset, than that makes you a horrid human being IMHO."

The word you're looking for here is "petty". "Horrible" is better used for murderers, rapists and tyrants. And you still don't seem to get that people don't think 100% logically all the time, or even 50% of the time. In fact, thinking logically is usually relegated to specialized tasks like amthematics, programming, some sciences, etc. It doesn't matter what the system IS. What matters is how people PERCIEVE it. Because, in the end,you're designing a game for people, not for robots.

QUOTE: "The people who are for this system understand that people get upset. But do I want the system to change? Hell no, I don't. This is the most fair system; every other system either can be exploited or is just boring like the "Every drop is a token" mock suggestion."

You mean every other proposed system, which currently consists of Leader Chooses and Round Robin and the Token thing. Obviously, the first two are easily exploitable, and yes pure tokens are boring. But that doesn't mean there aren't alternatives.

An example:
Something drops and everyone gets one copy of it.

See? Simple, and perfectly fair. Nobody feels left out. The excitement of seeing a 4* or 5* loot drop still exists. The trouble would come from balancing drop rates, but that's doable. Ideally, you'd see less items drop per game, but no difference when it comes to how much items you get per run and how much of each item is in the market.

QUOTE: "Yeah, no. This is just ridiculously wrong."

Well, let me explain my reasoning. A few examples come to mind here. Criticals in WoW, items in Smash Brothers, blue shells in Mario Kart, Mario Party in general, IV training in Pokemon, combat in Risk, Monopoly, mana screw in Magic. The full list probably includes the entirety of games and possibly life itself. In every case, randomization is a root source of people's anger. Randomness in games usually only fun when it works in your favor. When it works against you, it is the worst thing in existence. Randomness treats everyone equally, so given enough permutations, the deviant instances are statistically insignificant.

Here's the thing though: NO ONE CARES.

Your average person couldn't care less about statistics. It's useless to try to make an appeal using logic. Instead, game designers should try to minimize how often they feel cheated, which is what I'm proposing. Masking item drops is one way, I support the idea. But it doesn't really do anything to alleviate unlucky streaks. Because, after all, you know what items you're getting and you can compare that to previous runs. If there's a great disparity, the same problem arises. That's what I mean by "if it doesn't feel fair it might as well not be fair". The fact that people are complaining about this means it is an issue worth looking at. That's how games evolve. People complain, stuff gets changed so they complain less.

QUOTE: "I'd like to add that the complaints about drops would be reduced if we had shops or an auction house to sell/buy materials. The fact it's so difficult to sell what you have further upsets people who don't get the drops they'd prefer, since they can't raise crowns with what they have to buy the drop they need. If everyone was able to buy/sell their loot fast and efficiently, people would care much less when they had an unlucky streak."

Untrue, it might actually get worse. Currently, there is way to accurately gauge the relative value of items, because of the lack of a centralized marketplace. There are some general rules of thumbs like "1k for a 2* item", "10k+ for a 4* item", etc, but they are hardly reliable.

However, once an auction house exists people can easily do a price check in the middle of the game or through friends or guildies. Then people will be able to see just how much "money' other people are getting. Even if item drops are equal, the relative values might not be, I've had games where I got 90% of the Sharp Tooth drops, but none of the Monster Bones. Can you imagine how bad it would be if I looked on the AH later to see that Monster Bones are worth 1200 and Sharp Teeth are worth 100?

Anyway I didn't mention auction houses because there are enough topics on it and I didn't want to derail the thread.

QUOTE: "So I guess we need to wait till that happens. Until then, if the loot distribution is upsetting you to the point where you don't want to play, just don't read chat. Get a piece of paper and block that section of the screen, since there's no way to disable chat afaik. Hey, there's a suggestion: an option to disable chat."

That would ruin the point of the game. Spiral Knights is, at its core, a game for loot [enthusiasts]. The gameplay is simplistic, and very repetitive. Sure it's fun the first few days but the HOOK is in gathering mats and crafting items. It is the one thing the entire game is founded upon. Asking me to not look at who's getting what shows a clear misunderstanding of the design of SK. And I never said I'd get so mad I'd stop playing. I just keep grinding ahead, but I wouldn't mind if I had less reasons to rage.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 05:42

#30

Trias

Problems with that example.

QUOTE:An example:
Something drops and everyone gets one copy of it.

To balance this, the drop rate would have to be reduced by a factor equal to the number of players. This means that it will regularly happen that a party pickup no materials during a level. It also means that rare drops become even rarer.

More problematic is that this opens up a possible exploit. Player A solos a level, but avoids picking any of the materials, at the end he invites his friends and they pickup the materials -> magic quadrupling of the drops.

This could be countered by having instanced drops (like hearts) that only appear for a player if is in the level at the time of the drop. See my comments about this above. This greatly increases the chance of missing a drop simply because it happen outside of your screen and you didn't see it. Consequently, players will be constantly searching levels for drops they might have missed. This slows down the game, leading to frustrations with other players.

The current system has several great advantages:
*It is simpel.
*It is impossible to exploit.
*It is impossible to game.
*It is convenient/user friendly.
*It is fair.

I'd hate to lose any of the first four points in order to satisfy a couple of self-centered idiots that fail to understand the last point.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 08:12

#31

halycon

Legacy Username

QUOTE: To balance this, the

QUOTE: To balance this, the drop rate would have to be reduced by a factor equal to the number of players. This means that it will regularly happen that a party pickup no materials during a level. It also means that rare drops become even rarer.

Yes I realize that and even mentioned it. I know it's not perfect but it is an example of an alternate scheme.

QUOTE: More problematic is that this opens up a possible exploit. Player A solos a level, but avoids picking any of the materials, at the end he invites his friends and they pickup the materials -> magic quadrupling of the drops.

That is extremely simple to solve. Simply flag the items to whoever is playing in the dungeon when it drops. There's no need for instancing or anything. As for missing items. The game can simply give you any items you might've missed at the end of every stage. Guild Wars does this and it can be a godsend on large stages.

QUOTE: The current system has several great advantages:
*It is simple

Agreed.

QUOTE: *It is impossible to exploit.

Also agreed.

QUOTE: *It is impossible to game.

That's kind of the same thing as exploit but okay.

QUOTE: *It is convenient/user friendly.

That's almost the same thing as "It's simple". As for user friendly, clearly it has it's flaws. Otherwise I wouldn't be making this thread, and people wouldn't be responding to it. Simply put, if it's a source of frustration then it can be improved.

QUOTE: *It is fair.

Agreed, but only in the long term. In the short term it can be extremely unfair.

QUOTE: I'd hate to lose any of the first four points in order to satisfy a couple of self-centered idiots that fail to understand the last point.

Two of your points are so similar to the other two that it doesn't make sense to split them apart. We, the ones complaining, understand the last point. But it's easy to forget that in the middle of a game, and this leads to frustration. I really don't want to sound like a broken record here but you will have to realize not everyone thinks like you, and something you find easy to accept might not be so tolerable for others.

Thus far in this thread, the only one who has resorted to personal insults is you. Does that tell you something? It tells me something. There's certainly at least one self centered idiot here but I don't think it's who you think it is. You should probably get off your high horse.

(And oh by the way, the "couple of self-centered idiots" is the majority, if this thread is anything to go by. If more people think it's a problem than do people who think it's fine, who do you think Three Rings would rather listen to?)

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 08:47

#32

Franpa

Legacy Username

@Trias The only difference is

@Trias
The only difference is that in the first case you could see what the other players are getting nothing else. What the other players got has no bear at all on what you are getting.

Why then do I get more materials given to me when playing alone if when playing with others, what they get has no impact at all on what I get?

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 13:30

#33

StriderSVU

Legacy Username

As suggested earlier, a round

As suggested earlier, a round robin system where the distribution order is randomised every x drops (where x is number of players in a party) is just as "fair" and "impossible to game" as the current system, yet everybody still gets an "equal" slice of the pie at the end of a level.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 14:20

#34

iandawson0

Legacy Username

Items in SSB are fun even

Items in SSB are fun even when they work against you. They're fun BECAUSE of that reason.

The current loot system is nice. Sure, sometimes other people get the stuff you want, but then you can think to yourself "hey, later on I'LL be getting something someone ELSE wants!" if you're the type of person that gets upset that someone's doing better than you are.

Which you shouldn't, because it's just a game. If someone gets something and you don't, just pretend it didn't drop at all for either of you. You should be happy at other people's good fortune, not upset.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 22:50

#35

Franpa

Legacy Username

We're not happy or angry at

We're not happy or angry at another persons fortune, we are annoyed that there are such things as good and bad streaks while exploring the clockworks. The system StriderSVU is backing up with his vote of confidence will eliminate bad (and good) streaks entirely without the need to repeat dungeons multiple times while praying to god, sacrificing animals/virgins etc. in hope of getting a decent run through a clockwork tier.

No one can game the system, it eliminates 100% the winning streaks as well as the losing streaks in a 3 to 4 player party, it makes it so you can't have an exceptionally good or bad run through the game, every party member gets the same experience as each other.

I can understand such a system won't work with 2 players as then it is indeed possible to game it so leave that party size as random? 50/50 change you'll get the desired item rather then 25/25/25/25

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 02:23

#36

Trias

replies

@halycon:
QUOTE: "Agreed, but only in the long term. In the short term it can be extremely unfair."
No, it is also fair in the short term. The system is equivalent (at any moment, in terms of loot) to player's getting personally instanced loot at 1/#players the normal rate. That is no more unfair, than the random loot system already is. (But I don't think anybody is arguing that the random loot system should go, since that is sort of the point of the game.)

@franpa:
QUOTE: "Why then do I get more materials given to me when playing alone if when playing with others, what they get has no impact at all on what I get?"

Because the drop rate per player is lower for larger parties. Higher drop rate per player is the reward of going solo.

QUOTE: "As suggested earlier, a round robin system where the distribution order is randomised every x drops (where x is number of players in a party) is just as "fair" and "impossible to game" as the current system, yet everybody still gets an "equal" slice of the pie at the end of a level."

Although it cannot be consistently gamed, it can still be gamed. In this system a player knows that he has a higher chance of getting loot for each time that he has been passed over with the extreme that a player that has been passed over 6 times (in a 4 player party) knows with 100% certainty that he will get the next loot picked up. (Similarly other players know with 100% certainty that they won't get the next loot if another player has been passed over 6 times.) A player in such a situation will try to pick up that sword stone instead of that beast scale.

By constantly monitoring the pick-ups, and adjusting what they pickup in what order accordingly, players can thereby influence their share of the loot, and thereby screwing other players out of their loot. Thereby this system is not only gameable, but also unfair.

An alternative system that is fair and ungameable, is redistributing the loot at the end of each level. During the course of the level all pickups are pooled at the end of the level their order is randomized and they are distributed in a round robin fashion. This ensure the following things:
1) All players get (approximately) the same amount of materials.
2) The order in which loot is pickup does not influence the distribution, nor does it matter who picks up what. It is thus impossible for players to influence who gets what.

Possible issues are that a player joining a party mid level will get the same share as the others. I'm not sure that is a big deal though.

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 07:06

#37

Franpa

Legacy Username

@TriasBecause the drop rate

@Trias
Because the drop rate per player is lower for larger parties. Higher drop rate per player is the reward of going solo.

But the drop rate overall is the same, just divided between players... so more players negatively affects the likely hood of you getting what you want by 75%.

I'm not sure how it can be gamed, there are like what 4x4 combinations and it cycles between them after every 4 items picked up and cycles through them randomly... no one can tell if the 5th or 6th person will get a specific thing ever at all, they can only tell who won't be getting an item during a cycle, not when a new cycle starts. and I realize that with 2 players the system would essentially be truly random anyways.

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 07:56

#38

halycon

Legacy Username

QUOTE: No, it is also fair in

QUOTE: No, it is also fair in the short term. The system is equivalent (at any moment, in terms of loot) to player's getting personally instanced loot at 1/#players the normal rate. That is no more unfair, than the random loot system already is.

Not really. If everyone puts in an equal amount of work during a stage, they should be able to expect equal compensation. With the current system, they're are not always compensated equally. This is where the discontent is coming from. Spiral Knights is not a continuous experience, it comes and goes in bursts depending on how much free time people have. It's unreasonable to expect them to always be able to look at things as a whole with a calm and logical mindset.

And don't say "but but but but it's mathematically equal". You must have a very twisted understanding of the way people work if you think mathematics is a satisfactory explanation for your average player.

QUOTE: Because the drop rate per player is lower for larger parties. Higher drop rate per player is the reward of going solo.

The mathematics supports both your own special interpretation of the drop system, and how most of us interpret it. Just because you can explain it away in your head with some mental acrobatics doesn't mean we all have to. How many games can you name where, upon running over an item (usually an action tied to "picking it up") gave that item to someone else? I can only think of rolling for loot in MMOs. And they too are a source of severe frustration such that most organized groups will have their own system of loot distribution. We, as gamers, have been conditioned by decades of gaming to think this way. Design should work FOR the most common mindset rather than AGAINST it.

And I don't think you have ever acknowledged the human element in your posts, except to mention exploitation and throw out personal insults. You do realize this is a game designed to be played by people, right? All the mathematics in the world couldn't help you sustain a game if your players are discontent. And, believe it or not, quite a few of us are unhappy with the current system. It's in Three Rings' interests to listen to its players, especially when a feature or implementation is an annoyance or a detriment to their experience. Arguing for or against design choices without regard to the way people think and behave is foolish.

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 07:58

#39

Trias

Spelling it out

@franpa
I'm not sure how it can be gamed, there are like what 4x4 combinations and it cycles between them after every 4 items picked up and cycles through them randomly... no one can tell if the 5th or 6th person will get a specific thing ever at all, they can only tell who won't be getting an item during a cycle, not when a new cycle starts. and I realize that with 2 players the system would essentially be truly random anyways.

Well suppose that there are 4 players. Then in any combination of cycles the maximum number of times that a player can be passed over is 6. So, in any situation where a player is passed over 6 times, it is clear who will get the next drop, and players can manipulate the system by choosing what to pickup next.

Of course this is an extreme example. It doesn't occur that often, although it still happens regularly. In other situations you cannot be certain, but you can still work the statistics (much like counting cards in black jack).

If you just pickup an item, the chance that you will pickup the next item is 1 in 16.
If you were passed over once the chance of you picking up the next item is 2 in 15.
If you were passed over twice the chance of you picking up the next item is 3 in 13.
If you were passed over thrice the chance of you picking up the next item is 4 in 10.
If you were passed over four times the chance of you picking up the next item is 3 in 6.
If you were passed over five times the chance of you picking up the next item is 2 in 3.
If you were passed over six times the chance of you picking up the next item is 1 in 1.

So to improve their pickups, players should try to pickup unwanted drops on the first and second drop after they received an item, and after that try to pickup the things they want. Rinse and repeat. Players do this will pickup better materials on average.

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 08:20

#40

Rullerr

Legacy Username

I think the most important

I think the most important detail you're missing is a rather simple one... more than one person can pick up the drop. It's much harder to game the system when what's less useful to 1 person is more useful to 2 others. Sure if this was a game where only one person could pick up the item and then it was distributed, great. But it isn't and in every case, if it's bad for 1 person to pick it up, its better for at least 1 person to pick it up. The worst that will result from this is dashing for the items, which while it isn't the best idea in the middle of the fight, is far from gaming or breaking the system.

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 08:33

#41

Trias

@halycon

@halycon
Not really. If everyone puts in an equal amount of work during a stage, they should be able to expect equal compensation. With the current system, they're are not always compensated equally.

But that is no different then two different parties running the same level and getting different loot. If that is your gripe, you should be arguing for the removal of the random loot system as a whole.

The mathematics supports both your own special interpretation of the drop system, and how most of us interpret it.

No, the mathematics is very clear. Other people in the party getting more loot than you has no bearing on the loot that you got. (Of course, playing with a larger party does mean you get less loot.)

And, believe it or not, quite a few of us are unhappy with the current system.
But the majority of the players seem pretty content with the current system.

Also, note that I couple of posts ago, I actually gave an example of a system that is fair and ungameable, and doesn't give the illusion of being unfair.

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 08:36

#42

Trias

The worst that will result

The worst that will result from this is dashing for the items, which while it isn't the best idea in the middle of the fight, is far from gaming or breaking the system.

That is exactly what I've been saying what will happing. This will lead to a lot of frustration between players, and will spoil the atmosphere in game.

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 09:09

#43

Franpa

Legacy Username

Since you can do a clockwork

Since you can do a clockwork tier an infinite number of times and there is no clear goal (I assume beating the "Core" doesn't lock you out from using that character anymore as it has "beaten" the game) there is no limit to how long one must wait for a run through a tier where they will be awarded an item they are after or a decent amount of items for which to trade with. It could take a player years of playing the game each day and the randomness could be against him the whole entire time. yes it is "balanced" but due to the lack of an ending/goal there is only one end of the scale.

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 17:32

#44

Sadiekate

I didn't read the long posts

Why not just make all material drops appear as a '?' until they are picked up (and assigned to the next person in the round-robin)? You can't game the system if you can't see the items, but everyone still gets the 'same' (minus remainders) number of materials.

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 18:59

#45

King-Tinkinzar

It's not fair... I did a

It's not fair... I did a Jelly Queen or King or whatever gender it is run, and only got common 3* and under... my friend got all the rare and 4* items...

Fri, 04/08/2011 - 21:30

#46

Franpa

Legacy Username

What I meant was that there

What I meant was that there is no limit to how many times you can do a Tier, thus the sample size is infinite and so are the chances of having a bad run or a good run through the game. We need a system that changes that. A randomized Round the Robbin with Skaf's idea of hiding what items drop (until they are picked up) would be a great solution.

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 03:39

#47

HeatSonata

Legacy Username

From a Satisfied Player

I'm a relatively new player (I guess a lot of us are, but I'm just getting into Tier 2 tomorrow), and I don't have any suggestions on how to improve the system. The main reason I wanted to post is that I read a comment here earlier stating that this thread was proof that the people who didn't approve of the system were a majority based on the creation of and response to this thread, and therefore Three Rings had an obligation to attend to them.

I've seen a level of intelligence from both sides that I find respectable, so I'm sure most have already realized this, but I think claiming that those wishing to change the system are a majority neglects an obvious point: people who have issues with the system will come to the board and bring issue with it, while people who have no problem with it will either a) continue playing and not check the forums at all, or b) see this thread and read it casually or just skip over it. If this were a thread that Three Rings had declared "An arena of ideas by which we decide how our drop system will work!" I think you'd see a lot more interest from the party that enjoyed the current system. I'm not claiming they're in the majority, I'm just saying that they are going to be under-represented by the nature of the issue.

If people complain about the food in a restaurant to each other, a person who likes the food might get annoyed, but it is a little unlikely they'll step in to defend the restaurant's merits against a total stranger. However, if they were to actively petition in such a way as to eminently get the restaurant shut down or revamped, those who liked the current state might become more vocal.

I am someone who enjoys the current system. I love random loot in games, and I play Spiral Knights solely with my group of friends (for now). I enjoy the rounds where I see my friend get all of the Blue Shards as I get none, putting my Cobalt Armor further and further off because I know he'll want them for his own armor, as much as any other round. When I can, I like trading around for the materials I can get at the end of matches. My friends all moaned when I got the only equipment drop any of us had ever gotten at that point in a dungeon, but I don't think any of us was really upset at it. In contrast, we were all happy we didn't have to carefully open treasure boxes and pick up loot one piece at a time to avoid stepping on anyone's toes with unfair distribution. Personally, I am fine with a system with more risk of disappointment if it means I will occasionally yield disproportionate reward that I can simply attribute to good fortune.

tl,dr: I like the current system as is, more than any system that has even the smallest chance of being exploited by a player or creates any new complications. I don't mind if they want to include another optional loot system that addresses the concerns of the people voicing their opinions here, but I would like it to be a separate system, with a remaining option for those of us who want to continue using the current system. I do understand how the issues raised here are more pertinent when the people you're playing with aren't necessarily your pals and don't have any obligation to stand around and trade with you if they've gotten what they want from the dungeon post-run. I also think everyone can understand, however, that putting a new stress on people who enjoy the current system when everyone agrees, as far as I can tell, that things are mathematically fair would be somewhat unreasonable.

EDIT: For what it is worth, I think the system Trias proposed (by which items would be pooled and then distributed at the end of the dungeon) seems like a reasonable alternative, but purely by preference I enjoy the current instant-updating system simply because I prefer not to wait until the end of the dungeon to see what I've gotten. If that were the major change, though, I can't say I would complain.

I do not think that skaf's is a reasonable (mandatory) alternative because, from an exploit standpoint, even if you don't know what item is being dropped you could still "game" what monster is dropping it quite easily. I can't imagine that there are people who would go to that trouble to disrupt a team by making sure items were picked up that particularly with the intent of benefiting themselves, but the measure doesn't do enough to prevent exploitability, if that was the intent.

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 05:51

#48

Franpa

Legacy Username

How about this then?

How about this then? http://home.exetel.com.au/franpa/Bugs/general/spiral%20knights/order.png

2 Round the Robbin distributions interlinked to eliminate any and all randomness after the initial drop?

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 05:53

#49

Moxay

Legacy Username

Play solo

Play solo and get all loot, this game is easy enough. Any questions?

Sat, 04/09/2011 - 08:34

#50

J_A_S

Legacy Username

HELLO!

Why not make it so that everyone gets the item.....they do it with crystals and tokens.....why not items
NOTE:i just posted this. no clue if anyone else did

Search

Drop Distribution