Spiral Knights - Loot Distribution

Loot Distribution

7 replies [Last post]

Fri, 04/15/2011 - 08:36

ProvnParadox

Legacy Username

How difficult would it be to implement something to make loot distribution more even between parties? I just came away from a run from depth 10 to 14 with nothing but one star materials for loot, while the other players had multiple valuable drops (Creature Carapaces, Bushy Tails, various flavors of Cores). In a previous game I went in and got four three star drops in a row. Both were unsatisfactory: in the former case I'm feeling left out, and the latter left me feeling bad for the other players.

In the end? I suspect it all evens out. Randomness tends to do that. That doesn't make it any less crappy when it's all going to one player. Off the top of my head, an easy way to do it would be to keep up with who has gotten loot of a given rarity, and enforce a limit so that a player won't get more loot of said rarity until everyone else in the party has gotten a piece of loot with the same rarity. So after I get a three star item, I can't get another one until everyone else in the party has also gotten one. Now, if I get a Hailstone when what I want is a Rocket Sprocket, I would still have to trade another player for it if one happened to drop, but this way no one feels left out at least.

Fri, 04/15/2011 - 08:41

Daemo

Confirmation bias? I am sure

Confirmation bias? I am sure there has been runs where you got most of the valuable loot and someone else is the same position you are now.

Fri, 04/15/2011 - 08:50

adrian783

Legacy Username

problem is that rarity is not

problem is that rarity is not a perfect indicator of the usefulness of the item. so if a player gets something like...a gel core, then he'll be unavalible for the other better 3* materials. that's even worse than random.

Fri, 04/15/2011 - 12:08

ProvnParadox

Legacy Username

"Confirmation bias? I am sure

"Confirmation bias? I am sure there has been runs where you got most of the valuable loot and someone else is the same position you are now."

Please re-read my post. I stated that I have been on both sides of the situation. Both suck, though for different reasons. The only time I've felt the loot distribution method in place now to be adequate is when it's distributing things more or less evenly. Too much one way or the other is bad, whichever direction it may go. Why can't even distribution be enforced?

"problem is that rarity is not a perfect indicator of the usefulness of the item. so if a player gets something like...a gel core, then he'll be unavalible for the other better 3* materials. that's even worse than random."

I don't see how that's worse. The person who receives that gel core will be determined randomly. And furthermore, even if rarity is not a perfect indicator, I would posit it's still a pretty good one. Show me a person who would trade a three star material of any sort for a Bronze Bolt. Sure, one uses those in a lot of different recipes, but they're also so common that it doesn't matter that you use a lot of them: chances are, you're going to HAVE a lot of them. The current system can and has heaped rare materials on a single player while everyone else is piling up yet more freaking bolts (or the equivalent trash one star of the given level).

Fri, 04/15/2011 - 18:40

adrian783

Legacy Username

so if a person gets a 3* loot

so if a person gets a 3* loot and everything else that dropped was 1 or 2*, he never gets any more loot?

next thing you'll probably say is that "well, if a person gets a 3* then he has to wait for everyone else to get at least 3*s worth of loot". i don't see how that is better than the current system of "oh i feel bad for being lucky and/or unlucky". why add sets of arbitrary rules when randomness is best? with randomness, no one can be blamed on getting the best loot. someone else gets 2 trojan horseshoe randomly, oh well what're u ganna do?

with your system people will whine for sure, because it has a degree of predictability. not to mention your system is random too.

if both of them results in the same thing, one has less player bitching, then im all for it.

"The current system can and has heaped rare materials on a single player while everyone else is piling up yet more freaking bolts (or the equivalent trash one star of the given level)." and the current system can and has done that to every player...

Sat, 04/16/2011 - 03:45

ProvnParadox

Legacy Username

"so if a person gets a 3*

"so if a person gets a 3* loot and everything else that dropped was 1 or 2*, he never gets any more loot?"

Nonono, if a person gets a 3* loot, he doesn't get any more 3* loot until the others have also gotten 3* loot. If a 2* loot drops and he hasn't yet received a piece of 2* loot, he has a chance of receiving that loot (as does everyone else who hasn't yet gotten said 2* loot in the latest rotation). The end result is that at the end of the level, everyone has very nearly the same amount of each level of loot, with a maximum difference of 1. So if a four man group gets 12 pieces of 0*, 9 pieces of 1*, and 5 pieces of 2*, then everyone gets 3 pieces of 9*, two pieces of 1* (with one person getting getting one extra piece), and one piece of 2* (with one person getting one extra piece).

There's no way to guarantee completely even distribution, but only because you can't guarntee an even amount of loot to divide to begin with. This is still a lot more fair than arbitrarily passing it out.

"and the current system can and has done that to every player..."

How is that a justification? That's the very problem that needs to be addressed, in my view.

Sat, 04/16/2011 - 04:40

alhanelem

Legacy Username

how about...

how about they evenly distribute loot the same way as crowns, heat and tokens?

Sat, 04/16/2011 - 11:52

Franpa

Legacy Username

This has already been

This has already been discussed to death with many suggestions to make it more balanced without introducing the ability to "game the system".

http://forums.spiralknights.com/en/node/2283

Search

Loot Distribution