Loot Crate System

[Sir Baron]

From what I can tell Woody you can't really get even drop rates with making it guaranteed
And that could lead to abuse

Right now I think it's the same loot chance for each player but it's using RNG so it's hard to get a great system

[Jalau]

From what I can tell Woody you can't really get even drop rates with making it guaranteed
And that could lead to abuse

Right now I think it's the same loot chance for each player but it's using RNG so it's hard to get a great system

I would recommend just increasing the chance for each player everytime they are not looting a legendary from an enemy and then resetting that increase if they loot something. That way the more you play the higher the chance to loot something and it is more fair than the current system. I would personally do this per enemy. That means if they attended in 10 odin kills only the drop chance from odin is 10x whatever higher than the original one.

[DR.]

Part of the problem of useing a random number generator is it's bullshit. You will have outliers that loot with in 50 hours of game play and others like my self that took 3.5k hours. (to loot shit) Yea I'm on 7 loots but I'm also on fucking 8k+ hours...

I would expanded on just 1 idea I had 2 years ago but on my phone so I will save it for a different post.

[Galen_Thalheimer]

So if only one player is alive he would get all the drops, 100% of the time? That doesn't sound very team based and kinda induces people to let the team wipe then kite for the loot.

That's how it works now anyway. If there is only one person alive they get all the drops as it is.

To reiterate: it doesn't solve the issue of unequal distribution, and still leaves exploits of timing when to be alive for loot. Why swap one imperfect system for a naive implementation of a queueing system that doesn't completely address the issue?

P.S. I'm content with my hobbies, it even leaves me time to find flaws in CS-rejects' algorithm designs.

That exploit already there. The loot is already random to whoever is alive, so there are plenty of ways to game the system to get more. Like not toming on bosses. And saying that you need a perfect system to implement a better one is just plain naive. Currently alive team members have an uneven distribution of loot because it's short term random. Under this system, alive team members have a forced even distribution of random loot. It's a definite improvement from the current system.

If the Dev's could be so nice to lay out some point the new system need to tic.

• Need's to easy-ish to put in
  
• etc..
  

Stuff like this point  "Drop rate should be the same for each player." Is one point I want to guess that would be in the list, however, this is one of the problems.

If we can get some ground rules so we can come up with a better solution to this problem would save us and the dev's time if you ever want to fix this before Ni2.

That's part of the problem is specifying anything fully -- without knowing the layout of languages and where code lies in Warband vs NI vs backend it's hard to specify solutions.

[Malong]

To reiterate: it doesn't solve the issue of unequal distribution, and still leaves exploits of timing when to be alive for loot. Why swap one imperfect system for a naive implementation of a queueing system that doesn't completely address the issue?

P.S. I'm content with my hobbies, it even leaves me time to find flaws in CS-rejects' algorithm designs.

That exploit already there. The loot is already random to whoever is alive, so there are plenty of ways to game the system to get more. Like not toming on bosses. And saying that you need a perfect system to implement a better one is just plain naive. Currently alive team members have an uneven distribution of loot because it's short term random. Under this system, alive team members have a forced even distribution of random loot. It's a definite improvement from the current system.

That's not comparable. Making sure you have a chance to receive benefits is very different from making sure you're next in the queue to receive something.

I also did not post that only a perfect system will suffice, but rather that a round robin distributed handler does not completely address the issue. Also note that you attempted to mirror my post by using "naive" as a single word not realizing that naive implementation is a well-established descriptor for algorithms. CS-rejects, indeed.

[Sir Baron]

Are you a English teacher PCK?

[Terath]

Are you a English teacher PCK?

An English teacher, Baron.

[Malong]

Are you a English teacher PCK?

An English teacher, Baron.

This is amazing.

As a side note, I'm not sure how much an English teacher could teach you about algorithm design.

[Green_Dragon]

@Malong&Thalheimer

Actually...why don't you two work something out together!? If you can overcome your differences
and see it as a challenge the result has all chances to be a real game changer. You already seem to
have Terath's attention...   and if I got that right, that's about one step from real change then.
Instead of hacking and slashing with words, why not investing this energy in figuring something out
together!?

[Malong]

@Malong&Thalheimer

Actually...why don't you two work something out together!? If you can overcome your differences
and see it as a challenge the result has all chances to be a real game changer. You already seem to
have Terath's attention...   and if I got that right, that's about one step from real change then.
Instead of hacking and slashing with words, why not investing this energy in figuring something out
together!?

Boom! Done!