Larian Studios Forums Divinity: Original Sin 2 Divinity - Original Sin 2 - Suggestions and Feedback Change Loot distribu for a better Co op experience

I enjoy a good Co op game rather than playing solo but I do not enjoy the way loot is given out in this game. It seems all the spoils of victory are given to the first person to the chest or fallen enemy. I'm sure all the gamers reading this are super nice fair, altruistic and benevolent philanthropists but the ones I play with are selfish and greedy. lucky charm means nothing when everything is looted before you get there. I've played many other games with similar problems where loot is a source of contention sometimes causing a group and game to fall apart. Other games have also tackled this issue with some good solutions. How would you all feel about chests, crates, fallen enemies having specific loot for each character that only they could either take or give to another player? It takes the incentive out of needing to rush and separate and instead promotes cohesion in the group. What would everyone prefer? let's take a vote.

I think a roll option would be nice. My brother ninjad the first epic that ever dropped for us. A loot roll option would have helped.

The issue is that this isn't a MMO... and that this is actually a co-operative game rather then "Sort of co-op" as with most MMOs.

So your introducing a system to fix something that is wrong with you.

I don't really want any system in place like rolling.

That's not entirely true. Often you are playing online with players you may not know, and the game has mechanics for stealing from other players even.

It's not a 100% co-op game, but even if it were being able to let everyone see and have a fair shot at the loot can be helpful sometimes.

It is 100% Co-op. They can mess you over, but they are only hurting themselves in the short and long run.

In a MMO you can just do a different raid, join another group, do something else.

It's only 100% cooperative if all members playing are cooperating 100% of the time.

Since during the main story you can fight each other in the arena, steal from each other, and can sometimes earn experience independent of the other members, it's not all cooperative.

Since you join with other players who have different goals and desires than you, it's not 100% cooperative.

If it were 100% cooperative OP wouldn't need to ask for a way to force fair loot distribution.

I agree with error3. The game is cooperative AND competitive. In fact, competitive questing is one of the main features of the game, if I recall correctly. Just look at the plot and the ending video of act 1.

Personally I always play with friends so we don't have too much problem but I see where OP is coming from. The idea of having every player (not character) loot each corpse/crate once seems good but it can cause some issues with economics and relative power of the party. I wouldn't mind if Larian think they can make things work.

On the other hand, the dice roll system is probably the safest route to take. If there was a way to configure party loot just like in a mmo party it would be perfect (Rarity, Master loot or not, deactivated altogether for people like Neonivek)

"Competitive questing" just means that players could occasionally have conflicting goals.
They are still supposed to be cooperate most of the times, not to actively fight each other on sight.

Also, in a party-base game where everyone is probably going to have a specialized role (and equipment), it's even hard to imagine how stealing each other's loot should make much sense.

Know what? I will be EXTREMELY curious to understand how they are planning to balance challenges ahead in a way that works for players who are cooperating nicely and for those who are going to "split the team in two and go their own way".


Look, if they can come up with a reasonable "solution" for this even better, but you should probably keep expectations in check about this competitive questing thing...
And maybe try to make the person you are playing with just more reasonable.

If you're playing with someone who steals your loot, they don't understand the game.

This probably isn't a great game to play with random strangers, if only because it's extremely long and you need to coordinate properly.

What is kind of funny is rolling and "everyone gets their own loot" still doesn't fix the problem.

If your friend picks up something you need he NEEDS to give it to you. If he outdated a piece of equipment you need, he NEEDS to give it to you. If you need a spell from the shop and only he has money he NEEDS to buy it for you.

Congratulations you created two systems to fix a problem that doesn't address the actual problem, it actually makes things worse because now they can say they own it... rather then them being in possession of it.

Or you dont understand what competitive questing means.
I think there are 3 possible scenarios.
1. Players will ignore any competitive tasks.

2. I tell my coop partner: Hey dude turn back I have a quest to kill you, so dont make a problem. Then mate does as asked.

3. Players make an evil blood so they stop playing in a while.

Anyway, dont see any "fun" scenario available. C operative play is about, ehm cooperation and success together against odd. Asking for a complicated system of loot which negates sick designer idea that player should fuck out each other cooperatively doesnt have a sense.

So here is when communication and negociations come in play. And if your "friend" is being a dick about it, there's nothing the devs can do.



Well I don't know of any system that would make a shitty person be less shitty. At least with roll/instanciated loot, you're garanteed that it's not the fastest looter who takes all.

Yes but you missed the important part Qaozer.

If you NEED the rolled/instanced loot... Then rolled/instanced loot isn't going to fix it. Your team is broken and your choices are either to resolve your differences or stop playing together regardless of what systems Larian puts in place.

So what you're saying is : don't add any kind of system to make sure everyone gets some loot, just let the party discuss the matter and choose its member wisely ?

I'm down, it's how it works now, but I still think rolling might help some parties, not necessarly those with shitty teamplayers.

Kind of... But it is more that rolling/instanced doesn't solve the underlying problem... it only aggravates it.

If you need rolling/instancing then your party is broken with or without it.

Which is kind of funny... Because the only ones who could actually use rolling or instancing are the people who absolutely do not need it.

Rolling/instancing is a false solution that if told to someone they might say "Ohh that seems fair" or they might even think it would solve the problem... But really it only adds fuel to the fire.

If you want to find an alternative way to solve the problem go ahead. I am only pointing out that this solves nothing. You saw a open wound and you decided to put a blanket over it and call it fixed.

Although I agree that in an ideal world the game would avert this sort of problem, would it not be the best solution to simply not play with such obnoxious people? The sort of people who will only behave reasonably when forced to do so aren't exactly the most wonderful company.

Hmmmm... Nope, my answer is right.

It's called Competitive Questing. For the most part the game is still co-operative and players still need to co-operate to progress. There are still fights against always-hostile enemies, and fights tend to be difficult for solo players to win, so depriving a party member of important equipment is just going to make it more difficult for the other party members to contribute to the common fights and common goals.

Hmm. Lets say there is a goal which could be achieved by me or you. Meanwhile we will face some other enemyes, yes. But, if I hid some equipment for you then I reduce your chance to get the goal. It means, "smarter" or "social" thinking player says - We should proceed.
But individualist says I am going to win. Nothing else matters.

There are two main types in theory of games.
Game with zero sum result - typicaly RPG cooperative party game
Game with non zero sum - like poker

When you install competition to the zero sum game then you have changed the very base. The new rule is here, As the Highlander says " There can be the only one."

Congrats, you understand what a zero sum game is. Guess what? D:OS 2 is not a zero sum game - at least, not until probably the very end of the entire game.

It is not possible to travel between acts without your full party being with you. Can't be done. You can't race to the final boss and leave your partner still on Fort Joy. Every time you change maps your partner has to come along.

Yes, there probably will be some combats where you'll want your party member hindered for. But there will be quite a few combats where you'll want - you'll NEED assistance to not die. A crippled and useless party member won't help you progress in your own goals. I see this clearly with Ifan, who is basically dead weight in a fight with his crappy starter daggers.

***

All-in-all, the solution to "jerk co-op partners steal all my loot" is "find better co-op partners", and as a plus that's easier than adding instanced loot which the game is absolutely not designed for at all. It's drop in, drop out co-op, remember?

You can't open a container twice and get two different things. What happens when the co-op partner leaves? The host has access to both the contents of the single container. Instanced loot would literally be giving co-op players double the loot of single-players.

I'm hearing a lot of assumptions as to the personality of players and that being the problem. I argue we all have similar wants and desires and methods to get what we want in this game. The problem I see is one of basic human nature and the incentive the game creates. We are not bad people, we are doing what works best for our own self interest. Just because a society needs laws to keep people in check doesn't mean it's broken. Distribution rules keep things fair and equitable and keep us on a level playing field. Without rules, even though all players are working and contributing equally, some people playing will find themselves really enjoying the game where others will find themselves harboring resentment.

The problem is this game is not the real world. In the real world we would need to cooperate to survive. Deals, agreements and alliances get worked out. In a game world if I don't find it "enjoyable" I simply stop playing.

To give some perspective. In my game I'm playing with a buddy I've known for 10 years. We still enjoy playing in other RPG groups together without problems. In this game though, we have problems. Even though we started the game together and Worked together, somehow we have almost a 1.5 level gap between us. I'm level 3, he is level 4. He also loots and sells everything first while I'm lucky to beg for broken hand me downs. Lol
The game has evolved for us to play separately instead of co op. Which is not the co op game I was interested in.

Decide what is best From a game design perspective trying to develop what is most enjoyable to most players for your game to sell.

A game where players Co op but can lie, cheat and steal and fight each other gain all the loot and xp while the others get nothing is gonna end badly.

This game is like a an interesting sociological experiment testing human behavior. It's Co op without much incentive to Co op. Just like society without laws the group will fall apart.

I said at the beginning, if you think most gamers work in harmony, are kind, unselfish, philanthropists who play fair and enjoy giving to charity, then sure, everything should be just fine in your game world. This game's loot distribution doesn't need any changes. Those who are not decent shouldn't be playing games with you right? So design a game to sell to this "good" percentage of people. I'm gonna argue it's 5% lol.

But if you are like me and know how most of us are really gonna behave I'd like to see assigned loot.

Haha I like this discussion.

Side note: I think If loot was assigned the value could simply be divided by number of players to keep balance in the economy. Example: instead of player A finding 10 gold and the other nothing, both find 1-5 gold. And items can be found less often by individuals but the same total as is now for the group. Example: Instead of a crate having a 20% chance of magic armor only one player takes, each player gets a 5% chance.