Personal Loot Feedback - Three Raids Later

[Nefarious Tea]

I am a solo player so I like it. I can get into a pug and not have to worry about some asshole deciding his friend gets something over me, even after a roll win.

And how many times did that actually happen to you? Seriously.

[rrayy]

You dont seem like a teamplayer at all, it sounds like everything is just about you and your characters loot other than the guilds progression.

Stop acting like the pro-ML were never like that because they absolutely were. It was about them and their buddies getting geared up and exploiting others to do so. You aren't innocent angels.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, thats the problem that people have though right, we are changing an entire system that affects millions because of a few absolute children and morons, why do big companies like this pander to minorities. Its the same with the original legendaries, which I dont support btw, but the argument of "It destroys guilds" when certain members arent picked for the legendary.

No.

It either destroys corrupt guilds that give the legendary to people who dont deserve it, like an officer or Gm who isnt a good player but expects the legendary, in which case, great, we just deleted a shitty guild, or it destroys weak guilds full of children who dont deserve to be in serious high end raiding trying to earn powerful legendaries in the first place. Crazy logic, let the community figure it out in my eyes. I think its been widely regarded as a failure at this point.

More baseless claims. You have npothing to back it up., Blizzard has the data. You don't. They removed it. That tells meit was a far more signifcant problem then you are trying to make it.

The vocal minority that hates does not = seen widely as a failure. The majority of the mythic raiding guilds have already adapted and moved on. Only a few re still whining about it, so you certainly can't say it is widely viewd as a failure. That is conformation bias at work.,

[Velerios]

Blizzard punished the entire playerbase by removing masterloot because of a few bad apple guilds that "stole" loot

The "solution" of personal loot has just made all the players hate the game more.

Sorry, but that's bullshit. Master loot is BY FAR NOT the reason most player hat the game more. In fact, even in Legion, Master Loot was not available in pugs at all, and now they simply removed all the loot-drama and the tickets that comes with it. Totally understandable.

No, the issue about loot is warforged/titanforged-crap, the removal of more and more customization with removal of enchants, consumables and more. This is the issue most people have with loot. Now Loot is no longer an active issue, and that's good. Master loot only affected a friction of players, so no, the entire playerbase were not affected, because they simply didn't used it.

[kaminaris]

Sorry, but that's bullshit. Master loot is BY FAR NOT the reason most player hat the game more. In fact, even in Legion, Master Loot was not available in pugs at all, and now they simply removed all the loot-drama and the tickets that comes with it. Totally understandable.

No, the issue about loot is warforged/titanforged-crap, the removal of more and more customization with removal of enchants, consumables and more. This is the issue most people have with loot. Now Loot is no longer an active issue, and that's good. Master loot only affected a friction of players, so no, the entire playerbase were not affected, because they simply didn't used it.

warforged and titanforged is not issue either.

[Tankzorx]

Speaking as an officer and member of the loot council in my guild, this is how we handle loot, after ML was removed:
- No socials in our first HC clears, don't want to risk any loot going to a non-raider.
- All tradeable loot is master looted.
- Jaina mount is given based on attendance. This is our strongest way to encourage attendance.

The feeling of taking loot and redistributing based on biggest upgrade feels bad, but has to be done for the good of the guild's progress.
Getting an item that you can't trade and won't use is extremely frustrating. It happens quite often -- More often than I had guessed.

I have a very hard time understanding how people experienced so much abuse with ML, especially after PL was forced unless >80% guildies in group.
Forced PL has definitely not been positive for me.

Also to Clozer: Your posts make you seem extremely dumb.. You don't even understand one of the most basic problems people have with the PL system, even after 2-3 people repeatedly explained it to you. Absolutely braindead actually

[Th3Scourge]

My experiences with it so far is that it's really shit at the beginning of a tier when most loot is generally higher than equipped/in bags and you can't trade the loot. This washes out after a month or so when everyone is geared.

[Relapses]

We will never truly know how many players quit solely due to ML. However, several prominent players (Preach in particular) stated he had about 4 members of his top-end guild straight up quit due to the change.

Also, as a former GM/RL, I was thinking about returning to guild leading in BFA, PL squashed that.

There is also collateral damage with the change that nobody seems to want to address: The fact that your players have less incentive to attend your raids frequently, especially on progression nights.

I had this problem in BrF, then in HFC and Legion, I instilled an EPGP loot system. No drama. No special privileges. Your attendence and what you got previously determined your loot. It worked great. Because the players felt as though they were in control of their gearing. Now with PL, Blizzard is in full control.

I know several guilds, including the guild I used to run, have ceased operations due to lack of attendance. 30% of their raid would gear up in the first few weeks and all of a sudden they were ghosts.

I've been on a few loot councils myself and I agree that ML allowing attendance to be awarded was nice. However, if you do quasi-ML with PL you can still award some attendance. You still end up with (often unfortunate) outliers and I believe the option to opt-into ML absolutely should be given but it's there. Really, the best way to counter the downside of being able to reward attendance is to over-recruit. Obviously that isn't an option for a lot of guilds but it is one of the only ways to ensure you'll always have the requisite number of players to at least zone into the instance. And yeah, I'm sure some high profile players may have quit in protest we're talking about less than 1% of the top 1%. In a game where Blizzard is constantly designing around the "soft edges" crowd, that's collateral damage that I'm sure they're totally fine with having.

Par for the course, I guess.

[Aliven]

It's not abused that much and they removed it for the lolz is the right answer. Just because you picked some shit guild doesn't mean most guild were run that way.

"Ha! I dismantle you anecdotal evidence with anecdotal evidence of my own! Take that villain!"

Basically what this argument is about.

[Rendark]

"Ha! I dismantle you anecdotal evidence with anecdotal evidence of my own! Take that villain!"

Basically what this argument is about.

My argument has and always will be forcing people to use PL is shitty.

[Aliven]

My argument has and always will be forcing people to use PL is shitty.

Clearly not forcing it was more damaging.

[Alvito]

its beyond stupid and of all the ways that blizzard could have combated split raids, its probably the worst.

While that might be some of it, they did it to protect these wimpy players complaining they are pressured into giving away items or aren't able to get loot in runs with people. Blizzard forums used to be a waste land of complaints about somebody ninjaing loot and people hoping Blizzard would step in. To try and entice people to use PL they upped the amount of rewards you would get from a boss and when they didn't do it they just flipped off ML. It still pisses me off when we kill a boss and no tier would drop or no no azerite gear. If they really want to keep moving forward with PL they have to find some better ways to do it.

[Rendark]

Clearly not forcing it was more damaging.

No it wasn't.

[Aliven]

No it wasn't.

Yes it was.

[Rendark]

Yes it was.

No it wasn't. If it was the game would have died long before they pointlessly removed ML.

[MidnyteTV]

I've been on a few loot councils myself and I agree that ML allowing attendance to be awarded was nice. However, if you do quasi-ML with PL you can still award some attendance. You still end up with (often unfortunate) outliers and I believe the option to opt-into ML absolutely should be given but it's there. Really, the best way to counter the downside of being able to reward attendance is to over-recruit. Obviously that isn't an option for a lot of guilds but it is one of the only ways to ensure you'll always have the requisite number of players to at least zone into the instance. And yeah, I'm sure some high profile players may have quit in protest we're talking about less than 1% of the top 1%. In a game where Blizzard is constantly designing around the "soft edges" crowd, that's collateral damage that I'm sure they're totally fine with having.

Par for the course, I guess.

The biggest grip I have with the ML haters is the fact that they assume that every guild used loot council. And it appears that Loot council seems to be the most hated (as it should be). Loot council is the best and the worst loot system. It should have only been utilized by the top guilds. Every other organized guild should have been using EPGP.

In fact, I would imagine that most of the sour people in this thread were never in a top-end guild, probably not even in a top 300 guild. Because those guilds tended to attract players who wanted to kill bosses, not loot whores who can't stop bitching about being screwed over (allegedly).

[kaminaris]

The biggest grip I have with the ML haters is the fact that they assume that every guild used loot council. And it appears that Loot council seems to be the most hated (as it should be). Loot council is the best and the worst loot system. It should have only been utilized by the top guilds. Every other organized guild should have been using EPGP.

In fact, I would imagine that most of the sour people in this thread were never in a top-end guild, probably not even in a top 300 guild. Because those guilds tended to attract players who wanted to kill bosses, not loot whores who can't stop bitching about being screwed over (allegedly).

Been in top 200 guild, half of players were loot whores. We used buddy-loot.

[swatsonqt]

How about having the "LootRules" tied to the Dungeon.

The RaidLead/GroupLead determines the LootRules, a bit more Indepth beforehand, and when entering the Group/Dungeon they need to "Agree" to these Rules.

These Rules could include:
"MasterLoot" - Like before one Person Distributes the loot
"Need/Greed - Roll" - Like Before, everyone who wants the Item Rolls.
"Need/Greed - Upgrade" - Everyone who wants the Item presses Need, and the one with the Lowest Ilvl on that Slots gets the item.
"Bidding/Buying" - Everyone who wants an Item Bids (Gold or a Ressource) on the Item, and the winner pays gold to the others who would have liked the Item. (Split up in relation to how much they would have given)
"Personal Loot" - Like Default personal Loot.

And whatever one could also think up.
With maybe Additional settings, like: "Even distribution", when two peopl want an Item and one already got one, the other gets it.

Edit: Obviously these Rules cannot be Changed mid run.

That would probably create a bad situation for the greatest part of the community which is pugs.
As soon as you give the option to "agree on what the leader said" you will be forced to go with a particular option (probably master looter) and otherwise you won't be accepted into any run. Because people are bastard's it would probably be ML and the ML will distribute everything to his mates.

Maybe if the entire group can vote for one of these rulesets...so democracy decides which ruleset will be chosen...maybe

[bowchikabow]

22 pages of debate and I am not seeing conversation about the Elephant in the room regarding forced PL.

Cliff notes version:

If I play a Mage, and I only use staves. Like, no matter what, I only want to use staves. Now, let's say we killed a boss that drops a caster 1H sword. My Staff may be 5, 10, 15 etc ilvl HIGHER than the 1H sword. BBUUTTT.. because I never had a caster 1H sword of THAT particular ilvl... I CANNOT TRADE IT.

Now, I have an item with literally ZERO benefit, going to vendor or DE, that could have been an upgrade (it actually happened in our raid and someone lost out on a 35 ilvl upgrade over this shit).

Now, if blizzard wanted to fix this bullshit by changing the conditions of ilvl loot locking, then I could be more amenable to permanent PL. But as of right now (and since the beginning of BFA) it has been an absolute failure.

- Former Raid Officer speaking.

[Relapses]

22 pages of debate and I am not seeing conversation about the Elephant in the room regarding forced PL.

Cliff notes version:

If I play a Mage, and I only use staves. Like, no matter what, I only want to use staves. Now, let's say we killed a boss that drops a caster 1H sword. My Staff may be 5, 10, 15 etc ilvl HIGHER than the 1H sword. BBUUTTT.. because I never had a caster 1H sword of THAT particular ilvl... I CANNOT TRADE IT.

Now, I have an item with literally ZERO benefit, going to vendor or DE, that could have been an upgrade (it actually happened in our raid and someone lost out on a 35 ilvl upgrade over this shit).

Now, if blizzard wanted to fix this bullshit by changing the conditions of ilvl loot locking, then I could be more amenable to permanent PL. But as of right now (and since the beginning of BFA) it has been an absolute failure.

- Former Raid Officer speaking.

Unless something changed recently you can still use a MH/OH combo as a Mage, can't you?

[bowchikabow]

Unless something changed recently you can still use a MH/OH combo as a Mage, can't you?

..... I specifically said "wanted to use staves" I know they can use MH/OH.

The issue is that each weapon TYPE that a class can use has it's own ilvl loot lock. If you are a warrior who, for example, happened to have polearms that were 430.. and then you do the Nazjatar world boss and the 2H sword drops but it is only 420. YOU CAN'T TRADE the 420 because it is sword not polearm. THAT is the problem.