test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Solving poor user perceptions of final "super chest" rewards
eldarth
Member Posts: 4,494 Arc User
"Shift" a portion of normal loot drops to Final Chest
Mobs already drop random items and some coinage.
Take 20% (10%?, 5%?) of what each creature "would have" dropped and add it to Final Chest.
Take any item not "usable" by each creature and add it to Final Chest instead of dropping it.
Gives players a "wow look at all that loot I got" moment when opening the Final Chest - for ZERO change in total treasure dropped.
Foundry authors would stop getting 1-starred for "no loot" or "lousy loot" results.
Perception is everything!
_______________________________________
A fairly simple enhancement to this would be to...
Encounter(s) oriented author placed treasure cache
Imagine this...
Link a treasure cache to a group of (or one) encounters.
Do the same as above -- shave off a small portion of regular loot drops and add them to linked treasure cache (instead of the final Super Chest).
Allows authors to place encounter loot caches to be "found."
Gives players another "wow" moment when they see what that group of Frost Giants had collected, etc.
Once again -- players are excited, foundry authors are ecstatic, and there needn't be any change to existing loot drop rates.
Mobs already drop random items and some coinage.
Take 20% (10%?, 5%?) of what each creature "would have" dropped and add it to Final Chest.
Take any item not "usable" by each creature and add it to Final Chest instead of dropping it.
Gives players a "wow look at all that loot I got" moment when opening the Final Chest - for ZERO change in total treasure dropped.
Foundry authors would stop getting 1-starred for "no loot" or "lousy loot" results.
Perception is everything!
_______________________________________
A fairly simple enhancement to this would be to...
Encounter(s) oriented author placed treasure cache
Imagine this...
Link a treasure cache to a group of (or one) encounters.
Do the same as above -- shave off a small portion of regular loot drops and add them to linked treasure cache (instead of the final Super Chest).
Allows authors to place encounter loot caches to be "found."
Gives players another "wow" moment when they see what that group of Frost Giants had collected, etc.
Once again -- players are excited, foundry authors are ecstatic, and there needn't be any change to existing loot drop rates.
Post edited by eldarth on
0
Comments
Someone would link loot to chests from strong encounters that the player didn't have to fight. Even if you require the linked encounters to be killed someone would put them in a room full of guards. If you require the player to participate, then you might have problems in legit maps where the author split up the encounters to customize.
All of that can be worked around with more mechanics/coding. But I'd honestly rather them come up with and put in a more significant foundry reward system. Than spend all that time on a work around. Just my opinion. Again, I don't think its a terrible idea. Just seems like a lot of work for a "hopefully" temporary solution.
Not exploitable at all - since the loot would only be added to the super chest instead of being dropped by the encounter just killed, there is no difference other than delaying it's distribution to the player.
There's nothing is stopping them from putting encounters in a room full of guards now, except that they already don't get loot drops from guard kills -- so, once again - no difference other than time of distribution for the super chest only implementation, and merely adding an interactive that had loot distributed to it by a set of encounters for the author placed caches.
Programming wise I would be extremely surprised if either were not very simple to implement.
[I've been a developer for 38 years - so that's not a wild-*** guess. :cool: ]
Edit: Actually, the author placed caches would be "exploitable" - by the author placing the cache somewhere inaccessible (500' in the air, inside a boulder, etc). I'm pretty sure that's unlikely.
Encounter Matrix | Advanced Foundry Topics
I'm improving my quest on an almost daily basis - so if you come back to it after a week or so, it won't be quite the same!
Totally 100% behind this idea.
You are right it is mainly about perception, and the current perception is that "Super Chest" loot is totally rubbish and underwhelming.
Shifting even 25% of loot to the Super Chest would change that perception completely.
Really like the idea of linked-encounter-loot.
Allowing authors deliver a "pay-off" to the player for going that bit deeper in to the dungeon to find the out of the way loot the Mobs have stock-piled brings a new dimension to things.
The real genius of this is that it doesn't require giving out any more loot, just giving out the same amount in a different way.
Very clever.
All The Best
Looking For Reviews For Your Foundry Quest?
Drop By Scribe's Enclave & Meet Up With Volunteer Reviewers.
Now if we can just get the Devs to ponder it!
Encounter Matrix | Advanced Foundry Topics
Your suggestion would really hurt players running review quests - either for the achievement, or just to help new quests along. Only a very small fraction of 'beta' quests can be completed.
EDIT: Instead of a final disappointment at the end of a mediocre quest, it will make the whole time spent inside that quest even less satisfying. If you want to shift perception, make the quest better
Just to clarify my position, I am all for bumping rewards for the rotating event, or the Daily, but would hate to see the normal loot table reduced.
As a reviewer, I as yet haven't finished one for being lost. Okay, once that happened, but it felt like ten times.
There is absolutely NO reduction/change in the normal loot table - a small "portion" of each mob drop (i.e. if it drops 37cp, it would only drop 27cp and remaining 10cp) would be ADDED to the Super Chest.
Encounter Matrix | Advanced Foundry Topics
By putting this someplace that is a bit more visible, it removes the necessity of forcing the author to do so themselves (saving time and space for more meaningful things, for certain definitions of meaningful, and removing a forced out-of-character notation) and doubly so if it's somewhere where it can continue to reinforce that idea. I also have to agree that people that are inclined to ding reviewers purely for rewards recieved (ignorant of the systems that create those rewards) are likely just looking for an excuse to be a donkus.
Short version: I'm against wasting programming time and effort for what amounts to prestidigitation, when it could be spent improving other aspects of the game.
...what? I said short, I didn't say I wouldn't use big words. Such is the cost of brevity.
[SIGPIC]Also, this poster rambles.[/SIGPIC]
eldarth, the 'gold' is part of the loot table...the better part of it actually as it doesn't take up a bag slot.
Quite. Create a super chest and a donkus would use some other irreverent comment to justify 1*
It's one thing authors' getting irritated by trolls - I get irritated by them myself - but when they make suggestions to try to appease trolls and those suggestions, if implemented, would only serve to hurt normal players, I am apt to get a little irritated myself.
They've said in several places that they want Foundry rewards to be comparable to other methods of play. They are not at that point now. Moving the loot from the mobs to a chest wouldn't change that. If they already intend to revamp the system, why would they waste effort to do something like this as a work around till then?
After 38 years of software development I can guarantee if this amounts to more than adding about four lines of code they should fire whoever is hiring developers. And yet the user experience perceived would be incredibly positive.
Encounter Matrix | Advanced Foundry Topics
They can't even get the chest to work as it is now. Sometimes its empty. Sometimes it shows one item, but gives you another. What you are suggesting is a lot more complicated. And its something that would become obsolete when they get around to balancing the rewards.
I'm not understanding something. How is killing 10 mobs and gaining 17 gold and 65 silver pieces they drop somehow different than killing 10 mobs and gaining 12 gold and 50 silver pieces they drop AND then 5 gold and 15 silver pieces from the final chest (which totals the exact same 17 gold and 65 silver).
And I totally don't understand your final sentence -- how does hurt a normal player at all??? I guess if the quest is not completable or the user aborts out of the quest, then they only got 90% of what they previously got from drops??
Encounter Matrix | Advanced Foundry Topics
That's the entire point! It's a four line code fix and they would NEVER have an empty final. And it TOTALLY does not affect "balancing" at all. The total dropped would be IDENTICAL to what it is now. Or even after "balancing."
Encounter Matrix | Advanced Foundry Topics
I'll state my point a bit clearer: The solution you are suggesting is for an entirely different problem, and instead of actually addressing that problem you are instead recommending that they spend coding and development time (period) on hiding it, rather then actually solving the problem.
The problem is people misattributing loot rewards as being the fault of the author. The solution is not to artificially* inflate end-chest rewards to combat this by throwing code at the issue. It's a solution, but one that is entirely too time-intensive to develop (to be clear - I think the entire idea is ridiculously and needlessly overcomplicated, and entirely unlikely to work - any amount of work put into it is therefore a waste.). Instead, they need to do something to make it clear that the author is not responsible for the rewards in that chest. This can be done a number of ways that have less overall code impact or footprint**.
I hope I was a bit clearer this time to avoid future misunderstandings (I'm betting not, frankly, but we'll see).
(*NOTE: If we're just shaving rewards to put in the end chest, it's artificial inflation of rewards and insulting to the player without ever actually addressing the real problem. If you're talking about BONUS rewards, as your statements in this thread can be meant to imply, then it's insulting to Cryptic as you should be more honest about asking for them to increase the rewards on the end-chest in the first place. Rewards are low in the Foundry specifically because people can't be trusted to not abuse it, and even as low as they are, there are still far too many 'farm' type Foundry missions in the game for them to ever truly make them meaningful.)
(**Edited to remove unnecessary argument to, ideally, facilitate discussion staying on topic.)
[SIGPIC]Also, this poster rambles.[/SIGPIC]
I'll bullet point my comments from post #7 as you seemed to have missed them. For good measure, I will add in some more examples of why I think this is a bad idea:
In case you missed it though, this is the really important point - A player who enjoys a quest does not knock off three or four stars because the end chest was empty.
I think you're missing the point. The chest doesn't always work now. So adding 4 lines of code to already broken code isn't going to fix anything. What happens when a player opens your mega loot chest and gets nothing? You don't fix something by making it more complicated. If they wanted to fix the chest bugs they'd need to figure out what in the current code is malfunctioning.
Since they aren't willing or able (not sure which) to do that, what is the chance that they would do something even more complex?
You're not getting it. There is no new mega chest - there is only the same existing final quest chest.
It would be impossible to get nothing anymore -- if "an empty chest" is the "bug" then this totally fixes that. If people feel that the total amount or value of loot dropped is insufficient, then no that still needs to be addressed.
Here's an example that is hopefully a little clearer:
Encounter Matrix | Advanced Foundry Topics
I get what you are trying to say, but I think you're wrong. As far as I know the last chest is never suppose to be empty now. But sometimes it is. Since we don't know what is causing that, we don't know if that bug would continue to exist after you shift all this loot into it.
So again. What happens if this bug continues and players open the chest and get nothing. Now, they lose out on a bunch of stuff instead of just one single item.
I think you're missing his point, actually - his point is the loot code for that chest is broken in it's current state and has been for a while. You are asking them to put more code on an already broken structure, with no real guarantee that it will actually work properly afterwards. Therefore, whatever is causing it to break currently will be there afterwards, and will cause people to instead lose more stuff over time due to this currently existing bug then it does at present.
Which is a fair point if we're still looking to make coding-based solutions for what isn't a coding-based problem. Ideally, they should fix it so that it awards what it's supposed to more consistently first before it's adjusted at all (whether they're working on that or not isn't something I care to speculate on).
[SIGPIC]Also, this poster rambles.[/SIGPIC]
Which idea is over complicated ? (1) Shifting a portion of existing mob loot drops to final chest, or (2) Encounter loot caches? Two completely separate ideas. Are you grouping them? To me (1) is so incredible simplistic a first year developer could handle it, whereas (2) is definitely more involved but still something a 2+ year developer given some time.
Adding a new "popup" involves more development time than simple loot-shifting suggestion -- and, would also still require QA testing.
Encounter Matrix | Advanced Foundry Topics
The former is needlessly overcomplicated for the problem at present - I want to stress needlessly there. Over-designing and over-coding is a common problem, and I feel that your suggestion to the current problem is exactly that. Were it a guarantee that it was the only solution likely to guarantee results, I might be inclined to accept it as more viable (though still low priority), but I don't think that's the case here. You're free to disagree (and likely will).
Don't swing at the straw man, son, you'll waste time for both of us. :U Stay on topic.
EDIT: Come to think of it, I'm going to remove that from my previous comment to discourage either of us from wasting further time discussing it. S'pointless. Leaving this (and the notation here) as evidence it happened, and apologize for it's inclusion in the first place. Then I'm getting coffee to try and maintain staying on-topic and less adversarial myself. My bad.
[SIGPIC]Also, this poster rambles.[/SIGPIC]
True. IF the bug is that the final chest has 4 items allocated to it, and it is only display 0-1 of the items, then yes adding loot shifting would merely accomplish losing more. IF, however, the bug is in the determination/generation algorithm for the contents of the final chest -- then this would insure a never empty loot chest, or one with only a skill item. As I recall seeing more than 1 item in a final chest (although it may have been awhile) I lean towards the final chest loot generation algorithm.
Encounter Matrix | Advanced Foundry Topics
I like your idea with the money though. A bulk amount to go with the token would look nice at the end. The same for potions and what not.
What gets me is the chest being empty. Player's take it as an insult sometimes. If they just gave people a reason to play foundry quest plays would rocket.
Having been lucky enough to get on the best list I was surprised by the amount of plays. It's a good quest but I wouldn't say it stands out.
At the end of the day it comes down to one thing, people are only playing 2 a day for the daily and they take them from the best or featured tab. Often searching for the short ones. they then replay them each day.
Tokens would allow people to play as many as they like and still be rewarded for doing so.
Okay, I'll take a stab at it...
I'm apparently missing the over-designing and over-coding there somewhere.
Encounter Matrix | Advanced Foundry Topics
To clarify in the most blunt and direct fashion possible - You are throwing code at a problem that does not necessarily require a code solution, and being a prat about your experience with systems and code-bases you have no personal experience with. Spare me the latter, and we can at least pretend to debate the former like civilized adults.
Or you can just say otherwise and we can do that instead until this thread gets moderated or locked because of it. I'm fine with either.
EDIT: Also technically, your juvenile understanding of the systems in place would require instead a stop-gap in a number of places. First, you'd have to include a line in the loot code to check whether the mob is or is not in the Foundry (as you are now applying special rules on loot SPECIFICALLY to Foundry mobs only). If mob=Foundry, reference Loot_CodeB, else Loot_CodeA (where Loot_CodeA is the current way the game uses to determine dropped loot from mobs. That's one line). Loot_CodeB then has to run a special function to drop only n% of what Loot_CodeA would have dropped for that mob (RNG function, if result is n or less, send loot to StorageBinA, else Drop as normal) only when loot is determined to be dropped (two lines of code). StorageBinA (where end reward chests for Foundry Missions goes, which we can presume to already be different from standard quest reward chests - if it even is, I'm not sure) would then need to have it's database entry extended such that it could actually retain any data that's supposed to be sent to it dynamically as opposed to making it (what appears to be) a standard loot roll (hence the lack of guarantee), or whatever system is currently in place. I don't care to hazard a guess as to how many lines of code that would take, the additional load on the server, or what size the database would have to be.
Hooray, thought exercises.
[SIGPIC]Also, this poster rambles.[/SIGPIC]
That discounts one line of code, possibly. It depends entirely on whether they would have to modify that exception or not. The majority of the problem, to me, would be in the 'shaving' in the first place and the fact that there would have to be a dynamic database inclusion and the building of that database. From my experience, that's a bit more then one line of code. :U
Also worth a shout out to the Scarecrow, as if we're going to talk about one straw man we may as well give credit to another.
My original point was (and is still) that at present, adding an official statement that Foundry authors have no control over loot someplace it is more likely to be read is a better solution to lead off with before we go off throwing additional code at the problem. I find it unnecessary to lead with code when there are other, simpler solutions, particularly when other authors have already instituted those measures (though not holistically - that's the point of an official statement somewhere where it will have a chance to better populate in the minds of the playerbase). Something as simple as one extra line detailing the scenario in the Daily quest from Rhix and possibly Neverember in the future, or a measure I've also seen is an additional Interact text for Foundry loot chests stating that the Author has no control over loot (one that has worked successfully from my viewpoint, which I fully admit is a subjective analysis of little worth).
If that doesn't work, then we can start looking into other measures. If the amount of effort is going to be the same, I don't see the point (necessarily) in going through and <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> around with loot code when it's not necessary just yet. That just complicates the loot code.
[SIGPIC]Also, this poster rambles.[/SIGPIC]
+1 rep for you!