Treasure Pool Suggestions

[Zadimortis]

I propose two minor (though I cannot speak for the coding side) quality-of-life changes with regard to how items in the treasure lot pool are treated, which should help prevent player mishaps.


1.) Let items that are to be dropped due to full inventory or having a copy of the same item be put back into the lot pool, with all passes kept intact but all lots wiped.
- Example: Three friends defeat Briareus, and a Helm drops. Person A wants the helm, and is at 79/80 inventory. Friends B and C pass the helm, and Person A lots the helm. Now say that an item in the treasure pool is distributed to Person A before the Helm is distributed.
-- Current system: The helm is lost. Rage ensues.
-- Proposed system: The helm is put back into the treasure pool with all passes kept intact, and all former lots reset. (that is, Person A has not lotted it, and friends B and C have passed it.)
The only way to get an item to drop from the pool is if everyone unanimously passes it, or if there are ten items in the pool, Person A doesn't clear his/her inventory, and an eleventh item drops, pushing it out of the treasure pool.


2.) Let stackable items automatically be sorted into the player's existing stack upon retrieval and not require an extra empty item slot.
- Example: Same three friends from above defeat Briareus again, and this time two Helms drop. Person A lots both helms and friends B and C immediately pass, but unbeknownst to Person A, (s)he is at 79/80 inventory.
-- Current system: One helm is acquired, setting Person A's inventory to 80/80, and the second helm is lost. Rage ensues.
-- Proposed system: One helm is acquired, then the second is auto-sorted to the stack of helms, despite Person A being at 80/80 items.
This has the added benefit of easing solo players who acquire large amounts of 'farming' material (crystals, Bat Wings, Lizard Tails, etc.) so their inventory doesn't fill up with one of everything when it could fill up with twelve of everything, increase incentive for auction/sale, and help improve the crafter's market. This would also speed up Voidwatch participants' clearing of the chest, as it would sort all 'dem gems and Crystal Freaking Petrifacts.


These are my suggestions. I welcome commentary and critique, and yes, while I realize that both situations are totally avoidable with proper inventory planning, we all make mistakes, and most players at higher levels require most or all of their inventory just for gear - every slot counts. The latter of the two examples given above is based on a true story, and is what inspired this idea in the first place. I believe such implementations to the treasure pool would improve the lives of the players and would be worthwhile investments of effort.

[Demon6324236]

I like the idea, few spelling errors you may wanna fix like point 1.2 where "Raeg ensues" but overall I wish this would happen because it would save a lot of people some anger and time. Another thing, I would like to add on a suggestion if you do not mind, since this thread exists and I honestly never thought about making a post just for it.

A new Treasure Pool setting. Normal and Quartermaster are kind of 2 extremes, everything is free to lot and everything goes to a chosen person. The new one would be a cross, allowing the party/alliance leader to choose who gets what. The menu would be similar to the normal pool, however once you select an item the choices would be...
-Choose Recipient, allows the leader to choose a member in the party who the item is then 'locked' to, disabling the other party members from lotting it, and allowing that player to lot it.
-Allow Lotting, allows all party members to lot the item as normal.

This would basically be something we have been doing for years, but with an official system for it. Say you do Rani, you are doing it for your friend to get their Epona Ring, at the same time, you are bringing 3 people along who want the win. The Ring is 'locked' to your friend, so they will get it, but you do not have to waste the Grip or Earring like with Quartermaster, and can instead choose to 'Freelot' them, so that they may get the items, but not the ring. This same thing goes with when doing Emp weapons, you could lock Sobek Skins to 1 person, and let the +2s go free. I am sure we have all had a time the wrong person got some Emp items, and its especially bad when someone does not even need them, and gets them. At the same time you can not Quartermaster it because if you did then they would get all of the +2s as well, which would be very bad, especially if they don't even need them.

This is basically a mix between the two we have now, as well as working in the Locked/FL system the community already uses itself, however this would be a much safer and more official way of going about it. If a third option to lock items to multiple people were possible though, that would also be great for events like PW or Legion where you lock certain items before the fight, and multiple people may be on an item, which would make this system impossible to use without being able to select multiple people with a lock on the item.

[Zadimortis]

"Raeg" is mocking the meme, and is intended to be one of those Joke things. I'm aware of how it's properly spelled, lol. Fixed it anyway.

That's an interesting idea. I'm pretty sure SE would frown upon locking in items before they even drop, but certainly a leader could be given the option (under this new treasure setting) to select a Recipient, which then force-passes the drop for everyone but the selected person (so the person still has to lot the item, but can only do so when their inventory is clear, and it goes straight to them). No idea how difficult that would be to implement coding-side, but it would relieve a lot of stress and possibility for error for event/linkshell leaders.

[Demon6324236]

I'm pretty sure SE would frown upon locking in items before they even drop, but certainly a leader could be given the option (under this new treasure setting) to select a Recipient, which then force-passes the drop for everyone but the selected person (so the person still has to lot the item, but can only do so when their inventory is clear, and it goes straight to them). No idea how difficult that would be to implement coding-side, but it would relieve a lot of stress and possibility for error for event/linkshell leaders.Its not to lock the item before the drop, but rather after. The leader would be able to select a certain player to get the item in question, or if possible, select many players who could lot it, while others could not. It would be done after the items dropped as normal, but its really a cross between what we have now. Right now either everything goes to a single person, or everything goes to the pool for everyone to lot, this is simply adding a bit of complexity to it by allowing the items to goto the pool, but then the leader is choosing who is getting what, or who can lot what.

Also sorry about the spelling thing, it just caught my eye so I thought I would point it out. :x

[Zadimortis]

Its not to lock the item before the drop, but rather after. The leader would be able to select a certain player to get the item in question, or if possible, select many players who could lot it, while others could not. It would be done after the items dropped as normal, but its really a cross between what we have now. Right now either everything goes to a single person, or everything goes to the pool for everyone to lot, this is simply adding a bit of complexity to it by allowing the items to goto the pool, but then the leader is choosing who is getting what, or who can lot what.

Also sorry about the spelling thing, it just caught my eye so I thought I would point it out. :x

Got it, misread part of it the first time. And that's fine. I did fix it because I realized it's more of an inside joke than I originally thought, lol.

[Demon6324236]

Its basically the locking system the player base uses now, but with more control in the leader's hands to disallow rule breaking. A more official version of our currently in use system basically, just more secure. Sadly though even if it is a good idea, SE will never actually do anything about it probably.