Future of Loot Rats and Lohnar's Emporium

Which is exactly why I propose having multiple sources of Shilling income (daily quests, weekly quests, loot rats, books, loot dice, etc. etc.) so that it doesn’t just end up being the “mobile game curse” where it’s the game that decides when you stop playing, rather than the player.

However, in order to support multiple sources of Shilling obtainment, the cosmetics themselves also have to cost more than a few so that people won’t just be able to buy out the entire Emporium in a couple of grind-fueled days.

Therefore, I don’t think it’s the same difference. One is restrictive (having to rely on timed daily quests as the only source of Shilling income) and the other is a grind (having multiple sources of Shillings that can be completed in the players’ own time and comfort, but having the cosmetics cost marginally more by comparison).

6 Likes

In the end though the rate of buying cosmetics would be the same. I agree that more options to get them feels better to the player though.

1 Like

I’m guessing cosmetics are going to cost a lot of shillings. I mean, they did say that people who have the DLC’S and have done the weekly/dailies will be rewarded for what they have already done. That’s 50 something shillings right there for the weekly quests. God knows how many dailies I’ve done. But I don’t recall the last time I logged in and had stacked up my dailies to the point of being maxed at 3. So yea, 7 shillings per week over 1 and half years since the quest system was introduced.

I mean, long time players will probably be sitting on 400+ shillings when it goes live. At least if I understand correctly the system they are putting in place.

I support this suggestion =3

2 Likes

To be honest. I think frankly the biggest change that needs to happen is fixing it’s AI. The stupid thing spooks way too easily and more likely than nots runs directly at you, willfully leaping into the cold arms of death.

If loot rats were significantly harder to get I’d be all down for them to throw in rare chances of cosmetic loot. But as they are right now? Probably not.

1 Like

Hey can you show me where they said that?

If you are referring to this i think it only means the ownership of DLC’s will grant you shillings retroactively. The inclusion of that sentence was maybe to prevent questions about already owning a DLC, although the previous sentence was pretty unequivocal.

3 Likes

Fatshark have never retroactively awarded players before, why would they make an exception here. In fact they have always done the exact opposite, penalise long standing players and make them start from zero.

1 Like

They gave people retroactive clears when Cataclysm was not counting towards the 100 clears helmets for people.

1 Like

Didn’t know that. However let’s look at a few others:

No challenges unlocked when Okri’s book first came out based on things players had already done 100s of times
No awarding of hats or reds when they increased drop chances
No auto unlocking of characters to level 35 when players are already at +100s of levels
No auto unlocking of cataclysm when players had already killed lords 100s of times

That’s hardly exhaustive and just off the top of my head.

What, you don’t like playing +600 hours to get a single cosmetic - or wasting hours rerolling one or two items, including dumping hundreds of dusts?

If Vermintide does anything as well as it does core combat alone, its wasting players time with insulting timegating in crafting worse than f2p games.

The Okri’s challenges one was because the stats needed weren’t tracked beforehand, and thus couldn’t be awarded retroactively. Some of them were tracked, and those got activated immediately. I’ve no idea how awarding rare items could’ve been done fairly with the drop rate changes. The five-level extra grind was so that people would be on equal standing. Opening cataclysm was, to the best of my knowledge, so that returning players would get at least some experience in the new mechanics (and Beastmen, probably) before getting their butts kicked in Cata (and getting extra frustrated).

All of these have reasons, some worse and some better. In the Emporium’s case, it was stated in Friday’s stream: the limits on earning Shillings are so that the casual ones who play a couple of hours every weekend and the overly enthusiastic players who do full working days playing the game have closer to equal chances of getting the cosmetics. If Shillings were unlimited, but the prices were high, the cosmetics would be unreachable for the casuals. If everything was retroactively rewarded, the experienced players could buy out the store immediately. It’s a balancing act.

And on the original topic: It could be interesting (and fair in normal play), but as @mr_sp1ce pointed out, Twitch mode needs to be taken into account. It’s one thing to generate a dozen dice on a run so that you only need one Tome to fill out the loot bar; it’s another to bypass overall limitations just because you play with a certain modifier. I guess a different loot table could be a solution (like @LordRhinark said), but I don’t know how practical it is. It also depends on the actual value of Shillings; if the cheapest cosmetics are available on one Shilling, getting them from Loot Rats is probably a bit much; if the cheapest are five or ten, then an occasional “free” one probably doesn’t hurt.

3 Likes

I could of sworn it was stated somewhere that we would be rewarded retroactively for what we’ve already done. Perhaps it was in the AMA, I could very well be mistaken.

I don’t think there was anything in the AMA about that, but you may want to rewatch Friday’s stream for that. It was talked about, and I think there was some talk about retroactive rewards, but I don’t remember what it was exactly.

Personally, I think it’s highly unlikely that we’d get all our dailies retroactively rewarded as that’d be a ton of Shillings for anyone who’s been active since Okri’s was put out. Weeklies are a different matter; they’re limited anyway.

2 Likes

I love this idea. 11/10.

Personally, I always chase loot rats purely for the entertainment value. I can’t resist the sounds of the sweet tinkle of loot and their high-pitched ‘mine!’ cries. Have shamelessly thrown a few runs and regret nothing.

Would have to do something about Twitch mode, though.

2 Likes

It concerns DLC. You will retroactively earn shillings based on the DLC you already bought, since buying a DLC will now gives you shilling.

2 Likes

Consider me a minority but I don’t like this idea at all. The first one with the Sack Rat is far to disruptive. I don’t like gameplay elements that abuses the greed of players so that in the middle of the horde our front line scream “To death and glory!” abandoning his team, hunting for a loot rat, leading to a wipe. This is not calculated risk as not the team but single persons make the decision.

I’m especially against the idea of Tomes and Grimoires awarding Shillings. The communities obsession with Grimoires is already bad and can be considered a metagame where the curse of the Grim is warping their minds so that they cant complete a level anymore without picking it up. This behvaiour should not be further amplified leading to players rage quitting the game the moment one grim is lost. If I would be evil I would even go as far and say that actively destroying a Grim should be rewarded with Shillings as it shows the players resolve to destroy a dangerous object over the chance to get better loot. But this would lead only to more discussions and is equally not good.

I am not against more chances for Shillings. But it should be something which can only be done if the whole team agrees to it like … um … fighting an optional arena fight (boring example) aside from the main route. This fight would only trigger if every player is alive and gets there. And it should be hard enough that everytime you do it, it risks a wipe. But this would be calculated risk as everyone has to agree and not one person bringing demise to the whole team.

1 Like

Now that I think about it, there’d be another hurdle if Sack Rats were to award Shillings even intermittently. They’d need to reward everyone on the team to prevent (probably quite serious) nastiness.

While books go to anyone who’s willing to take them (and affect everyone equally), dice don’t make things difficult and affect everyone, and consumables don’t affect that much (and usually go on the basis of who needs one or has room), Shillings would affect only one person (by default, as everyone has their own account) and could be considered pretty important by some players. So if Sack Rats did drop them and they didn’t appear for everyone, either on kill, on pickup or even like Art, to be picked up by everyone separately, there’d be a major cause for nastiness and kicking.

Then, even if it was only one Shilling out of whatever the average and cheapest cosmetics cost, their value on Sack Rats would multiply in practice, up to quadruple. I’m not certain FS wants that kind of surge on gaining them.

1 Like

This sounds like a design flaw with the Sack Rat in general, regardless of them getting Shillings added to the drop table or not.

There’s always going to be some people that’ll leave the rest of the team behind in order to run after the rat in the slight chance it drops a Loot Die or something.

It was definitely just a side suggestion. Tomes and Grims should, as they always have, reward EXP and better gear first and foremost.

I’d much rather have Shillings as a drop from Sack Rats than make Books even more of a requirement to (optimally) complete maps.

Besides, there’s already players that rage quit the game if a Grim is lost, and this is even without them rewarding Shillings.

Side objectives was something that was attempted with Weaves, which ended up being very mediocre, and I doubt we’ll ever see side objectives added to the main game at all.

Plus, I feel like they’d be too disruptive myself. Let’s say you’re on The Screaming Bell and you’re trying to get your butts to the Bell ASAP but you just decide to take a detour in the middle to go fight a gauntlet of enemies. It doesn’t really flow that well, in my opinion at least.

(Not saying that looking for Tomes and Grims are less disruptive, but those have been a staple of Vermintide for a long time so I doubt they’ll be removed at all).

From what I can gather, you’re making team communication out to be the sole player here. Every problem here, Sack Rats dropping them and Tomes & Grims rewarding them, places heavy emphasis on “it’s not something the whole team has agreed to”, in comparison to implementing these side objectives, which is “something everyone has to agree to” by stepping into a pre-determined area.

What’s the problem with just, you know, communicating with the team?

Besides, it’s not like team games can’t have any individualism in them whatsoever. The core of the game should, obviously, be to play as a team, but every player should be able to make their own decisions without “everyone on the team having to agree to it”.

In my opinion at least.

Isn’t the solution to this issue quite simple?

Why not just have the Shilling drop grant everyone on the team the same amount of Shillings, just as Loot Die affects everyone on the team as well?

It is a “design flaw” of the sackrat if you want so. But there is no reason to worse this flaw even if in-game tooltips suggest otherwise. Same can be said about the Grimoires. Why risk worsening an already existing problem? But it was just an example, so we let it go that it wasnt a very well chosen one.

As for the communication aspect. I can communicate all day long. It doesnt stop the original problem. That a single person can overturn any discussion with a single action. If three people say “Nope, let it go.”, the fourth one can still scream “Teeeeeeaaammmm Wiiiiiippppppppeee” and go after the sack rat or whatever ingenious ways for more Shillings the community can think of. So communication doesnt solve the problem.

If people want more reward then it is fine and should be accompanied with more risk or even a more disruptive run. But I stay with my opinion that it should be something which has to happen in consent of all human players. And to actually force another gate on it, only if all people are alive. I mean people can still decide to ruin a run but not give them a “reason” why they did. This doesnt hinder individualism for the rest of the run in any way.

Because, as I said, it’d effectively multiply the value of those Shillings. In a full game, that Sack Rat just provided effectively quadruple the shillings as everyone got them. While there’s no real economy to upset, it could still be too valuable to miss. But again, that really depends on how easy FS wants getting Shillings to be, and how valuable a single one (or whatever you’d get from the sack) ends up being. I’m not saying it needs to be a significant hurdle, but it’s certainly something to take into consideration.

1 Like