Can we get a /players 6 command?
" Your doing a lot of assuming, and you fail completely to realize how enormous the gap between a "bad" character and a "good" actually is in this game. Not to mention how much information to really need to absorb and comprehend in order to build a very strong character. And the entire point of /player x is so give the players control over how hard (above baseline) they want the game. There is no way that GGG can balance this (for PVM) so that everyone finds a challenge and yet also can complete the game (complete as in actually complete it, and not just go through normal) And they really need people to stay and play well beyond normal - a player going through normal and then quitting is far less likely to spend money in the cash shop, than a player who plays for years. Still sane exile?
|
|
" This is a very bad idea. There is a very good reason this was not available on anything but open battlenet/singleplayer. If this was to work, they would have to remove the increased amount of better loot. And thus remove the main incentive to party at all. 6 players in a party translates to a lot better droprates. This is okay, because it is shared/split among the partymembers. When one person have 6 simulated members, he gets all that loot. It is basically a cheat to gain better items much faster than you would in a regular 6 man party. And 10x faster than you would from just playing normal 'singleplayer'. -------------- All that being said, I do agree that the game is too easy at the moment. The only time you can possibly die while paying attention, is if you meet reflect mobs while your resists/armor are still low. Which is a mistake you only do once. What we need are more mobs like the Ranger AoE skeleton, and mobs that use support gems; like the multiple projectile mages. It would also be nice with mobs that use shield charge, teleport, flicker strike, cold slowing magic (would make the remove frozen flasks useful) and other skills that would make you stop tapping the left mouse button and actually think for a moment. "That's how you die properly, Sailor Boy.."
|
|
|
The other way to die, wich is a mistake you can do many times is not seing the aura reflect enemy because the game zoom is too close... So the mob gets in range without you seing it and in less than the second it takes for you to cast the area of effect skill/spell, your targets become land mines and you die.
No way to avoid it. I had the honor to test this myself. "It feels like holding my breath under water constantly." Me about the limited "life expectancy" of the inventory space on Path of Exile and frequent needs to go to town to unload. Last edited by Interesting#4599 on Jan 21, 2012, 7:55:02 AM
|
|
"No, I don't fail to understand. I just disagree that "not every player is able to beat the hardest difficulty" is any kind of problem. The fact that not everyone needs to do it is what further difficulty settings are for. Do you disagree with that? Do you seriously want to build games that everyone can finish, no matter how little effort they're prepared to put into understanding the game? I mean I'm looking forward to the re-release of Dear Esther at the moment, a game in which the only thing you really have to "do" is walk across an island completely unchallenged. That still requires you to be able to use a keyboard, at least. What if someone decided they really wanted to get to the end but refused to think about what the arrow keys do, or get used to looking around with the mouse? Oh no! What a failed, unbalanced game! Games that everyone is guaranteed to be able to finish are generally called "films". For everything else, thinking it should be guaranteed that you're going to be able to do every last bit of a game with no effort put into learning it is just selfish, deluded nonsense. Those of us who are good at these games didn't get there by magic, we just paid attention and stopped to think now and then. That's not something to be afraid of. And I don't care about some need to drag the game out to get more cash out of people. I'm talking about game design, not profiteering. GGG can speak and act for themselves on that front. |
|
" Don't forget that it also becomes harder. It only becomes faster to gain items if the standard difficulty was too easy for you in the first place! And if that is the case then being able to play on a harder difficulty setting will make the game alot more fun for you. Where is the downside exactly? Is it the speciifcs in the risk/reward ratio? That can easily be tweaked. Last edited by Sickness#1007 on Jan 21, 2012, 8:55:48 AM
|
|
" Then please try and argue the case - you cant just say well I disagree so all your points mean nothing. " Yes " You can drop the stupid hyperbole - I never said anything like that. " Now your just being stupid on purpose. Try and stay on point. " Again I never said that. So please stop being stupid on purpose. " You might not care - but if GGG does not make money of the game, you wont be able to play it - its that simple. ------------ All that said, I don't intend to argue with you further, its is VERY apparent that your a close minded, have a tendency towards stupid hyperbole and you totally missed all points by the biggest possible margin. Still sane exile?
|
|
"But apparently you can just call me stupid and all my points mean nothing. Cool. In case you didn't notice, I was arguing the point by analogy. It's not simple hyperbole, it's not "being stupid on purpose", it's..."induction" (for lack of a better word); you show one end exists and you prove the principle exists. So when you say: "you miss that you were supposed to answer anyway, even though it's seemingly outside the domain of the problem at hand. Because it isn't actually outside that domain, when you're looking at principle. It's quite important to the point. There are two possibilities here in direct opposition: either you believe that everyone should be able to finish the game without expending effort of any sort...or you don't. If you don't believe that, then you necessarily believe that it's okay for some people not to beat the game. At least, if there are people who aren't prepared to learn. If such people don't exist then there's no problem in the first place (which also happens to coincide with my thesis). And if you believe that it's okay for some people not to beat the game, then...wait, am I done already? "Yes yes, I'm well aware of that. But the reverse is also true; they're not going to get my money if they let profit-seeking compromise good game design. All I'm doing is speaking for myself. If you think a long, easy game is the best way for GGG to earn your money, that's great, that's yours to post and I don't need to cover it in my posts too. But you're not going to argue. That's fine. Getting insulted every time I step past the first-order literal would get boring pretty quick. Last edited by GusTheCrocodile#5954 on Jan 21, 2012, 10:06:51 AM
|
|
" That conclusion is irrelevant. It does in no way make a case against a new difficulty system that has been discussed in this thread (/players 6 etc). Here is a fact: People have different preferences regarding difficulty level. Why not just accept that and offer different difficulty levels? It doesn't have to be an infinite amount of them to cater to every single player. 2 is better than 1. |
|
"Agreed. |
|
" 1: I did not call you stupid, I called you intentionally stupid - Hugh difference. 2: You missed the point, and you are still missing the point. --------------------------------------------- I'll make an attempt to simplify the point I was making. 1: There are many mechanics in game 2: Each mechanic on its own is quite complex (Passive, gem, item and item mods, quest rewards). 3: The spread (if you will) between good and bad characters is enormous in this game. 4: The above guarantees that no matter how easy or difficult GGG makes the game, there will be people who think it is too hard, and some that think it is way too easy. Now you can argue 1, 2 and 3 - Obviously I cant prove that 3 is true, but I have played enough with others to see first hand how big the spread is - especially for 60+ chars - and we are talking orders of magnitude faster at killing, and better at taking damage. I think 1 and 2 really don't need a lot of arguments if you played the game for any significant amount of time. The suggestion at hand, with flaws and all, is actually pretty good if you reduce it to the basic premise: Give players control over difficulty (beyond the 4(5?) at hand) Obviously you need to establish some baseline, and I think the current difficulty (for a new untwinked character) in normal, cruel, ruthless and merciless is pretty good (at least for some builds - but this is beta, so lots is going to change) Still sane exile?
|
|
