Can we get a /players 6 command?

"

Sickness wrote:

It's nigh impossible to make them offer the exact same rate of progression, but there is absoultely no reason why the easier have to be far better than the harder.

Best availble rate of progresson should be in the the hardest setting, but it should require really stong characters and very experienced players to achive.

What in the world are you talking about?
Easier = faster killing = faster character/quest/gear progression.
Harder = slower killing = slower character/quest/gear progression.

Unless the harder offered better xp/loot rewards, but that would throw the entire ranking/league structure on end. I.E. they would have to be separate leagues.

"

WhiteBoy88 wrote:

What in the world are you talking about?
Easier = faster killing = faster character/quest/gear progression.
Harder = slower killing = slower character/quest/gear progression.

Unless the harder offered better xp/loot rewards, but that would throw the entire ranking/league structure on end. I.E. they would have to be separate leagues.

Yes, that is what I am talking about.

Why would it "throw the entire ranking/league structure on end"?
And even if that is true, why can't we just choose to not participate in the ladders if we would rather have a game that challenges us all the way and not just in the last quarter of the game?

So there should be one league where no one can party because that enables cheating, and another seperate league where people can play in groups together or use /players X to simulate a group.

You are a cheater if you play in a group and kill/ loot without help from your teammates.

As far as I know /playersX wasn't available on closed battle.net.
It was a single player command (dunno about open bn/lan).

There must be some reason behind that :>

"

ness wrote:

As far as I know /playersX wasn't available on closed battle.net.
It was a single player command (dunno about open bn/lan).

Introduced in 1.09 and usable everywhere except closed b.net

"

ness wrote:

There must be some reason behind that :>

Can't find anything on that, so we are left with speculation.

In any case, this is PoE. So I would imagine that GGG would have their own reason for doing / not doing something similar.

Unless of course the reason was that the world would end if they did it ;)

But seriously, this is not about why Blizzard did or did not do something with D2 - If it was, we could debate that PoE should have a shitty inventory because Blizzard did, and we suspect they did so because it was the best since sliced bread.

And this is not really about Poe having the exact mechanic that D2 did with /player x - This is about having some sort of mechanic that will let players adjust the difficulty upwards (and not necessarily for any gain in loot / exp).

"

ness wrote:

As far as I know /playersX wasn't available on closed battle.net.
It was a single player command (dunno about open bn/lan).

There must be some reason behind that :>

Yeah, d2 wasn't perfect.

Im not gonna lie, but I think its time to consider a Casual league (For those guys that whine about everything, I got a friend that would fit in here perfectly)

And then maybe a Hard league, whereas it would be +4 players difficulty at all times.

Party of 6? More like party of 10.

Jesus. So much spergy crap in this thread.

I'd love an option to increase the difficulty without having to go to different acts and such. A chat command like /players 6 to increase the difficulty and loot drops would be very welcome, as long as it's actually difficult and not just the norm that everybody uses.

Or better yet, an option to choose the difficulty of an instance when it's loaded.

"

Riney wrote:

...
And then maybe a Hard league, whereas it would be +4 players difficulty at all times. ...

I would join that league with my friends, and enjoy PoE more. Especially if it was a Hard Hardcore league =). I like to play when there is great(er) risk of dying/losing.

I read most of the posts pages 1-4 and 7. But I basically got enough out of them. There's also way more than enough points brought up for me to decide on a position.

I believe the /players x command is the wrong way to solve the debated issue of difficulty/desire. This command would ruin competitive play within ladders, as well as any desires to party aside from friends. I also believe it would severely disrupt current or future loot tables/drop rates. The only way to balance said drop rates with this system is to balance it as if everyone had it on, and decreasing it for lower "difficulties".

The easiest solution for this would be the mentioned separate leagues for difficulty levels. Though this could easily divide the player base to thinly creating dead leagues. Which would be a risky move requiring a large player base, along side the risk of dividing player base thinly. This would make things not only difficult for new players trying to find a home to settle into, but also make short-term leagues less impacting. (In theory).

So my final standpoint on this is as it was before reading any of this. I believe the difficulty curve when progressing through acts should be steepened dramatically.

A few points to argue on this matter that I recall reading.

1. The difference between new players, and veterans creating power gaps.

There will DEFINITELY be resources via this website for good builds. Most new players, after looking at the passive web, will be referencing these and will be able to progress with super builds that veterans have put extensive time in creating. A new player who doesn't do this is more times than not ready to try and fail while creating a build of their own while learning more of the game.

2. People may find the game to challenging and quit.

Players with such flimsy dedication will be quitting in the following week or so because of the boringly easy endless grinding and farming anyway, these are not the kind of people any company should cater to. You'll lose more player base from ease, as opposed to difficulty.

I've already expressed ways to better implement this in a different thread. That's not even the topic for debate though.