Can we get a /players 6 command?

"

Skizo wrote:

"

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

Because it was a cheat that offered unfair advantage on a ranked ladder.

"

Skizo wrote:

"

ness wrote:

There must be some reason behind that :>

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

Or we are left with ignoring the painfully obvious fact that it was meant as a cheat command to simulate a party in single-player, and open bnet/tcp-ip simply because they are extensions of the single-player version...

"

Sickness wrote:

"

jawsofhana wrote:

It is a loot issue. Nothing more, nothing less. And because of this, it can not be implemented fairly.

Ofcourse it can. Why couldn't it? Because you said so?

The reasons are explained in the post you obviously were too lazy to read. :P

"

jawsofhana wrote:

"

Sickness wrote:

"

jawsofhana wrote:

It is a loot issue. Nothing more, nothing less. And because of this, it can not be implemented fairly.

Ofcourse it can. Why couldn't it? Because you said so?

The reasons are explained in the post you obviously were too lazy to read. :P

Your post was quite useless as you ignored the fact that it takes longer to kill in /players 6, so just because there are higher droprates doesn't mean that you can get loot faster.

"

Sickness wrote:

Your post was quite useless as you ignored the fact that it takes longer to kill in /players 6, so just because there are higher droprates doesn't mean that you can get loot faster.

Sure, but you have highly improved MF and no one else fighting for the loot. Therefore, better loot at a higher rate.

"

WhiteBoy88 wrote:

Sure, but you have highly improved MF and no one else fighting for the loot. Therefore, better loot at a higher rate.

Higher MF but each mob takes longer to kill. If it's higher loot rate or not depends on how much the difficulty increases and how much the drop rate increases.
Those are both very simple to change to achive balance so when you come with blanket statements like that you only make yourself look stupid.

"

Sickness wrote:

Those are both very simple to change to achive balance so when you come with blanket statements like that you only make yourself look stupid.

I was speaking specifically about /players x in D2, not how it could work if done differently. There's no reason to insult here.

Still, with the current balancing in PoE, 1 person can kill with great speed in a full party. Obviously, a lot would have to change to balance this. Anyway, there are no numbers being discussed here, so any theory could work "if balanced properly." That's just as much of a blanket statement as any, and it's been the most-used one here (alluded to, anyway).

The earlygame has to be easy to let new players gently into the game. If you look at Diablo 1 you would also start a character in lowest difficulty and then continue in higher levels. Starting at higher levels was generally not a good idea for obvious reasons.

What this game needs is a challenging endgame and not a flawed farming-feature like the suggested.
Also it is premature to discuss this kind of feature in general:
They have stated for a long time, that a real endgame is in development and they are working on more monster-abilities to crank up the difficulty in the existing game. If those features are not enough you can wait for the flask and regen-challenging leagues.
If you are really hardcore: Play in the weekly ladderraces and show your skill in leveling or clearing areas.

Patience is a virtue!

"

WhiteBoy88 wrote:

I was speaking specifically about /players x in D2, not how it could work if done differently. There's no reason to insult here.

Right. However, the post you quoted wasn't specificly about /players x in d2.

"

WhiteBoy88 wrote:

any theory could work "if balanced properly." That's just as much of a blanket statement as any, and it's been the most-used one here (alluded to, anyway).

That is indeed a blanket statement, and it's also incorrect.
But saying that a theory can work is not a blanket statement.


You are right that there are lots of those statements used here. I found some examples:

"

WhiteBoy88 wrote:

I agree. That's why I said "...it's not properly balanced yet."

"

WhiteBoy88 wrote:

The current system has the potential to be challenging for all players; it just needs to find balance.

"

WhiteBoy88 wrote:

No, I just believe that the potential of this system far outweighs the desire for another system.

So apparently the current system is good because it can be balanced, and yet what I support is bad because it needs do be balanced?

That doesn't make any sense at all.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Gorlak make a post a while ago about some players using alt accounts to increase party size, thus improving drop rates for a single person? AND didn't GGG say that it was in no way against the rules OR considered an exploit?

That to me makes the /p6 argument completely irrelevant.

GGG - why set up a system where your servers must keep track of 6 accounts and all associated bandwidth? Are you really expecting to make SO much money, that wasting resources in this way is acceptable? Do you really think that people WON'T do this from the very first level? If even a quarter of the players do this, thats 1000's of extra accounts. Makes no sense to me.

Plain and Simple - If there is a benefit to partying, and a way to simulate said partying (alt accounts) people WILL do it, and in great numbers.

I honestly don't know the outcome of this challenge... but I challenge anyone to name an MMO where alt accounts are available and NOT used by a majority of the player base to get some sort of advantage.

Hmmm.. well.. I actually think this makes less sense. You seem to be contradicting yourself.

"

Sickness wrote:

/players 6 would solve alot of problems concering game difficulity for new players Vs veterans.

"

Sickness wrote:

Solution: Offer different difficulities. Very simple. That is essentially exactly what "/players 6" would do.

"

Sickness wrote:

Playing with multiple people is not an intended way to make the game more challenging.

"

Sickness wrote:

If you instead just could change the difficulity at will so that you can constantly keep yourself at precisely the level of challenge you want that would simply be better than the current way.

"

Sickness wrote:

A party-simulation command is exactly the same as choosing difficulity levels (when not in a full party). There is no reason why higher difficulity shouldn't give more reward. Infact that is exactly what it should do.

First.. you're saying more players = more difficulty
Then.. more players =/= more challenge
Then.. difficulty = more challenge

A=B and A=/=C, B=C?

I agree with Whiteboy. It's a cheat. With the /players 6 command you're getting 375% more experience than people who are in a real party of 6. You're also getting 250% more loot all to yourself without having to invest anything in Magic Finding gear. More currency, more rare items, more recipes to fulfill all without having to compromise anything except more time to kill the enemies. If GGG created a single player mode, then /players x would be a great 'feature'. A great time saver. But there is no dedicated single player. If you want better rewards, then you're meant to accept certain compromises to get them such as actually partying.