Unpopular Opinion: League Challenges Should Require Solo Completion

They've given no indication they've even come close to changing any of their points about the game in those links. If anything they've continued to double down. But reinterpret everything any way you want to fit your unpopular opinion that's not gonna happen I guess. You've also really not provided any explanation for why it would be good for the company, just vague nonsense about pride in challenge completion that's simply a non-issue and does NOT make the game better or make the company more money. Which again, you can be stubborn if you want, but it is literally the exact stated purpose of SSF.

"

Toforto#2372 wrote:

It quite literally is forced SSF, this is an objective fact. And its never happening. There is no difference between doing challenges on SSF and doing them yourself in trade. It would be just as annoying both times and the majority of players don't want that. This is also, an objective fact.

It’s always a bit concerning when “objective fact” is used as a conversation-ender rather than a way to support actual understanding. It gives the impression that the phrase is being used to sound more credible than the argument itself justifies, and that doesn’t really move the discussion forward.

Calling this “forced SSF” is a great example of that kind of overreach. SSF, by definition, disables trade, party play, and any form of player interaction. That’s the core of the game mode. What’s being discussed here encouraging players to complete challenges themselves while still fully participating in trade league, isn’t even remotely the same. You still have access to trading, partying, crafting, the economy, nothing is being taken away. Getting players to engage with challenges directly, without relying on carries or market shortcuts, is not “forced SSF.” It’s a design choice that adds meaning to progression. And that is the actual objective fact.

What makes this even clearer is that two posts directly after yours immediately pointed out the same thing, there's an obvious distinction between being locked into SSF and simply being encouraged to take a more personal approach to challenges. So the idea itself isn’t vague, it’s very clear. It just seems you may have misunderstood the concept from the start, which happens, but doubling down and calling it objective truth doesn’t make it so.

As for the “majority of players” argument, again, the current discussion shows a very clear split. People on both sides have valid takes, which means this is far from a settled consensus. So suggesting your opinion represents the majority is simply inaccurate. In fact, that claim itself when stacked against visible community feedback, is objectively false.

You’re absolutely free to dislike the idea. That’s valid. But framing personal frustration, possibly rooted in not wanting to miss out or be asked to engage more directly, as universal truth doesn’t help your argument. And trying to shut down differing views by calling them ignorant or pretending the topic is settled when it clearly isn’t… doesn’t help your case either.

That being said, I will disengage the discussion with you here, as there’s nothing to gain from going back and forth while you continue to derail the topic into something we’re not even talking about and ignore what the topic is really about. I’ll happily engage with you again once you’re willing to have a proper, constructive conversation like the other users in this thread. Until then, I’ll continue to bump the topic to give it the spotlight it deserves.

"

Toforto#2372 wrote:

"

VoidWhisperer42#5989 wrote:

"

Toforto#2372 wrote:

Nope you're just saying "force SSF on all players". And its never happening because it would make no sense lol, go play ssf and show off your 40/40 on your profile.

I think you quite don’t get the difference between forced SSF and players still having the option to pick either. Nobody said delete trade league or make challenges SSF exclusive, those were never suggested. The goal is to improve challenges to better encourage player growth and make them more engaging, while still letting players participate in trade league however they want. Having to complete challenges yourself in trade league is nowhere near an SSF environment, you still get all the benefits of trade. Let’s not pretend this is ‘forced SSF,’ because it seems you don’t actually understand the difference.

It quite literally is forced SSF, this is an objective fact. And its never happening. There is no difference between doing challenges on SSF and doing them yourself in trade. It would be just as annoying both times and the majority of players don't want that. This is also, an objective fact.

Your opinions are not objective facts.

"

VoidWhisperer42#5989 wrote:

"

TayPoE#6379 wrote:

Yes it would and GGG will never do it, so pointless anyways.

Oh, you never know. It wouldn’t be the first time player feedback sparked some pretty drastic changes. But I’m starting to get the feeling that the whole “actually completing challenges yourself” idea gives you this… deep, existential discomfort.

Not at all but your points just make no sense thats about it.

PS: As your title of the post says its an "unpopular opinion"

"

TayPoE#6379 wrote:

PS: As your title of the post says its an "unpopular opinion"

I could have easily labeled this topic 'popular opinion,' but that would have been just as misleading as 'unpopular opinion,' especially given the clear division among players, as anyone following the discussion can plainly see. So, it’s not so unpopular after all. That said, the title is hardly of consequence. What truly matters is that feedback is shared, with both critics and supporters voicing their thoughts even if some individuals, not quite grasping the topic at hand, feel compelled to derail the conversation with entirely unrelated points, driven by FOMO or whatever else might be clouding their perspective.

What truly matters is that the feedback is delivered, and what GGG chooses to do with it remains unknown, only time will tell.
Perhaps it sparks something in their grand scheme, or perhaps it’s simply not of interest. Nobody knows, but hey, that’s what the feedback section is for, right?

Now, let’s refocus on the topic at hand and steer away from distractions, like the name of a topic, which seems only intended to devalue feedback or derail the conversation. Shall we?


Looking back at the Scourge league, I think it had an interesting set of challenges. Sure, there were a couple of questionable ones, but the basic, unavoidable 'just play the game' challenges have always been a staple. Apart from those, though, I think they laid down a solid foundation for challenges overall.

On the flip side, the currency checks like the Orbs of Remembrance, Unravelling, and Intention in the current league were a bit much. The drop rates for those items are ridiculous and almost force you to buy them unless you're insanely luck, or play a lot. And I mean a lot. We're talking treating the game like a second full-time job, or even your main job, just to get the drops by yourself.

Some of the later league challenges have had potential though, and could be enhanced. For instance, t17 maps do exist, but it’s time for GGG to change how challenges like these work—players shouldn’t be able to cheese them using the Scarab of Bisection, or exploit the new memory maps by making them rare without modifiers. Introducing a 'no more than one player having entered the instance' restriction could help limit players from cheesing content via carries, forcing them to actually engage with the challenge themselves rather than relying on outside help.

Boss fights and conditional boss fights, like the Ubers we've seen in the past, are solid additions, but adding a solo restriction and more creative challenges for future leagues could take things to the next level. Along with the usual set of 'just play the game' challenges, giving players a solid choice of different league mechanics, rather than forcing them into a very specific one would make the challenges feel more dynamic, rewarding, and engaging.