(Aug 19 NZT) Hardcore No-Party Ladder Race

"

duolc wrote:

"

radiatoren wrote:

The effect of having both events could easily end up being some players ending up only playing in one of those events and then we are back at the endless quarrel over solo versus team.

Quarrelling aside, how does this logic make any sense?

Having 2 events each weekend, 1 solo and 1 non-solo, either at the same time or different times, is going to be a positive thing for everyone.

You say 'back to the endless quarrel' like you're speaking in a past tense world where quarrelling isn't happening. Either way there is a good old quarrel.

Sorry I just couldn't make light of the logic of that particular statement. Not trying to participate in the quarrel.

Competition is competition. If the players feel too confident, they will just grind more instead of progressing - meaning lowering the need for other players to keep up the curve and ultimately just lowering the general requirement to win that specific race.
The number of really good players in these 3-hour leagues at the moment is 30 at most on a good day. The rest lack the skill to go top 5 on a good day. Dilution of that pool will give less good data. Simple as that.

I tried to imply that I am completely ok with events running different rules happening each week ie. Cutthroat. I just think that hardcore 3 hour events with first full-clear bonuses and firstkill bonuses does not warrent 2 events each week yet (When more events are held each week than 2-3, I am fine with it.). I also want the developers to get as good "feedback" in terms of data on how well each class can do in a solo 3 hour leveling environment as long as we are in closed beta.

need more 1-2 week races.....3 hour is pretty lame and isn't even half the game.

"

radiatoren wrote:

I also want the developers to get as good "feedback" in terms of data on how well each class can do in a solo 3 hour leveling environment as long as we are in closed beta.

It's pretty easy to argue that if you are forcing different types of players into a particular race format each week that you're also negatively impacting the data. Some wouldn't be as keen about the race as others and don't participate to the fullest of their potential, therefore skewing things.

Another point is those people that don't race at all if it's not the right format. In this case you're completely missing out on any data form them, if you had the other format they might actually race.

The complaint I see with two separate races running at different times is exactly what we were hearing prior to the solo race, that a party or two will dominate the party eligible race and that soloers have no chance to win it. Just make them run simultaneously, then people have to make a choice.

Seperate times for the solo/group races is best. GGG gets more feedback and those players who will compete in both (thats me!) enjoy twice as many events. And if parties tend to dominate the party-specific events (imagine), so what? Players who dont appreciate the extra challenge (thats not me!) already have their solo event and neednt compete.

And btw, the whole portal thing is just dislike of mechanics loophole cheese in general. If there was some similar large advantage only available to solo players, my stance on the matter would be exactly the same.

"

KoTao wrote:

Seperate times for the solo/group races is best. GGG gets more feedback and those players who will compete in both (thats me!) enjoy twice as many events. And if parties tend to dominate the party-specific events (imagine), so what? Players who dont appreciate the extra challenge (thats not me!) already have their solo event and neednt compete.

And btw, the whole portal thing is just dislike of mechanics loophole cheese in general. If there was some similar large advantage only available to solo players, my stance on the matter would be exactly the same.

Just have solo for those who want pure solo.

For party enabled races I don't see any issue with portal.

if a group splits up and coordinates portaling each other that requires coordination and what not. Yes it gives an advantage, but it doesn't do anything for your group if you are not properly coordinated.

A well organized party gets an advantage, those who don't like it should have a solo event option. Those who enjoy working together as a team, coordinating objectives and what not should get to have fun with that too.

/mytwocents

"

TEBird wrote:

if a group splits up and coordinates portaling each other that requires coordination and what not. Yes it gives an advantage, but it doesn't do anything for your group if you are not properly coordinated.
/mytwocents

You don't seriously think that it takes any decent amount of coordination to manage portals in the second act do you? That's no excuse to give group an advantage.

Personally I would love to see both a party enabled and party disabled race run simultaneously for a couple of reasons.

1. it would give GGG a small sample size of what their player base actually prefers.

2. it would also be interesting to see the class breakdown in each style race since we all agree that several of the classes are much weaker at soloing then others. Would the solo race just be all marauders and rangers? would we only see just witches and templars in the party race?

I would also like to see a party enabled race, but with the bonus quality granted for each additional party member disabled. Because personally I feel the bonus quality is as huge of a advantage if not more so as party portal sharing.

http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/47641

Check out my suggestion for improving the hardcore race. Discussions and feedbacks are welcomed :)

To be honest there needs to be another party enabled race(that has the option to solo) to really compare anything, as people are getting extremely good at finding the most effective approaches within a 3hour time span.
It would also be great, if it were possible, to distinguish who was in a party or not.
Most importantly, you're given the choice to party or not. Partying is great fun and I would never discourage it. If you think you can do better without a team then go ahead.
The solo race gave a great opportunity for those with a competitive edge to really show what could be done. It takes less time to plan and execute than if you were in a party. eg, take Kripp for example.

Even with a well co-ordinated party, you're taking much more time and risking a lot more with the increased dmg/hp of the mobs.
If you decide to split in act2, you'll be under-leveled when you regroup.
If you decide to stick together, higher hp/dmg mobs = more time/risk.


If you propose both solo and party races to be run simultaneously they will happen less frequently since it is basically 2 separate races.
It also makes the player base smaller for each race, which gives a better chance for people to get rewards. They would in turn have to reduce the amount of rewards players get by at least 1/2.


Katao is right that something needs to be done to portals(in partys) as it does create an unfair advantage. This solution gives us the best approach.

"

Azhukar said:
Portals could be consumed regardless of who used them.

Portals should be consumed when returning from town regardless who used it:
- Still conserves the real purpose of portals (return to town)
- Negates the double portal loophole
- Rewards players for sticking together


In my opinion, for teams, I would like to see a race with:
- player limits. 2, 3 or 4 per party.
- difficulty of all areas to be the same, determined by number of players in the party and not the area.

With a smaller group it's less chaotic and can be more organised. Since all area's of difficulty will be determined by the number of players, it encourages them to stick together(as well if the portal idea is implemented).
However, it does not rule out the option to separate to take advantage of the layout in act2. Because of the player limit in the party, the areas will not be impossible to solo but will provide a greater risk for the reward.