0.9.11 One-week Hardcore Ladder Race

"

Hilbert wrote:

"

You say 'some game' as if it's not the very game you're fervently posting vitriol about. That amuses me.

Did I specify the game? It doesn't matter which game it is, also I didn't specify anybody.

Dance all you want, the implication was clear enough.

"

Hilbert wrote:

I am not a South-Korean who admires such people, even though their government is against such a behaviour.

Don't add racial stereotyping to your already growing list of things that don't really aid your argument. Seriously.

"

Hilbert wrote:

It was a simple answer against a trollattempt like "lol u mad because you can't keep up"

Fight fire with fire? Precisely the sort of response a moderator...feels the need to moderate.

"

Hilbert wrote:

Don't you agree it would be much fairer for everybody if the gaming time each day would be limited in such races?

For example a long race(1week-1month) with 2h a day it doesn't matter when this person plays but the maximum playtime is limited to those 2 hours within 24 hours.

I think that such a race would be very interesting, but we already see the results of that sort of thing in the shorter-term leagues such as the 3 hour races. There is still a great disparity between players, partied or otherwise.

I'm of the personal opinion that if a person has more time to do something, they have every right to be better at it than someone who doesn't. This ranges from anything to playing a musical instrument to fly fishing to tennis...to playing an online game.

"

Hilbert wrote:

"

Charan wrote:

For the record, you cannot compare this race to a typical race where 'shortcuts' are not allowed, simply because this isn't a distance-based race testing how far a person can travel within a set duration. It's a progression-race, to see how many levels a person can achieve, AND it's an endurance race, to see how long said person can stay alive with those levels.

Of couse I can compare it.

A common problem to Action-RPGs called rushing.
There are 3 barriers in Act 1 and 3 barriers in Act 2.
Not including the act boss.

Every single barrier can be be skipped with the help of another character.

The only hindrance is getting to the Forest Camp but even that is possible.

Now imagine there would be an additional barrier that players having an open quest have to kill a certain amount of monsters to get to the next area on the main path, then rushing would be impossible.

If rushing were truly a problem, as you call it, GGG could quite easily do things such as level-restrict areas, make ALL quests mandatory and significantly increase their difficulty. A common playstyle to Action-RPGs is rushing. I'm not a huge fan of it but I'm not really the competitive type. If you want to gain as many levels as possible, you might rush, or you might just learn where to hunt. But if you want to gain as many levels as possible *without dying*, you WILL avoid known problem spots. I feel like I'm repeating myself here. Not cool.

"

Hilbert wrote:

I will try such a rush on HC once the Race is over.
The only area where I think it might fail is the Broken Bridge Bandit in Act 2.

It's an endurance Race how much time you invest not how good you play.

How well you play is a very broad concept. Again, it's more than just clicking the mouse. It's knowing the game. It seems to me you're unable to fully comprehend the scope of the meta-game at play with these races, which is a shame since I felt I made it quite clear earlier when I said there's only one rule: survive.

We shall return to that in a moment.

"

Hilbert wrote:

Imo there should be 2 types of events.
First unrestricted race: Most time invested wins
Restricted race: All Players have the same time they are allowed to invest.

When Open Beta arrives and custom leagues can be purchased by players, I truly hope that you are presented with such an option to run this idea, and that you are willing to fund it.

"

Hilbert wrote:

"

Charan wrote:

With that in mind, skipping quests, selective hunting and wise avoidance of known difficulties isn't cheating, it's bloody smart play. It's knowing the game. There is no rule that says you have to do everything. The only rule is 'survive'.

This isn't a towerdefense game.
If somebody wants to keep leveling on fellshrine ruins for a week he won't die.

Not sure why you'd bring tower defence games up, but okay.

And yes, he or she can keep leveling in Fellshrine, but the reward vs risk factor, and the fact that it's hardcore and thus attracts a certain type of high-risk player, will likely drive that character onward.

"

Hilbert wrote:

Also you have to look where "smart playing" led to in Diablo 2.
It became a sad corpse of a game just because they combined "smart playing" with 3rd party software.


Now imagine that in PoE.
A maphack that shows all monsters and the map.
A quit under x HP/ES function and what you got is a corpse of a game that got potential.

I cannot begin to express how irrelevant that is. I'd cry strawman except the logical fallacies make me twitch. It's something like that, though. Wooden man, perhaps. Point is, playing within the parameters of the game is incredibly honorable but won't always win a race like this. Playing within the acceptable parameters of the meta-game, including alt-f4ing for the time being, is smart. It's part of that greater goal: survive. HACKING is stupid because it's cheating, and if you get caught, you will be banned. Being banned is the opposite of surviving in the meta-game. It is not smart, it is destructive and unfair. Everyone can theoretically alt-f4, or hit escape quickly, or skip quests, etc. The moment you introduce real cheats, the playing field is by definitely no longer fair. And everyone else feels the need to use them. GGG is well aware of this issue (they played D2 you know, in case the subtle influences weren't apparent) and run these closed, short-term leagues precisely because they discourage cheating of that nature.

You really nailed yourself into the coffin by bringing up the third-party cheating issues of D2 here. Really.