Multiplayer

"

Phrazz wrote:

I've never understood the urge of playing with randoms/strangers. Playing with randoms is a pain in the ass. You don't know them, you don't know their goals nor their play styles.

People are better off joining a guild and getting to know people that way. Playing with people you know - and have them on Discord while playing, is a MUCH better experience than playing with randoms - in all games. I will never party up with anyone - in any games - without knowing them a little bit, and having them on coms. I don't think I'll ever see the point.

And for God's sake, GGG - expand/improve your freakin' guild system.

I like to cycle between them. Public parties have their place (just like public baal runs did in Diablo 2). And farming with your guild members has its place as well. Both have their own positives and negatives.

I would really like to see them pay some attention to the guild structure... even with no intention of ever joining a guild.

Totally agree with this.

PoE is really good and i dont think there is anything on the horizon to challenge it especially with PoE2 coming, but if there was something they could do to improve it, it would be improving the multiplayer experience.

its a pure online game, it should be more rewarding to play with friends than solo, there could even be content that required teamplay

Things like when you meet Zana in a map one player has to stay behind and protects the portal from spawning monsters while the other completes the objective as an example, would be alot of fun if its rewarding enough

i really feel they need to make it more worthwhile being 2,3 or 4 players in a map over the players just running a map each in the same time

someone suggested that you should be able to choose type of enchant at the end of lab (red gem enchant, green, blue) to counter the enchant bloat with new skills coming. that could work with solo players getting the current loot pool and the more people in the party the more specific (2 people, 1 color can be excluded, 4 ppl 2 colors) and maybe some benefit to taking different paths to the end (or require that you do)

"

Nidal wrote:

i really feel they need to make it more worthwhile being 2,3 or 4 players in a map over the players just running a map each in the same time

someone suggested that you should be able to choose type of enchant at the end of lab (red gem enchant, green, blue) to counter the enchant bloat with new skills coming. that could work with solo players getting the current loot pool and the more people in the party the more specific (2 people, 1 color can be excluded, 4 ppl 2 colors) and maybe some benefit to taking different paths to the end (or require that you do)

Party play should be a choice, and not "required". The moment they make party play (directly) more profitable than solo play, is the moment this game loses A LOT of players. Aura/curse supports are already so powerful, that running a party can be very effective - IF you plan it and build around it, as it should be.

That said, I'm not opposed to some QoL to increase party enjoyment. But it should be strictly QoL, and not power/wealth.

Totally disagree that it should be "more rewarding" to multi, if by that you mean compared to playing solo rather than a comparison to the present game. It could be taken either way.

Solo play is still the heart of the game, but that doesn't mean you should ignore multi.

"

Phrazz wrote:

"

Nidal wrote:

i really feel they need to make it more worthwhile being 2,3 or 4 players in a map over the players just running a map each in the same time

someone suggested that you should be able to choose type of enchant at the end of lab (red gem enchant, green, blue) to counter the enchant bloat with new skills coming. that could work with solo players getting the current loot pool and the more people in the party the more specific (2 people, 1 color can be excluded, 4 ppl 2 colors) and maybe some benefit to taking different paths to the end (or require that you do)

Party play should be a choice, and not "required". The moment they make party play (directly) more profitable than solo play, is the moment this game loses A LOT of players. Aura/curse supports are already so powerful, that running a party can be very effective - IF you plan it and build around it, as it should be.

That said, I'm not opposed to some QoL to increase party enjoyment. But it should be strictly QoL, and not power/wealth.

It's already got increased loot drops in parties phrazz.

"

jtggm1985 wrote:

"

Phrazz wrote:

"

Nidal wrote:

i really feel they need to make it more worthwhile being 2,3 or 4 players in a map over the players just running a map each in the same time

someone suggested that you should be able to choose type of enchant at the end of lab (red gem enchant, green, blue) to counter the enchant bloat with new skills coming. that could work with solo players getting the current loot pool and the more people in the party the more specific (2 people, 1 color can be excluded, 4 ppl 2 colors) and maybe some benefit to taking different paths to the end (or require that you do)

Party play should be a choice, and not "required". The moment they make party play (directly) more profitable than solo play, is the moment this game loses A LOT of players. Aura/curse supports are already so powerful, that running a party can be very effective - IF you plan it and build around it, as it should be.

That said, I'm not opposed to some QoL to increase party enjoyment. But it should be strictly QoL, and not power/wealth.

It's already got increased loot drops in parties phrazz.

Never said it hadn't, jtggm1985

"

Phrazz wrote:

Never said it hadn't, jtggm1985

Kind of goes with the "shouldn't be based on power/wealth" there.

"

jtggm1985 wrote:

"

Phrazz wrote:

Never said it hadn't, jtggm1985

Kind of goes with the "shouldn't be based on power/wealth" there.

Nah...

In party play, you get increased quantity because there are more people. 2 people don't double the quantity, so you don't have "increased drop rates". You have - in practice - less.

"

Phrazz wrote:

"

jasmin333 wrote:

I love Poe, but without some kind of party play there is something missing.

Good thing we have "some kind of" party play in PoE, then.

Obviously jasmin333 is talking about PoE multi-player functionality. Yes, we all know PoE has party play but it's not very functional to do that and expect to get decent QoP. But now that myself and my 2 BFFL are all running Windows 10 Pro 1909 edition on good hardware I might attempt a trio party play of PoE this summer. I first tried party play in June of 2013 (open-beta) and even posted about it but it ended after 1 month of super casual play somewhere in Cruel difficult level due to desync problems. I have continued on solo since then and they haven't played PoE anymore. With my own PoE QoP nightmares over with I might want to try another trio play again.

I'm always on the lookout for a good arpg that I can recommend to party play during the hot summers of SW Florida but have been in a very dry spell since 2013 with nothing good. I was thinking of recommending PoD or Median XL but so far haven't been able to find all 3 of our Diablo II LoD licences so that is still on hold and I don't feel like having to cough up $15 USD to Blizzard to re-buy them (only found 1 so far). I was hoping Wolcen would be a great choice but alas that dev team seriously dropped the ball with so many game breaking flaws and balance failures. I mean, why didn't they recruit an alpha team of seasoned arpg veterans playing Wolcen for the last 6 months before release to get better play balance and not have to severely nerf lots of way too op skills. I've read their dev page info and see that they have a super tiny team of only 13 core devs but still it shouldn't have been difficult to get a few 100 qualified arpg players (by getting them to sign a NDA and get free play) to play Wolcen and provide in-depth quality feedback so they could get much better balance before releasing it. And some of the PoE streamer veterans have been saying that some of their devs have no arpg gaming history under their belts so they are clueless on balancing their arpg. That's extremely sad to hear that. Wolcen looked very promising for my 2 super casual arpg friends and there is still time until Memorial weekend for Wolcen dev team to get their game to a much better place but atm I'm not very confident about them being able to get Wolcen fixed by then.

In light of how badly Wolcen Studio foobar-ed the release and now not being completely transparent and up front with their player base on how they are working hard to fix a huge raft of problems, that greatly concerns me so I may take a pass on it and see if PoE 3.10 can be played in a trio with any semblance of good QoP (remember, my solo QoP is finally great now that I'm on Windows 10 1909 edition). For all the negatives we post about here one thing that is tops is that Chris (and other core PoE devs) and very willing to communicate with us and not keep us in the dark about most of the problems of playing PoE. GGG hasn't been perfect either but at least I can tell they are sincerely trying to get PoE to a much higher level of quality of play, and that rates high in my view of arpg game companies, and is the reason I'm still here playing PoE today even though I still suck at creating endgame viable builds.

I have to give Chris and company 100% for their openness to communicate with the PoE player base, through all the good and bad, from beta and desync years, to now 3.10 and beyond after seeing how bad Wolcen Studio is.