Popular Opinion: League Challenges Should Require Solo Completion
" " " Seems he's alredy "down for it". Not sure what these 20 pages of gaslighting and glaring contradictions is all about... |
|
" The fundamental flaws of the challenge system aren’t solved by me playing SSF, or by SSF existing. They’re two entirely different things, one is an optional mode, the other a core feature that affects everyone. The issue lies within the system itself, not the mode you choose to play. It’s time to push for long-overdue improvements, to fix neglected oversights like challenge cheese and address the poor design behind many current challenges. This is what the topic is about, and not to tell others "go play ssf". " I honestly don’t know what all this gaslighting is about either, or why one individual thinks that telling others “go play SSF bro” is some ultimate gotcha to dismiss valid feedback and discomfort The discussion isn’t about making challenges SSF exclusive, it’s about overhauling the core system for everyone, regardless of mode. Yet, despite being very transparent, there’s still one person out of many who doesn’t quite grasp the clear differences. Windows 11, 9950X3D, RTX 4090, 96GB DDR5, 14,100 MB/s SSD, 15,360x2160p @240Hz Ultra 4K Gaming & Workspace Powerhouse
|
|
|
SSF = no trade. That's it
Solo-completion challenges = playing the game yourself. NOT forced no-trade. NOT SSF. Buy all the gear you want. Do whatever you want to prepare for the challenge using the trade system. But play the game yourself. At least for this EXTRA content that exists "outside" of the game. The only gaslighting here is the constant attempt to equate solo challenge with SSF. Starting anew....with PoE 2
|
|
" The issue is that Softcore Trade is inherently a multiplayer environment. If i can trade and i can party, carrying is simply an extention of both. If anything, challenges should reflect that and be multiplayer oriented. That would be much fairer. |
|
" This would be the absolute extreme best-case scenario. Multiplayer challenges for trade, Solo challenges for SSF, HC challenges for HC, etc. But lets be real here.....as much as this game WANTS to be a "multiplayer" game, it isn't. It's a single player game with trade. Being able to trade doesn't inherently make the functional gameplay "multiplayer": this is a false statement. There exists NO multiplayer content in PoE. None. Except perhaps link skills. Carries aren't an "extension" of multiplayer content....they are a derivative of poorly designed multiplayer content. If a carry is even possible, the content isn't truly multiplayer. That's why systems like "de-leveling", "level capping", or "averaging" exists in TRUE multiplayer games. That, or PVP elements. Starting anew....with PoE 2 Last edited by cowmoo275#3095 on Oct 20, 2025, 11:49:54 AM
|
|
" Pretty much this, they can just give ssf and hc special colored challenge badges just like ruthless does, and give them re-colors of the mtx rewards and their own set of challenges designed to be done by a person alone with no trading. Because true solo is not buying a single item, and not being in a party. Doing challenges "solo" is impossible in sc trade if you've bought a single item, you can't say you've solo'd them then. Because you still got help from other players, in the form of trading lol And yeah carries are just a part of multiplayer games, just look at WoW and its M+ and Arena Rating carries. They're lucrative af and people make millions of gold off it. I even bought a M15+ timed carry on my druid just to unlock an artifact weapon skin that would have been annoying to get on an alt otherwise lmao It is what it is, you can't judge people for buying a carry. What you can do is just mind your own business and enjoy the game however you like, just like the people who buy and sell carries do. And if GGG really didn't want carries to be a thing, why can you get your voidstone by entering someone else's boss kill of uber elder or maven? They've shown that they don't want one mechanic to be shareable in a party: Scrying maps. Apparently they want you to find nameless seer by yourself, so they patched out being able to share him in a party just days after the mechanic was out. If everything else is shareable and carry-able then its fair game. I mean look at how long we've had lab carries for lmao And besides all of that, buying carries actually has a cost. I'm the one spending all those divines on them and slowing down my own gear progression. Just like how people are willing to pay up 1 div in PoE 2 for a Sekhema carry to get their 8 ascendancy points instantly. I'm making an intentional choice to go minus divine orbs every time I buy a carry, that's the downside of them. So its really quite fair. Last edited by Toforto#2372 on Oct 20, 2025, 12:08:08 PM
|
|
|
The Challenges in the early leagues were easy but tedious, later they were difficult, and now (~3years) they are easy again but long.
I don't see a problem with how u can buy any number of them. Ultimately, it's everyone's choice where and how to play. |
|
" Exactly, its up to every player to choose how they interact with the game. People that sell boss carries, or challenge carries are using their skills to make currency from the people who buy them. Its just a part of the trade economy. Ofc some people will want to buy some of the longer endgame grinds challenges. |
|
" The entire trade ecosystem is multiplayer. Every player’s actions affect others: prices, supply, demand, the pace of progression, even meta shifts. That’s multiplayer design. Carries absolutely are an extension of that same environment. They exist because wealth, specialization, and cooperation all interact. The fact that one player can buy another’s time or skill is a social mechanic is literally what a trade economy creates. You can call PoE a “single-player game with trade,” but that’s like calling an MMO’s auction house a side feature. The market and social systems define how people experience the game. The devs have leaned into that since forever, hence why challenges, progression pacing, and league mechanics all assume a connected economy. It’s fairer to make challenges reflect that reality. SSF has its own ecosystem, HC its own rules, and trade league’s multiplayer aspect, both direct and indirect, should be acknowledged instead of treated like some exploit loophole. |
|
" Wrong. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of markets at work. You don't need to "make" challenges reflect the reality of a market. Everything ALREADY reflects an existing market, no matter what. That is the very nature of a market and an "economy". This idea of "control" is just complete and utter nonsense that stems from a lack of understanding. There is no concept of "fair" coupled with "make/control" when it comes to a market. That's not to say we do nothing. Doing nothing leads to bad actors taking control. We can only create barriers to "unfair" manipulations of that market. Namely....carries for challenges, and some other similar situations. THESE are the result of people utilizing the market in ways that are only permissible because the appropriate roadblocks are NOT currently in place. IRL we have laws that stop people from printing their own money, for instance. We have centralized currencies, etc. These are blocks that KEEP the market functioning at its best and most fair. Carries and challenge bypasses are manipulations and "cheats" of the market. ***I should clarify: the game that exists will ALWAYS automatically reflect the market and trade environment, no matter what the external factors are. Currently, it is HIGHLIGHTING the problems of the "free market" by allowing carries on challenges. Once that problem is fixed, the NEW environment will ALSO be just as reflective of the trade environment as before. There is no need to manipulate the market itself in any way or "make" anything reflect the market......because it naturally always WILL reflect the market. There is no "fairness" at play when it comes to acknowledging a market setting. Merely an assessment on how that market is being used. As for "the entire trade ecosystem is multiplayer": that is a significant and massive stretch of the defining aspects of "multiplayer gameplay" lol. And I'm sure you are aware of it. On its face you aren't "wrong".....but at the same time you absolutely are. You are basically saying that "Because musicians live and work in the same world as everyone else, that must mean that EVERYONE is a musician because we all contribute". Absolutely bananas. The market is built on the input of multiple sources and ALL players that exist in trade.......but that is NOT the same as claiming the market is "multiplayer gaming", in any sense of what this word means in gaming. Starting anew....with PoE 2 Last edited by cowmoo275#3095 on Oct 20, 2025, 3:11:30 PM
|
|
