Popular Opinion: League Challenges Should Require Solo Completion

"

Toforto#2372 wrote:

Also you don't get to decide how players interact with a game and its mechanics, thats up to the players.

It’s a bit ironic to remind others they “don’t get to decide how players interact with the game,” while constantly repeating “just play SSF” any time the challenge system rework is discussed. At this point, that line feels less like input and more like a fallback because the idea of a rework might affect how you personally engage with challenges.

You’ve been reminded multiple times this thread isn’t about forcing SSF into the core game. Yet you continue to misrepresent the suggestion and derail the topic with the same dismissive response despite not really engaging with what’s actually being proposed.

This thread is about reworking the core challenge system , not turning the game into full SSF. If that’s still not landing, maybe ask yourself whether you're here to have a discussion or just shut others down.

Meanwhile, others are offering support or contributing constructive ideas, showing there’s real interest in improving the system. Hopefully, it’s something GGG will consider when they have the bandwidth to explore it.

In the end, it’s just you here aggressively pushing back on any change while everyone else is here to discuss. And frankly, with how far off-topic this has gotten, it may be time for the mods to step in before the thread gets completely derailed.

It absolutely is just people trying to ruin everyone else's fun and force them into a cringe SSF playstyle. So its never happening, literally just go play SSF. That's why the gamemode exists. The challenge system doesn't need a "rework" because its fine the way it is. Everyone can do them in whatever way they want, forcing people to do them in specific ways is giga cringe.

I think if I'm rich i should just be able to buy a bachelors degree without working for it or learning anything. On the job training should take care of what you need to know to do your job.

"

Lonnie455Rich#2087 wrote:

I think if I'm rich i should just be able to buy a bachelors degree without working for it or learning anything. On the job training should take care of what you need to know to do your job.

If I go to a fair ground and want a price but lack the skillset to get it I can get any person willing and able to win the prize and pay for his service and walk home with my item of interest.

It does not devalue you owning that same price based on your own merit, and the skillcheck to win the price was fullfilled so it was not given out without the completion of the task in question.

"

Flying_Gecko#4453 wrote:

"

Lonnie455Rich#2087 wrote:

I think if I'm rich i should just be able to buy a bachelors degree without working for it or learning anything. On the job training should take care of what you need to know to do your job.

If I go to a fair ground and want a price but lack the skillset to get it I can get any person willing and able to win the prize and pay for his service and walk home with my item of interest.

It does not devalue you owning that same price based on your own merit, and the skillcheck to win the price was fullfilled so it was not given out without the completion of the task in question.

It does devalue it, because you didn't earn it.

"

Lonnie455Rich#2087 wrote:

It does devalue it, because you didn't earn it.

By this logic every Boss Invitation you did buy on the trade site oder currency exchange is devalued, because you did not earn it. So a kill on a bought invitation should not count as completing the challenge, neither should any kill with gear you did not craft from your own currercy items and bases.

If by your definition paying for a service is fraud on the challenge so is any payment for items.

Which brings us right back to Toforto#2372 and his argument: If you want solo Challenges, go for SSF. Maybe GGG can add an extra set or grant another colorscheme of items for SSF. But your logic for what is a legit completion of challenges in trade ist dogmaticly flawed.

I did 40/40 Solo this league, then I carried some Ubers for Friends who did now have a strong bossing build. Next league it might be the other way around, if I choose to play a Heist runner or whatever. If the fact that we trade challenges affects your enjoyment of the game that is your problem, not mine.

"

Toforto#2372 wrote:

It absolutely is just people trying to ruin everyone else's fun and force them into a cringe SSF playstyle. So its never happening, literally just go play SSF. That's why the gamemode exists. The challenge system doesn't need a "rework" because its fine the way it is. Everyone can do them in whatever way they want, forcing people to do them in specific ways is giga cringe.

That’s just your opinion, and no, you don’t speak for everyone. Not all players are like you, relying on carries just to unlock the seasonal free bling. Plenty of us actually want more meaningful and engaging challenges instead of sleepwalking through the same outdated checklist every league.

Making challenges self-achievable is just one part of what a better system could offer. It’s about improving the entire experience, not removing trade or forcing SSF. Yet you keep throwing out “just play SSF” like that somehow settles the discussion. It doesn’t.

SSF isn’t the topic here, and it doesn't fix the current challenge design. It's an entirely separate mode built around a different kind of experience, and has nothing to do with improving the challenge system for the broader player base.
So stop bringing it up as if it’s some kind of solution. It’s not. You're using it to derail a conversation that’s clearly about improving the core system, not about playing a different mode.

The point is players want challenges to be fun, rewarding, and feel earned, not handed out through checklists and paid carries. Like someone already said with the Bachelor analogy: you don’t get the final rose just for showing up. You want the prize? Work for it.

And again, just because you don’t like the idea of changes doesn’t mean others don’t. You’re not talking for “everyone,” just for yourself, and mostly out of fear that you’ll lose your easy MTX path if actual effort is required. A lot of players would welcome a challenge system with more depth, more restrictions, and more satisfaction. That’s what this topic is about.

"

Flying_Gecko#4453 wrote:

If I go to a fair ground and want a price but lack the skillset to get it I can get any person willing and able to win the prize and pay for his service and walk home with my item of interest.

This is absolutely AWFUL logic....and I'm rather amazed you wrote and posted this as a legitimate defense without taking a deep inward look at yourself at what it ACTUALLY describes.

In the REAL WORLD, it takes a special kind of "elitist" to even mention this as a legitimate way to move through life.

This is Musk-level arrogance and interpretation of gaming.

"

cowmoo275#3095 wrote:

This is absolutely AWFUL logic....and I'm rather amazed you wrote and posted this as a legitimate defense without taking a deep inward look at yourself at what it ACTUALLY describes.

In the REAL WORLD, it takes a special kind of "elitist" to even mention this as a legitimate way to move through life.

This is Musk-level arrogance and interpretation of gaming.

You wrote your message from an electronic device you did not invent and build, using software and infrastrcuture you did not design. You are paying for services and materials you did not gather or learn to do yourself all the time. That is not elitist but a fact of life.

I would actually say it is the elitist point of view, to try to gatekeep certain parts of the game. If GGG wanted the challenges to be a solo endeavour they could have designed them in such a way all along. They did not. They have instead actively incentivised group play in the past. Unless they explicitly state that this stance does not extend to challenges I see no need to asume so.

I could also argue that an adult doing the challenges for his child is fair game in my eyes. That idea can be transferred to the fair ground metaphor and would work just the same minus the payment part.

In my view, as long as any obligatory payment for a carry service was earned legitemately by the player I have no right to tell him how he can or cannot spend that currency and that includes any challenge completion he wants.

You argue that the challenges are a certificate of merit. And I reject that view on the basis that GGG to my knowledge never tried to enforce such restrictions.

Lonnie455Rich#2087 argumented with a university degree as basis. Those institutions enforce strict rules to ensure a certification of qualification is only issued to people who passed the exams personally and without any form of external aid. GGG does not do this, while it centainly could.
If you had the money to buy yourself a spot on your favourite sports team to be part of the team that won a big tournament, and no rule or regulation of the sports organisational body forbids you from doing this, I do not care if you go for it.

I also dont see how you would enforce such restrictions for certain challenges in the game. Usage of certain currencies is a perfect example. Would I need to drop them or could I still buy them on trade? How would the challenge track this correctly?

I allready provided a solution in my other post, that could possibly bridge this rift in the views of the community. GGG could offer a destinct colorscheme for the MTX provided by the challenges if you completed them solo (however they might define and track that).

You selfimposing stronger restrictions on yourself for the completion is fine. You trying to impose those arbitrary restrictions on everyone else is not. I have every right to disagree.
GGG ultimately makes the call. And I would argue by the fact that they never restricted the challence completion in the past that this is intentional.

Bump for visibility.
With 3.27 just around the corner, it’s the right time to push for some long-overdue and meaningful changes, whether in the upcoming league or those that follow.