oh, you again. you’ve been given reasons AD NAUSIAM, you simply are ignoring them for your poor “reasonings”. “You can” is a pointless statment. YOU CAN beat the game with your fists. doesn’t mean that IT SHOULD BE THE ONLY WAY TO PLAY
it’s the design of the game that causes single player to be more lucrative (in a game that is literally all about the loot) even when you don’t account for the greedy people who use scripts to auto loot in public games.
i agree i can’t wait for some form of party loot to facilitate this.
3 Likes
People jump into games and do that now. It’s certainly not an issue it creates.
You won the lotto but your winning ticket is across the room past 7 other people. It’s your ticket because you bought it, but everyone sees the ticket and knows it’s worth millions. You have a zero percent chance to grab it first.
I’m guessing you would go FFA?
A 1 in 8 chance is better than a 0% chance.
1 Like
Nah dude you said you don’t care about that.
Because the game is about finding loot and you literally find less loot per person when you play together.
Also you said you don’t care about greed.
Not that much if we talk about people not playing together. Without super chest in LK will people farm travincal solo anyway or cows in split runs. But it would certainly have effect on economy. Or more on difficulty of game, doing LK runs to get higherunes with /players X is way too easy under p8.
You said that I dont care about loot. I did say i dont have that big issue with higher loot under /players X. That doesnt mean issue is not present. I think running LK chests would give people too easy way to get high runes and they have to be rare.
You are taking statement ouf of context , you do this all the time. Reasons why you want /players X is obviously greed based on your responses. But thsts fine, When I play D2 I am greedy too, majority of player base is like that when they play with randoms they dont know.
Your stated only issue is leechers losing out on XP farms. Economic effects are about greed and you state even now that greed is fine. You can’t be fine with greed then constantly complain about players being greedy and about the effects of greed and greed-related considerations like “the economy”.
Case in point. You’re fine with greed but you’re not fine with greed. Stuff has to be rare becuase… reasons.
It’s almost like the multilayer experience of d2 isn’t the sugar and rainbows you make it out to be. You love to defend the status quo of mediocrity.
2 Likes
no need ty, 20 char…
They need/want it for ther bots…
Players X would certainly make the online experience better. More risk/reward.
Now one can definitely argue that players X is too powerful in D2, but that is a balance issue, more than it is an argument against ever adding it.
We have a name for this…
Stockholm syndrome
3 Likes
But those people don’t want to play with them, so it’s irrelevant.
3 Likes
Except that doesn’t make it irrelevant in any way.
You say they don’t want to play with others and that is correct in most cases, but currently they have to. And inspite of this desire, their presence is making other people’s gaming experiences better. So changing this just makes one group happier while making another group less happy. And that really accomplishes nothing.
The only positive change would be one that makes both groups happy, not just one. And I’m not sure that’s possible.
In your case you’re making one group happy at the expense of the other while making the other unhappy by limiting their experience to one singular option which they don’t like.
So what you’re saying is that it’s okay if other people’s experiences are made worse if it makes yours better, but not okay if other people’s experiences are made better if it makes yours worse. Even though there’s no real argument that it makes yours worse. You just want other people to have a worse experience just in case it makes yours better.
Again, it works both ways, as I’ve said previously.
No, that’s not what I’m saying at all.
Even though there’s no real argument that it makes yours worse
Yes, there is, and it’s been described multiple times in this thread. You not agreeing with an argument does not automatically invalidate it. And in fact, even if I were to agree that you’re right (I don’t), you don’t necessairly have to be harmed directly to be made unhappy. And so again I ask, why is your happiness more important than the happiness of those who don’t agree with you?
This is a lose-lose situation. Someone is going to be inconvenienced/annoyed/unhappy/whatever no matter what is done here.
1 Like
The happiness of the ploot crowd allows the ffa crowd to still play ffa.
You’re saying the happiness of the ffa crowd is dependent upon forcing the ploot crowd to play ffa.
3 Likes
i dont know what a “ploot crowd” is, i’m just going to assume that’s some kind of pejorative that has no place in a civilized discussion.
People who want to play alone can already play alone with /players x. that’s what Single Player mode is for. It’s not ideal, but neither is the experience of players who would be affected directly or indrectly by adding it to battle.net. Again, why is your happiness more important than that of anyone else? Whether or not one can still play the game a certain way or not is irrelevant- their experience is still impacted.
1 Like
If you don’t like playersX in battle.net don’t use it. There. Problem solved.
2 Likes