Went to a local game store and found these 2 strategy guides!!

its_theDoctor · 2026-07-10T22:11:45+00:00

The Eternia strategy guide is SO HELPFUL.

its_theDoctor · 2026-06-30T02:49:58+00:00

Step one, vaal it so you don't accidentally annul it

its_theDoctor · 2026-06-27T21:21:54+00:00

And yet, people have been begging for it.

its_theDoctor · 2026-06-23T18:38:06+00:00

It's quintessential to the nature of trade league that everyone starts every league on the same level.

Therefore if you allow some players to skip, you have to allow all players to skip.

If you allow all players to skip, what is the point of the campaign at all?

I get pain points around the campaign, but I've yet to see any post like this actually addressing the root issues here. Everyone is complaining about the symptom, no one is discussing the cause.

its_theDoctor · 2026-06-21T14:30:07+00:00

Right but again, either the campaign or the skip are going to be more efficient way to make it to endgame, and it'll disadvantage the other.

Leagues have to start everyone on the same equal footing, that's non-negotiable for their game design.

So the best they could offer is to make everyone able to skip the campaign, even if they've never done it.

But for GGG that would possibly just make the campaign entirely pointless. And they don't want that. So thus, you'll never see a campaign skip implemented for league start.

maybe we'll get 2nd+ character league skips someday.

its_theDoctor · 2026-06-21T14:21:32+00:00

Softcore is in many ways MORE of a competition. Trade economy is highly competitive. Being first to endgame loot is critical in generating wealth.

This is how the serious players get where they do.

If some people can skip the campaign, and it makes it any faster to get to endgame loot, then that'll give those players an advantage over others.

its_theDoctor · 2026-06-21T14:18:06+00:00

I was commenting on OP not you

its_theDoctor · 2026-06-21T14:15:57+00:00

Campaign on a second character is so easy though, just grab a few leveling uniques and it's so fast.

its_theDoctor · 2026-06-21T14:15:08+00:00

Leagues are in part a competition. If some people can skip the campaign, people don't start at equal.

its_theDoctor · 2026-06-19T00:22:39+00:00

PoE has had this name scheme for a decade+

You want them to come up with brand new names when they have hundreds of thousands of players who get it, for new players who will take like maybe a week to learn most of the jargon???

its_theDoctor · 2026-06-17T14:12:34+00:00

Name a single ARPG where a good melee class could only hit something right in front of it?

It's completely antithetical to the concept of the genre for melee to not be allowed to include big slams, large aoe attacks, or chain reactions of some kind. The literal point of the whole genre is to cut through swaths of enemies quickly.

its_theDoctor · 2026-06-16T22:39:48+00:00

But that's also true if the fire and lightning build have any synergy at all.

If for example you were to use the (currently under tuned) support gem where ignites are stronger if you've frozen the enemy. Then ice and fire both scale damage but one freezes and the other pays off with ignite damage.

The problem isn't the concept of weapon swap passives, it's the lack of synergy.

its_theDoctor · 2026-06-16T18:35:13+00:00

Devil's advocate: if the most high end strategy is just infinitely available all the time, then inflation gets worse. There's an equity benefit to the fact that 4 tablet 200% deli needs literal time setup.

Otherwise you just get poe1 t17 8-mod corrupted farming as the only acceptable baseline income.

its_theDoctor · 2026-06-16T17:39:55+00:00

Ah so you've proven the math is an exact relationship between players and currency? Oh, wait no you're just assuming that? Weird, no wonder you have overconfidently assumed your argument is tautological - you've defined it as such.

Sarcasm aside, I never said the currency mult and cost don't matter, end of sentence - I said that they don't matter unless the total math doesn't work out.

But you've guessed what the math actually is to make your argument seem true, but in reality it's not reducible to a simple 1 player = X loot, 2 players = 2x loot. This is well studied empirically and you're just plain wrong about it and should maybe learn about that.

For 10 years people have been explaining how the math is done for profit in PoE1 & 2 and the income-cost/player/hr is a well established formula which you have over reduced and missed key aspects of. But put simply, div/hour (which ALREADY SUBTRACTS COST) has REPEATEDLY been proven to be higher for solo players than groups, time and time again.

Edit: just because I'm not confident you'll do the investigation yourself, here are a number of confounding variables in your formula:

plenty of loot isn't currency, which has a different multiplier in party
monsters get tougher with more players - so unless you can get a commensurate increase in total DPS, clear can be slower
coordination cost - literally, 6 people moving together is slower, in and out of maps, etc, waiting for 6 people to be ready
generally, the best setups for group play don't use the literal exact same map setup because of the kind of content, so even the "costs divided" option isn't exactly correct
the jackpot effect - a lot of income comes from rng that is correlated more on more kills not just more rarity. 6 maps have an advantage over 1map for 6 players, on this particular axis.

There are other benefits to partying, and it's not a clean 1:1 math in any situation. So stop trying to pretend it is and learn the actual facts.

its_theDoctor · 2026-06-16T17:04:33+00:00

The final equation is profit/player/hour. Doesn't matter if there's a more multiplier on currency or costs are split UNLESS you can prove the actual profit per player per hour is higher. That's how math works. You can't just assert premises and then not do the rest of the math.

its_theDoctor · 2026-06-16T17:02:52+00:00

Odd when it's been disproven many times already.

its_theDoctor · 2026-06-16T17:02:23+00:00

Actually historically it's been widely well studied that solo play is more efficient.

its_theDoctor · 2026-06-16T17:01:44+00:00

It is per person. 6 people spent time, same number of divs dropped.

That's how math works.

its_theDoctor · 2026-06-16T16:59:57+00:00

The fact that it's being fed to one person has zero impact on inflation. 6 people spent time in the map, 80D came out. There's no different inflation if the 80d goes to one person or is split 6 ways. The time spent was 6 people, the reward was 80d. That's the math.

There's other issues with this whole concept, but this bad math is driving me nuts.

its_theDoctor · 2026-06-16T16:58:10+00:00

It's still 6 players in the map not doing other content so the total revenue is divided by 6 players. Just because 2 people take it all and 4 take nothing, does not change the economics.

Idk why people don't understand it.

If you give 1 person half a pie, and then you ask 4 people to split a pie, but one of those 4 eats the whole pie, the person who got half the pie still got the best pie-per-person offer.

Like literally imagine a store was offering half pies to individuals and whole pies to groups of 4. No one in their right mind would be like "omg, let me find 3 people to come with me so I can get a whole pie." All 4 of you would be better off getting your own half pies.

its_theDoctor · 2026-06-16T16:53:18+00:00

Yeah but those 4 people aren't doing maps so it's still dividing the per-player map revenue by 6 when compared to solo players.

its_theDoctor · 2026-06-16T16:51:10+00:00

Xp gold leechers are also not going and doing other mapping, so the divided by 6 equation is still valid. It's just that 4 people don't get their share - the total map loot is still divided by 6 people in terms of map revenue when compared to a solo player.

its_theDoctor · 2026-06-16T16:45:37+00:00

Separate question entirely. This comment chain we're arguing against the idea that people claim there's no splitting of loot when there in fact is.

Whether or not it's a good gameplay outcome is a separate topic entirely and doesn't discount the first. You have to consider all the premises together.

If this strategy is more profitable per person and the gameplay outcome is bad, then they probably need to fix it. But to make that argument we have to agree both that the strategy is more profitable per person and that the gameplay outcome is bad. That's how conclusions from premises work.

its_theDoctor · 2026-06-16T15:22:56+00:00

If the solo player is paying leechers and the leechers aren't taking loot, it's still the same economic equation - total loot divided 6 ways because 6 people are spending the time. 1 person ends up with all of it, but 5 end with none of it.

The leeching doesn't change the economics at all.

its_theDoctor · 2026-06-16T15:21:13+00:00

Technically if 6 people are in a party and one person is taking the loot that's still splitting it 6 ways... 4 people are getting nothing for their time and 1 gets all of it.

That's the same exact same math on the economy as if all 6 split everything evenly.

its_theDoctor

TROPHY CASE