IL Restrictions for Current Content in PF are Bad for the Game

[Fuyuqi]

People being able to create their groups however they want is a hill I'm willing to die on. One of the following two things will happen:

1.) The group will fill, thus meaning there was enough interest in their parameters that they were able to fill, so their requirements were not unreasonable.
2.) The group does not fill, which means there was not enough interest and they either need to change their parameters, or don't do whatever it is they were creating a group for.

I'd have to agree with this. As much as I would want COD to be more accessible to casual players, if people want to lock parties only to an ilvl that necessitates clearing savage, that's their prerogative. If people are joining ilvl 710 parties and insisting on swapping to 730 then they shouldn't be doing that and joining a 730 party or making a 730 party themselves. People should be able to play with who they want to play with, and if they want to make a party of only people who have cleared current savage then they should be able to.

[Starrya]

So I don't know how it is on other DFs, but this thread sounds like a storm in a kettle even if I agree in principle. I just opened PF on Light right now, peek times, out of 36 parties recruiting for it, 3 are locked to i730. Most of the others are a mix of no restriction, i710, i720, and some i725/i728...

Guess I'll wait and see how it goes over time since it's still only day 2. I'm more worried for what happens in a month.

While I did reference an example where the players were looking for 730 gear, I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion that only IL 730 parties were the problem. I was referencing any parties that have above the minimum IL requirement. At the time I checked, that was 20 out of 41 parties. Half the parties are impacting players who have gear that the developers already determined was good enough.

[NanaWiloh]

Solution form your own PF group and set the rules the way you want. PF is for custom parties meaning custom rules.

[Sunhwapark]

Eh, if it's their party they can do what they want.
If someone wishes to dispute a PF's ilvl requirement, then it is between the party leader and that other player requesting to join.

[Mawlzy]

Yeah I think it's reasonable to say "It's my party and I'll ilvl if I want to," although 730 seems a bit much.

[Valence]

While I did reference an example where the players were looking for 730 gear, I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion that only IL 730 parties were the problem. I was referencing any parties that have above the minimum IL requirement. At the time I checked, that was 20 out of 41 parties. Half the parties are impacting players who have gear that the developers already determined was good enough.

I'm sorry if it sounds like that I extrapolated then. You mentioned specifically that it's a problem for newer players or players with lower gear to access the content, so I definitely assumed you meant it was a problem if most PFs were closed to them (which I'd agree with actually). And that's how I went to the conclusion that I had to check out of curiosity if a majority of the PFs yesterday were locked to i730, thus my comment.

If your point is about half the parties being locked to various ilvl degrees of accessibility, I'm not sure what to think about it because it still leaves a good half open to any ilvl, which is plain enough to find one under a minute for anybody at min ilvl. As I said in my initial reply however, i'm a bit more concerned about it once strats will have been established and enforced throughout PF. Will people lock ilvl more systematically?

[TemporalFruitsAndVeggies]

I never set an iLvl req on my own parties. I've seen lots of really good min-iLvl players and lots of really terrible BiS players. PF will always be a coin flip: too many variables.

[Vhel]

Must have 10 clears and be Jesus, of is funny ������