Remove xp penalty's from death

"

levy42088 wrote:

Yes, GGG might be smart, but it doesn't mean they have thought of everything.

True.

"

levy42088 wrote:

THEY NEED US!! We're the people on the front line, playing the game they made every day. We are inside the world they created

So true.

"

levy42088 wrote:

so of course were going to see more then what GGG can see.

You're full of yourself.

"

levy42088 wrote:

GGG doesn't read peoples minds.

Also true, although probably applied with the wrong intention. Is this evidence?

"

levy42088 wrote:

They need us to bring up suggestions so they can continue to make a better game.

I agree.

"

levy42088 wrote:

So you know what? I don't care if you keep on disagreeing Moos, the purpose of this forum is to bridge the gap between the company and the community.

Totally agree. Fuck that Moos guy. I happen to agree with him ~75% of the time (blind estimate), but fuck me too, right?

"

levy42088 wrote:

I wrote where I stand, gave several arguments, and suggestions on how to improve this.

Which this are we fixing now? Sorry, thread has gone ballistic. Like, all over the place.

"

levy42088 wrote:

Trying to find faults in the game, imbalances, easter eggs, QoL increases, so we can evolve into a greater game that GGG alone wouldn't have been able to create.

Sorta.

But that premise though...

"

levy42088 wrote:

so of course were going to see more then what GGG can see.

Super full is one of themselves.

"

Moosifer wrote:

Spoiler

"

levy42088 wrote:

1) Either lowering the XP Penalty %, OR making it "10% or 100,000 xp, whichever is lower" So the 10% doesn't become overbearing, and will just take out a predetermined chunk of xp. whatever is decided by GGG

There's no flat number you could give that doesn't do the same thing as the current penalty in reverse. In other words, you're better off just arguing it's removal as lvl 99 100k exp is going to be a meaningless penalty.

"

2) making an option that a person can turn XP off for the hard map that they want to try. That way they can enjoy and try out new content. Challenge themself, and play along with friends, without the risk of losing the time you put into the character.

It's called doing the map after you level. If you accept you WILL die both options you walk away with zero exp gained, but our current model allows success to be rewarded.

"

3) making a timer, the first death doesn't take away xp, but if you die again within a certain time, it will take away a penalty. either the straight 10%, or another discussed %. This way, players can enjoy hard content, still limited by the amount of portals to the map, and if they happen to die, they have the chance to "strap down" and "pay attention" to make sure you don't die again within the time.

This is the "best" of these floated ideas yet it just doesn't fit within the context of the game. If this was added in there would be a drawback to that timer. GGG never gives free lunch. If you get the free avoidance of 10% it's coming at the cost of something harsh. So to balance this out it will be 15-25% exp penalty if dying in that timer window, maybe lower IIQ/IIR during the timer. Something that punishes the initial death or highly discourages the 2nd death.

As there's no way to just avoid this, you know being there's not multiple end game options, so people either choose to play with this looming penalty, which if it was an accidental death, sure. But if it was a death from difficult content, basically most deaths, then the person is just going to dodge the penalty. Why play this character when they don't care about getting to high levels under a time constraint but do care about losing that exp to an unforeseen situation? So just switch over to another character and wait for the time to run out. Takes longer to level up but never lose exp or have any penalty to deal with at all. Account wide penalty just drives people away from the game.

Lastly, it just doesn't make sense in the context of this game or genre. This isn't just a natural thing to accept. If you're a new player and a timer pops up you'll be confused. Everything about this game shows an increase in game speed as the game progresses, now suddenly there's a timer that encourages you to slow down to avoid a slow down. This disturbs gameplay and encourages play that's counter to how the game plays out.

It just doesn't make sense.

The reason I haven't been responding to your "replies/opinions" on my ideas, are because the info you give is so trivial, that I don't even know if your serious.

Your first point, about the flat number xp penalty, and not a %. Instead of finding a better more suiting number, you shoot the whole idea down.
You said
"There's no flat number you could give that doesn't do the same thing as the current penalty in reverse. In other words, you're better off just arguing it's removal as lvl 99 100k exp is going to be a meaningless penalty."

Actually, the XP required between 99-100 = 316,000,000 xp. so 100,000 xp is about 3.1545 % xp loss. I think thats actually perfect. Since about 4-6 maps = 1% at level 99, so that brings the loss to about 18 Maps per death. Which I think is a big step in the right direction. So before you say soemthing is a meaningless penalty, do the math, make it a percent, and you will see. It's pretty much 1/3 the current penalty. Which I think sounds alot better.

2) You Say "It's called doing the map after you level. If you accept you WILL die both options you walk away with zero exp gained, but our current model allows success to be rewarded. "

Ok and how about when your level 96 and at 40% XP? Guess what? You CAN'T do any fun / risky maps until you level. Which you make it sound like no problem, but it will probably be a week or 2 before he could hit 97 and try a hard map ONCE, before getting 1% again and starting for the next level.

Its 1 thing if your leveling 3 times a day, then you can do hard content 3 times a day. But once u get to the higher levels, you are almost never going to log on and be at 0%.

3) And Lastly, you say,"As there's no way to just avoid this, you know being there's not multiple end game options, so people either choose to play with this looming penalty, which if it was an accidental death, sure. But if it was a death from difficult content, basically most deaths, then the person is just going to dodge the penalty. "

That person isn't going to dodge the penalty. Obviously they knew they were trying to hard content, and that death gives you a little leeway with how risky you want to get. If your friend shows you a map with hard mods, and he puts it in. You have a bad feeling about the mods, but the map is in already so you go through. Why should you be punished for trying something? You never know until you try. And then there are those who are playing the same easy maps hours and hours on end. Should they be penalized? Rewarded?

Well Im going home for the day. hope my response gave you some insight into why im taking everything you say with a grain of salt. Mr. 100k is meaningless. Check your "facts"

"

The_Great_Alex wrote:

"

Moosifer wrote:

So please, 3 strongest arguments for why the death penalty should be removed/adjusted that haven't been addressed at all or properly.

1. To reduce the rage when you die on desync

What is dying on desync?

"

The_Great_Alex wrote:

2. To reduce the rage forum posts when people come here to say how desync sucks after they died a few times on desync

That's peoples' problems. You seriously can't expect to produce a good game on forum habits alone. Beside, if that was truly the concern, then communal cynicism alone would do the job.

"

The_Great_Alex wrote:

3. To reduce the amount of people that quit cuz the were sick of dying on desync

Again, please qualify what is death to desync?

"

The_Great_Alex wrote:

You see when you die on your fault its a lesson that you learn to become better and you accept it

Agreed.

"

The_Great_Alex wrote:

When you die on desync its nothing more but rage, thousand of bad word to GGG that developed that crap etc

What is dying on desync?

[snip]

Clearly desync exists, nobody in their right mind refutes that. But "because desync" does not make an argument.

What are these desync deaths?
Were they actually desync?
Not lag?
Were there conditions you missed that you were expected to foresee?
Were the reasons (these conditions) given proper exposure?
Given greater knowledge would you be empowered to avoid such a death?
Was it your fault that you died?
Was there anything at all you could do to avoid death?

I'm not trolling. Before you can use it as a device in an argument, you have to define what it is. Else, it just raises more questions than it answers.

I posted this earlier but everybody looked a little preoccupied with reasserting the same points/counterpoints so I think nobody noticed it:

What about gating XP recovery behind really difficult, dangerous content (my original idea was special xp-recovery maps)?

The idea being to separate the deaths that result from poor player judgement and fundamental build weaknesses from the players who died because they sneezed at an inopportune time. If your build is strong and you are at 100% awareness, you should be able to handle a lv 75 -max resist vulnerability map. Otherwise you'll just have wasted a bunch of currency and time for a measely 10k xp recovery.

"

CanHasPants wrote:

"

The_Great_Alex wrote:

"

Moosifer wrote:

So please, 3 strongest arguments for why the death penalty should be removed/adjusted that haven't been addressed at all or properly.

1. To reduce the rage when you die on desync

What is dying on desync?

"

The_Great_Alex wrote:

2. To reduce the rage forum posts when people come here to say how desync sucks after they died a few times on desync

That's peoples' problems. You seriously can't expect to produce a good game on forum habits alone. Beside, if that was truly the concern, then communal cynicism alone would do the job.

"

The_Great_Alex wrote:

3. To reduce the amount of people that quit cuz the were sick of dying on desync

Again, please qualify what is death to desync?

"

The_Great_Alex wrote:

You see when you die on your fault its a lesson that you learn to become better and you accept it

Agreed.

"

The_Great_Alex wrote:

When you die on desync its nothing more but rage, thousand of bad word to GGG that developed that crap etc

What is dying on desync?

[snip]

Clearly desync exists, nobody in their right mind refutes that. But "because desync" does not make an argument.

What are these desync deaths?
Were they actually desync?
Not lag?
Were there conditions you missed that you were expected to foresee?
Were the reasons (these conditions) given proper exposure?
Given greater knowledge would you be empowered to avoid such a death?
Was it your fault that you died?
Was there anything at all you could do to avoid death?

I'm not trolling. Before you can use it as a device in an argument, you have to define what it is. Else, it just raises more questions than it answers.

Could you quote more times some shit to ask the same question?

Do you really need to quote every sentence to type *Agreed* , *Do not agreed*?

Can you just make all the sentences you agree/dont agree in the one quote and type agree/dont agree just once?

Do we really care that much about your *agreeing* or *not agreeing* so you quote every sentence to let us know your agreeing/disagreeing part?

Do you know what is desync?

Do you know what means *to die*?

What kind of sadness bring desync that make people to cry about?

Do people come on forums to cry about desync if their character was still alive after desync?

Does it really that hard for you to understand that not desync makes people to cry but DEATH on desync?

Do you have any other questions that Im not going to ignore next time you ask it?

"

levy42088 wrote:

The reason I haven't been responding to your "replies/opinions" on my ideas, are because the info you give is so trivial, that I don't even know if your serious.

Hold on, so you can belittle my points but I can't do the same to your's? Awesome logic. I'm sure everyone is happy you're taking up this cause and leading the way.

"

Actually, the XP required between 99-100 = 316,000,000 xp. so 100,000 xp is about 3.1545 % xp loss.

I cannot believe no one has pointed out how wrong this is. First let me start by saying I'm pretty bad at math. But I do know that first, 100k goes into 3m which is 3%, but let's also consider we're talking about 316 MILLION, not just 3m. You get about 500-800k per 78, you'll make up for this penalty before doing half the map. Therefore, literally meaningless, especially outside of group play. You could die 6 times on a 78 and STILL HAVE A POSITIVE RETURN!

So how about 1m, instead, again a little over 1 map. 10m, then the exp penalty starts to go down after about lvl 84. It's the inverse of our current system, it's actually more punishing to die at lower levels than at higher. When you're more experienced as a player, wearing better gear, have more passives. This just doesn't make sense. It does make sense in a game where it's focused on getting to level cap. When the highest content in the game is lvl 80 and cap is 100, it's clear this game is not about level cap. Therefore this penalty doesn't make sense.

"

Ok and how about when your level 96 and at 40% XP? Guess what? You CAN'T do any fun / risky maps until you level. Which you make it sound like no problem, but it will probably be a week or 2 before he could hit 97 and try a hard map ONCE, before getting 1% again and starting for the next level.

Its 1 thing if your leveling 3 times a day, then you can do hard content 3 times a day. But once u get to the higher levels, you are almost never going to log on and be at 0%.

That's the skill decision of it. Is your build prepared enough to handle this map you rolled? Are you willing to bet the last few hours or a day worth of work that it is? If not, reroll or wait until later. You can do these maps, there's builds that can handle them. Making it so any build can do these without a second guess actually removes skill from the equation. You just head blindly into the highest IIQ map you get, if you die oh well, only 100k exp, you'll get that back before the boss.

"

That person isn't going to dodge the penalty.

In a game revolving around min-maxing I'm willing to bet I'm more right than you. But obviously either of us saying anything with 100% confidence is dumb because we'd have to see how everything ended up before saying which of us is right. You saying the opposite back to me doesn't make you more true. I backed up my point, you're just saying this then moving on.

"

Obviously they knew they were trying to hard content, and that death gives you a little leeway with how risky you want to get. If your friend shows you a map with hard mods, and he puts it in. You have a bad feeling about the mods, but the map is in already so you go through.

...you tell him you can't do the map. If he's a dick and puts it any ways you wait outside for him to complete it. I had a friend who routinely did psychotic maps (mouze for people who know him, fucking maniac) because he made builds with those maps in mind, so I'd just hang out in town while he did them. I'm not holding the entire group, or costing him currency because I can't do his maps. We had an understanding. I've been playing with my friend recently who can't do physical reflect, but I can. So a good roll I'll put to the side and wait until I'm not playing with him to run it. This isn't an impossible situation.

"

Why should you be punished for trying something? You never know until you try. And then there are those who are playing the same easy maps hours and hours on end. Should they be penalized? Rewarded?

Good does not exist without bad. You can't be rewarded if there's no punishment. This is poor logic, it also gives unrealistic impressions that the hardest maps are the most rewarding. There's a reason beyond being easy people do pack size maps, this is another conversation about the mapping system in general.

"

Well Im going home for the day. hope my response gave you some insight into why im taking everything you say with a grain of salt. Mr. 100k is meaningless. Check your "facts"

Ok Mr. I don't know the difference between 300 million and 3

"

ventiman wrote:

why would i want to play a game which i cant lose ?

Remarkably poignant. I'll just leave it at that.

@Moos

So you went on and on picking apart my post and taking some out of context.
But all I understood from it is you telling me,

"The idea is good but the 100,000 xp is too light. I would be alright with this idea if the flat number were raised. Either way as long as its less then the current 10%. I think the number should be _______________"


And you didnt give a number that you felt was good...
Your whole post was building from how the 100,000 was not enough, brought up some arguments, and then by the end of it, you didnt give an answer to what you feel would be good.

"

levy42088 wrote:

And you didnt give a number that you felt was good...
Your whole post was building from how the 100,000 was not enough, brought up some arguments, and then by the end of it, you didnt give an answer to what you feel would be good.

10%

"

levy42088 wrote:

And you didnt give a number that you felt was good...
Your whole post was building from how the 100,000 was not enough, brought up some arguments, and then by the end of it, you didnt give an answer to what you feel would be good.

316 million.

Going from 99 to 100, if you die even once, you should have to start over from 99.

True story.