Reduce drastically or eliminate completely the exp lose on death

"

"

sidtherat wrote:

note that you wont see people that have skills and experience complaining about death penalty (effect) but about game issue (cause). what we have here we are seeing complaint about effect and effect alone. when seeing my comments in other similar threads take notice of this distintion. im willing to help (including donating gear and whatnot) to people that have issues with 'cause' part of things.

and that effect is - in the OP's case - a game telling him to git gud. and if he/she has issues swallowing death penalty at lvl 70.. just imagine the same at lvl 90

Didn't consider context of OP. We are good here, from that perspective I agree completely.

I also find it funny that people, who keep on claiming that this game is easy and requires no skill are also ones who complain about death penalty.

It is funny how time and time again, same effects in psychology apply:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

I mean - science!

Yet, there will be people coming here, not realzing their mistakes, or even saying that Dunning–Kruger effect is bullshit, and this is not the case... It never stops to amaze me. :D

Lets have a quote:

"

This pattern of over-estimating competence was seen in studies of skills as diverse as reading comprehension, practicing medicine, operating a motor vehicle, and playing games such as chess or tennis. Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:[4]

- fail to recognize their own lack of skill
- fail to recognize the extent of their inadequacy
- fail to accurately gauge skill in others
- recognize and acknowledge their own lack of skill only after they are exposed to training for that skill

I only hope the last point also will apply one day ;_(

Very interesting. From my seat at the computer watching this game evolve over the years I would say the dunning-kruger effect could be used to perfectly describe the set of persons who are making this game.

And yet fault is being assigned to a set of players who've over the years independently keep coming to the same conclusion that the death penalty or it's specific design is wrong.

Just because those who make the game have a position of power over those who disagree does not mean they must be right.

And in my experience the dunning-kruger effect, though I didn't know to call it that, is lessened through simply seeking out and being open to new information - 'training for that skill' as it were.

GGG has shown very little improvement in the skill of actual game design over the years and have made the same mistakes over and over again which suggests to me evidence for a lack of new ideas affecting and improving their ability or skill level which in turn suggests a dunning-kruger effect.

My time watching this game develop has shown to me just how important it is to be open towards new and different ideas. Making assumptions to the value of one's own ideas without giving proper weight to the ideas of others has clearly been an inferior methodology.

"

GeorgAnatoly wrote:

Perq/dunning/kruger

"

Perq wrote:

I also find it funny that people, who keep on claiming that this game is easy and requires no skill are also ones who complain about death penalty.

It is funny how time and time again, same effects in psychology apply:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

I mean - science!

Yet, there will be people coming here, not realing their mistakes, or even saying that Dunning–Kruger effect is bullshit, and this is not the case... It never stops to amaze me. :D

Lets have a quote:

"

This pattern of over-estimating competence was seen in studies of skills as diverse as reading comprehension, practicing medicine, operating a motor vehicle, and playing games such as chess or tennis. Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:[4]

- fail to recognize their own lack of skill
- fail to recognize the extent of their inadequacy
- fail to accurately gauge skill in others
- recognize and acknowledge their own lack of skill only after they are exposed to training for that skill

I only hope the last point also will apply one day ;_(

Very interesting. From my seat at the computer and watching this game evolve over the years I would say the dunning-kruger effect could be used to perfectly describe the set of persons who are making this game.

And yet fault is being assigned to a set of players who've over the years independently keep coming to the same conclusion that the death penalty or it's specific design is wrong.

Just because those who make the game have a position of power over those who disagree does not mean they must be right.

And in my experience the dunning-kruger effect, though I didn't know to call it that, is lessened through simply seeking out and being open to new information - 'training for that skill' as it were.

GGG has shown very little improvement in the skill of actual game design over the years and have made the same mistakes over and over again which suggests to me evidence for a lack of new ideas affecting and improving their ability or skill level which in turn suggests a dunning-kruger effect.

My time watching this game develop has shown to me just how important it is to be open towards new and different ideas. Making assumptions to the value of one's own ideas without giving proper weight to the ideas of others has clearly been an inferior methodology.

While I think there is a certain truth here, it is beyond arrogant to pretend like the forum community is The Place To Learn About Game Design. For the most part, games designed democratically turn out to be shit, because most people are shit at game design.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

While I think there is a certain truth here, it is beyond arrogant to pretend like the forum community is The Place To Learn About Game Design. For the most part, games designed democratically turn out to be shit, because most people are shit at game design.

Isn't this mentality the issue though? (assuming a designer holds this perspective, not you scrotie in particular) This reads like you're holding a prejudice or stereotype towards information regarding game design that comes from a forum. 90-95% of a game's forum suggestions towards its design aren't going to be actionable from the developer's point of view but that doesn't mean one should hold negative or cynical assumptions towards information that comes from forums.

"

GeorgAnatoly wrote:

90-95% of a game's forum suggestions towards its design aren't going to be actionable from the developer's point of view but that doesn't mean one should hold negative or cynical assumptions towards information that comes from forums.

When 90% of a thing us bad, it's fair to assume it's bad. At the very least you'd need to apply a filter of some sort.

By the way, I'm not really immune. I realize the majority of my suggestions have been bad. I don't think you could point me at a single forumer batting 0.500 or better. I think I've had a few good suggestions, but just a few.

The Eternal Orb was suggested by a SFL proponent. How did listening to the community work there?

I strongly believe in the value of feedback - not suggestions - as being useful to developers. Is the Lab poorly designed? Of course it is; lots of players hate that shit. But in all the Lab threads, the appropriate solution has likely been mentioned 0 times. Players know what they loved and what they hated; they are shit at knowing what they will love, and what they will hate. Tense matters.

Note that I almost never say there isn't any problem when many complain about something. But I often argue with particular suggestions.

Add on to that that the world changes - new factors like social media and information sharing - and you can't even depend on models from the past. D2 with the kind of metagame awareness we have now wouldn't be the same game as it was then.

I do agree with you on the basic attitude, though: humility. I firmly believe the best attitude for developers is: test, iterate, test, iterate, and test again. Failure is inevitable, so the best method is to just let failure happen, test it, try to analyse the failure, refine it into a presumably smaller failure. And test again.

The thing is, it's not a good idea to expose unwilling players to this testing. Frequent changes hinder gameplay. So this type of stuff is supposed to happen behind-the-scenes. My biggest worry with GGG isn't the constant balance changes per se, but the feeling that we see and feel all of those changes, and that we're continuing to be used as beta test guinea pigs in a game which is in full release.

But if I was a game developer I wouldn't take any suggestions seriously. None. I know I make a lot of suggestions myself, but if you think I expect GGG to care, I don't. I'm just working out the design for myself.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Is the Lab poorly designed? Of course it is; lots of players hate that shit. But in all the Lab threads, the appropriate solution has likely been mentioned 0 times.

Chackpoints, thats all it needs, i have said it a lot of times and i doubt im the first one to say it.

"

frenrihr wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Is the Lab poorly designed? Of course it is; lots of players hate that shit. But in all the Lab threads, the appropriate solution has likely been mentioned 0 times.

Chackpoints, thats all it needs, i have said it a lot of times and i doubt im the first one to say it.

It doesn't need checkpoints, the challenge was designed to be done in 1 sitting. While Chris said "15 min" I think he vastly underestimates "how good" players are at overcoming or navigating through a challenge, especially when the information about the lab is shared.

"

What was the 15 minutes time referring to? It seems way off for any kind of duration relative to the lab.

Frenrir, stop it with the personnal attacks. I know it's frustrating when people show a complete lack of empathy, but by letting yourself react that strongly, you are getting baited into breaking the discussion, and possibly also into facing sanctions like probation.

Way too off as too long or too short? I can't judge based on your statement which you think is "right"