Remove xp loss on death, replace with xp bonuses for surviving

"

Fruz wrote:

And stop exagerating with "Pop the Weasel one shots" ffs.
How do HC players reach level 100 ?
Or even level 90+ ?

They stick to easy content unless they conform to a very specific meta, maybe run with a group, and, quite frankly, get lucky. Also, just because a very very small percentage of players CAN make it to 100 in HC doesn't mean that the SC penalty should never be reviewed.

"

How come HC players have killed shaper, meaning they tackled the most difficult content without dying ?
It's amazing how that sounds impossible with all of that "the game is a one shot fest duh!" going on in the forums, right ?

As someone else mentioned, Shaper is a mechanical fight. With a little practice or guidance and a lot of damage or support, it's not a big deal. What's a big deal is the unexpected in rare maps. I'm not saying I want GGG to get rid of the unexpected, but there are a lot of bullshit deaths, ones that can be near impossible to predict because the screen gets so cluttered or because enemies are hiding or just spawning (a beyond monster exploding corpses IMMEDIATELY when it appears, volatile enemies for melee characters, especially ones that are popping up from underground or buffed by another enemy that is nearly hidden, connection issues... these are probably the biggest unexpected killers).

"

morbo wrote:

I'd be ok with a "casual" non-ladder league, where there is no penalty, 5x or 10x XP progression, good loot everywhere, free ascendancy points, halved master crafting prices and everything else you can imagine... but don't try to fk up the last vestiges of "hardcoreness" PoE still has.

Removing the penalty would make the game even more boring. It would remove the tension at high levels. If there was just a bonus for surviving, you would care much less about dying and zerg the content each time you'd rip - since you cant loose anything more than what you had just lost.

What? The last vestiges of hardcoreness... I don't understand... If you want hardcore, why not play hardcore (unless you have a bad connection)? What is hardcore about softcore right now except for the silly xp penalty? Why is that penalty necessary? Do you not think player retention would go up if more build types could conceivably strive for 100? And, again, my thought is not that reaching 100 suddenly becomes easy (you still have to earn those xp bonuses to level up efficiently); the idea is that people in softcore always feel like they're making at least some small progress and don't quit playing because they feel like their time is terribly undervalued.

I'd love more of a challenge (not in terms of economy, but in terms of enemies) and more variety in this game (have GGG reel in damage numbers, more mechanical fights that don't severely punish you for not playing the damage meta), but this is a separate issue from the damage penalty. The penalty is a rather arbitrary way to beat people down and annoy a huge portion of the playerbase. And it annoys me to no end when people essentially say "shut up and get good" when "get good" almost never means challenge yourself; it means spam easier content with a very quick and powerful build.

"

Ceri wrote:

It might also be prudent to investigate if temp leagues should have a harsher penalty because that's where the actual racing is done. I see no reason to keep the penalty in Standard, though. That just pisses off the players, for no reason. I do see a point in keeping it where ladder races are a thing, though. I could see a reverse slider on the ladder position. The higher up you are, the more XP you lose if you die. If you're below a certain threshold (5000?) you have no penalty. Makes sense to me.

Yes! I would be happy with removing the penalty only in Standard. I see little point in having it there, except that GGG wants everyone to play the temp leagues, so a leveling wall might cause people to quit until that next temp league where they can start fresh again instead of sticking around in Standard. I have a feeling this is far less of an issue than GGG thinks.

"

Tempada wrote:

What? The last vestiges of hardcoreness... I don't understand... If you want hardcore, why not play hardcore (unless you have a bad connection)?

"Hardcore" not as in permadeath (or permaban in case of PoE), but hardcore as in difficult game, designed for dedicated players.

"

Tempada wrote:

What is hardcore about softcore right now except for the silly xp penalty? Why is that penalty necessary? Do you not think player retention would go up if more build types could conceivably strive for 100?

At later levels (90+) you strive to avoid death, that's what is "hardcore" about SC. The penalty is neccessary to keep people from simply zerging lvl 100. It also makes the gameplay more thrilling. Removing the penalty would make the game even more boring, cause then there would be very few reasons to not go for full DPS glass cannons. Currently at least some builds have to mildly think about defenses too.

"

Tempada wrote:

I'd love more of a challenge (not in terms of economy, but in terms of enemies) and more variety in this game (have GGG reel in damage numbers, more mechanical fights that don't severely punish you for not playing the damage meta), but this is a separate issue from the damage penalty.

I'd love all that too, but it is probably not happening, because the game is becoming more streamlined and "casualized" - precisely to cater to a wider audience of players.

The death penalty is a non-issue for casual players, because they DO NOT level past 90 (or even past 80). Anyone dedicated enough to try to level that far, should be expected to have balanced builds that dont rip all the time. In fact, I'd severely raise the death penalty in mid game (from Cruel onward), because now its irrelevant.

You are misrepresenting and getting all this confused in your little world of extremes.

Think you hardcore, but this isn't about hardcore, this is about having the best systems. I could make something that would be too difficult for you to play but without a death penalty if you wanted, that is a superior on every level higher form of challenging than being challenged by annoyance and frustration. Current death penalty destroys build viability more than anything else.

This is about fixing bad systems. And i have never had much left for those who want systems that just scare away players for no good reason so the remaining who are willing to bear with bad systems can sit around in a circle and tell each other how hardcore they are.

You are double-standard because you aren't actually extreme since you are too scared to play real hardcore, but won't apply the realization of yourself to both sides of the story.

There really is no worth arguing with this type of logic, as soon as you trolls come in its just void of arguments but painting scary-pictures and ridiculing the other side and whatnot. See to reply to your arguments, which is what anyone respectable does in a discussion, is to descend into the same mudsling just as my post here was.

"

Crackmonster wrote:

I could make something that would be too difficult for you to play but without a death penalty if you wanted, that is a superior on every level higher form of challenging ...

Yeah and do you think GGG will do that? Completely redesign and rebalance the game? haha, lol, they wouldn't give a damn about mechanical flaws (eg. fleet map mod, fractured, etc..) even in desync days.

I'm simply explaining whay the death penalty is neccessary in the confines of the current game mechanics. Your wishful thinking what the game could be (if designed by some other developer), is irrelevant.

And I will never fully commit to HC in this game because of tecnical instability / bad performance, always online req and burst damage mechanics.

"

There really is no worth arguing with this type of logic, as soon as you trolls come in its just void of arguments but painting scary-pictures and ridiculing the other side and whatnot.

Said the guy who uses adhominem...

"

Crackmonster wrote:

See you are just a little troll.

All you want is continue ad hominem.

Bye.

Aw, already out of arguments? :( I thought you called yourself 'respectable'...

Maybe you just dont understand that PoE only got easier in mechanics / gameplay over the years and this design direction will sadly not change. There are zero reasons to remove the penalty, because its impact is neglegible before lvl 90. The penalty already affects only non-casual players. If you cant cope with it, then stay away from lvl 100.

"

morbo wrote:

"

Crackmonster wrote:

See you are just a little troll.

All you want is continue ad hominem.

Bye.

Aw, already out of arguments? :( I thought you called yourself 'respectable'...

Maybe you just dont understand that PoE only got easier in mechanics / gameplay over the years and this design direction will sadly not change. There are zero reasons to remove the penalty, because its impact is neglegible before lvl 90. The penalty already affects only non-casual players. If you cant cope with it, then stay away from lvl 100.

Please stop it with the casual players argument.

I am a casual n00b hoarder that plays his trusty dual wielding Dory Resolute Technique Juggernaut at least for the dailies (wanted to just chill and see how far on the road towards 100 those would get me, but the additional EXP penalty hit and now I have to also do 1-2 maps > tier 10 if I want to see the EXP bar move), and I chill for about 30 minutes (sue me, I enjoy to fully clear every map and grab every piece of loot). I reached more than 60% on the bar post 96 before my first Volatile Blood devourer death, fast forward and after reaching 60% again, an almost identical one happened. After another few days post 2.5.2 when I started the game again (was away when the patch hit) I got a cool map where in a couple of minutes - I am a stuborn player that goes berserk at times even and does all the possible to kill the enemy that vanquished me - I lost all that progression versus dual Abaxoth just because the game dropped to 0 FPS for a few seconds - I find that sad but also my fault to try and kill them so many times and only dropping them both below 10% HP...

I am pissed by the 2 Volatile deaths, and just dissapointed that the game was rendered unplayable for me on 2.5.2 on that build so I don't feel like even playing for chill when I experience 0 FPS for a couple of seconds and everything could kill me...

Oh, and I'm as casual as you could get, as I don't give a damn about the end game content, and just consider the higher tier my limit, but if they actually gave incentive - like tie post level 95 progression towards 100 to the >tier 15 fights, I would be the first that would man up and learn those mechanical fights if I wanted to progress...

They should choose to keep the death EXP penalty at this level, but should drop the artificial EXP penalty and lock progression from level 90 to tier 10 and above maps, 91 to tier 11 and above, and so on until 96 at >tier 15. Make every map give you 5% EXP up to 95 and 1-5% for the end game encounters post 96 and you're set.

Then reaching 100 would be more a question of skill and would have a meaning as everyone would become more adjusted to 95 as an arbitrary "casual" cap, with only the "elites" to look towards 100...

"

sofocle10000 wrote:

I am pissed by the 2 Volatile deaths, and just dissapointed that the game was rendered unplayable for me on 2.5.2

These problems should be fixed at their root, not by removing the death penalty. VB is prob. the worst mechanic currently in the game and should be redesigned. Deaths due to technical FPS issues, lag, DC.. are more of an exception and in same cases can't be completely solved since its an online game.

Removing the penalty would make progression feel better for you in these particular cases, but make the game more boring / more trivial / easier for other players. So it's your enjoyment vs other people's enjoyment. I feel that GGG overdid the XP gain nerf (nerfing XP curve twice), which then made the death penalty feel worse.

Removing penalty = allowing zerging gameplay, which is hardly a good game design. It would also remove the fear factor. I thought most players here (at least old supporters) were D2 enthusiast? D2 had XP penalty, as well as the possiblity to loose your gear.

"

morbo wrote:

"

sofocle10000 wrote:

I am pissed by the 2 Volatile deaths, and just dissapointed that the game was rendered unplayable for me on 2.5.2

These problems should be fixed at their root, not by removing the death penalty. VB is prob. the worst mechanic currently in the game and should be redesigned. Deaths due to technical FPS issues, lag, DC.. are more of an exception and in same cases can't be completely solved since its an online game.

Removing the penalty would make progression feel better for you in these particular cases, but make the game more boring / more trivial / easier for other players. So it's your enjoyment vs other people's enjoyment. I feel that GGG overdid the XP gain nerf (nerfing XP curve twice), which then made the death penalty feel worse.

Removing penalty = allowing zerging gameplay, which is hardly a good game design. It would also remove the fear factor. I thought most players here (at least old supporters) were D2 enthusiast? D2 had XP penalty, as well as the possiblity to loose your gear.

But they should first lock the EXP progression to "difficult" content, and if I could reach easily with my own build up to tier 13 at least - played "bonkers on damage, 5K HP enough" and only after I dropped 40% damage and went "bonkers on HP" and gained 1.6K more without changing a single item - you could lock the progression more...

I am against zerging, and also against paying some to play the "difficult" content, but why not set a cap on the deaths to 20 before losing a level, and reset the said cap when leveling? And Labyrinth should be a mandatory solo experience, as to have one of the best fights of the game "payed" is way worse and sad than even zerging...

And of course they should finish the game already, as it's intolerable to have such a roller coaster rise every time they release a patch - I hate the russian roulette played with a gun with clip instead of barrel that lately became the "technical improvements"...

"

sofocle10000 wrote:

But they should first lock the EXP progression to "difficult" content
...
Labyrinth should be a mandatory solo experience

Agreed x2

There is plenty of stuff I'd change. From more harder and mechanical fights, to making red maps matter for XP progression a lot more than they do now. Id slow the shit down, severely decrease pack size and with that screen clutter, introduce dangerous mobs (buff exiles back to 1.3 - 2.0 patch, I loved to play hide-and-seek with Magnus!), make wraeclast scary again and reward players for not avoiding difficult maps.

Still, some sort of penalty has to be part of the equation, else playing in SC would feel like D3 - no real penalty on death, therefore granted progression tied only to time, no matter how shitty you play. PoE should be better and more complex than that.

Sadly GGG's direction seems to be: more crap on screen, faster crap on screen, more screen-wide Xplosions! of AOE instagrat feeling... more onedimensional faster gameplay. Aint got no time to even collect stupid low orbs like alc or jew!

This game isn't balanced around level 100. Nothing is forcing you to get to 100. If you want to get to 100 you need to sacrifice the time / effort to get there. It isn't and shouldn't be handed to you via removal of xp loss.