Boost global XP by 100%

"

and what they're ACTUALLY used for

Many people being dumb doesnt make what they say right.

"

nynyny wrote:

"

and what they're ACTUALLY used for

Many people being dumb doesnt make what they say right.

Well you can't dismiss the sad truth that what's originally the point or purpose changes a lot of the time, especially when it comes to terminology. That's not even something i support or respect, i just accept it, and it baffles me that you refuse to do so.

My first post towards you discussed the fact that you asked why anyone would use the terms in general. If we've moved away from this, i'm through.

"

Hodari wrote:

I'd say the part about ad hominems and lack of reading comprehension applies to YOUR posts as well. And you're still missing the point.

It is possible to reach endgame in under 24 hours of playing. It doesn't matter if you do it in one continuous session like the racers do. If you don't have that kind of time, you can STILL do it in 6 4 hour sessions. Or 12 2 hours. I think most people here can manage that.

Statements of fact are not ad hominem. When I don't address any of his points and instead call him a retard multiple times, we'll talk. Firstly, I never said it's not possible to reach endgame in under 24 hours of playing divided up. How is that even "a point" when the context was 24 hours in a one week race, which means 2 twelve hour sessions at the very least? Who has time for that? No lifers/neckbearders/streamers. Still not disputed through all this derailment.

"

Hodari wrote:

And sure, not everyone can level as fast as those racers. So take those numbers and double them if you want. 50 hours to reach endgame still doesn't seem that bad. And if you want to claim 50 hours is unrealistic for most people, then sorry but you're just wrong.

Not sure what to make of this. You acknowledge my point that not everyone can level as fast as those racers, then disagree with a claim (50 hours) that I've never made. I'm no statistician, but doubling the performance of outliers to predict the norm for all players doesn't seem like a terribly dependable approach. For that matter, neither does using one person's experience (yours) seem like a dependable approach.

"

Taganov wrote:

How is that even "a point" when the context was 24 hours in a one week race, which means 2 twelve hour sessions at the very least? Who has time for that? No lifers/neckbearders/streamers. Still not disputed through all this derailment.

Not sure what to make of this. You acknowledge my point that not everyone can level as fast as those racers, then disagree with a claim (50 hours) that I've never made. I'm no statistician, but doubling the performance of outliers to predict the norm for all players doesn't seem like a terribly dependable approach. For that matter, neither does using one person's experience (yours) seem like a dependable approach.

No, the context was you said it takes too long to level to end-game and I replied that it doesn't. I used the fact that people are able to reach early end-game levels within 24 hours and mid-90's within one week as an EXAMPLE to counter this. How can you still not grasp this simple concept? And yes, using my personal experience DOES seem valid in this context given that I do not consider myself to be exceptionally fast at leveling and wasn't even trying to treat it as a competitive race.

And when you keep dismissing anyone who plays more then you as a "neckbearder", accusing anyone who disagrees with you of "derailing" and questioning their ability to read etc., yes, I would say if anyone in this thread is guilty of ad hominems, it's you.

Now how about dropping the pointless argument over the exact meaning of terms like "neckbearder" and trying to counter the actual argument we are making? If you think 50 hours total playtime is unreasonable for a normal person to reach level 70, then how long do you think it DOES take them currently? Or how long SHOULD it take? And if they do boost xp as much as you want, then what is that going to do to the people who DO have more time to play and how should they keep THEM interested in the game in the long run?

"

Hodari wrote:

Spoiler

"

Taganov wrote:

How is that even "a point" when the context was 24 hours in a one week race, which means 2 twelve hour sessions at the very least? Who has time for that? No lifers/neckbearders/streamers. Still not disputed through all this derailment.

Not sure what to make of this. You acknowledge my point that not everyone can level as fast as those racers, then disagree with a claim (50 hours) that I've never made. I'm no statistician, but doubling the performance of outliers to predict the norm for all players doesn't seem like a terribly dependable approach. For that matter, neither does using one person's experience (yours) seem like a dependable approach.

No, the context was you said it takes too long to level to end-game and I replied that it doesn't. I used the fact that people are able to reach early end-game levels within 24 hours and mid-90's within one week as an EXAMPLE to counter this. How can you still not grasp this simple concept? And yes, using my personal experience DOES seem valid in this context given that I do not consider myself to be exceptionally fast at leveling and wasn't even trying to treat it as a competitive race.

And when you keep dismissing anyone who plays more then you as a "neckbearder", accusing anyone who disagrees with you of "derailing" and questioning their ability to read etc., yes, I would say if anyone in this thread is guilty of ad hominems, it's you.

Now how about dropping the pointless argument over the exact meaning of terms like "neckbearder" and trying to counter the actual argument we are making? If you think 50 hours total playtime is unreasonable for a normal person to reach level 70, then how long do you think it DOES take them currently? Or how long SHOULD it take? And if they do boost xp as much as you want, then what is that going to do to the people who DO have more time to play and how should they keep THEM interested in the game in the long run?

I never said it takes too long to end game. I never asked for an EXP bump. Go ahead and re-read the thread. I even state that what the OP is asking is much. I never argued what progression should be or complained about it. You seem to have read that...somewhere? I argued that we should not establish norms of progression on outliers. That's all. You've a bone to pick, but it's not with me.

I pointed out that neckbearders/no lifers/streamers have more time to play the game than normal people, so norms can't be established using them. Nynyny did all the definition and carrying on what it means, etc. Pick that bone with him.

You suggested progression is fast enough based on racers. I pointed out that racers are outliers, and you can't define norms based on them. You even acknowledged this point. Beyond that I'm done. This is basic, obvious shit.

Now you're arguing that in your personal opinion, your sample of one person--who happens to be you--is adequate enough to establish norms of progression. Again, not a statistician, but 100% certain that's a poor approach. But here's a broader picture of what progression looks like for the average player. Only 44.8% of Steam users have killed Brutus in normal. That means that out of a sample of more than 6500, 55% haven't even made it past Brutus, which means most of them are taking significantly longer/never reaching maps.

"

Taganov wrote:

But here's a broader picture of what progression looks like for the average player. Only 44.8% of Steam users have killed Brutus in normal. That means that out of a sample of more than 6500, 55% haven't even made it past Brutus, which means most of them are taking significantly longer/never reaching maps.

No, that means those are people who tried the game, didn't like it, and quit. If you think those people are even remotely useful as a comparison for how long it takes to level, then you're completely out of your mind. And again, I;m not trying to use racers as a NORM, just as an example of what is possible. And AGAIN, if you think my own numbers are wrong, how long DO you think it takes to reach endgame?

And are you here to argue semantics or just to troll or are you actually here to discuss the topic of this thread which is whether or not xp gains need to be buffed? Right now, it looks like you're just here to troll.

"

LMTR14 wrote:

Boost global XP by 100% or even more

not everybody has 16 hours a day or is willing to spend that time on this game.

+1

Leveling in poe are worse than in any arpg and Diablo clones.

"

Hodari wrote:

And are you here to argue semantics or just to troll or are you actually here to discuss the topic of this thread which is whether or not xp gains need to be buffed? Right now, it looks like you're just here to troll.

More than happy to discuss.

My opinion is a straight buff to EXP gains is too much. EXP is OK until the 80s, where it becomes very grindy and you have to party and do high level maps to push ahead. If your build or gear is dodgy, you're generally done, and sustaining a map pool requires both luck and trade. I'd say none-map, higher EXP areas would be a welcome boost. I wouldn't be sad if the EXP penalty were halved or went away entirely; 10% of your exp past 80 is a couple hours of progress wiped out. Just those things without a global boost to EXP would go a long way to pushing higher EXP progression away from RNG gates.

Regarding time to make it to endgame--by which I mean maps--there are too many variables, it's too subjective and EXP is probably the smallest part of it. Did you trade? Did you party? Did you follow an established build? Did you follow a guide? All these would affect time to maps more than EXP, and if you answer no to the build and guides questions, I highly doubt you'll get to Merc, much less maps.

"

Taganov wrote:

My opinion is a straight buff to EXP gains is too much. EXP is OK until the 80s, where it becomes very grindy and you have to party and do high level maps to push ahead. If your build or gear is dodgy, you're generally done, and sustaining a map pool requires both luck and trade. I'd say none-map, higher EXP areas would be a welcome boost. I wouldn't be sad if the EXP penalty were halved or went away entirely; 10% of your exp past 80 is a couple hours of progress wiped out. Just those things without a global boost to EXP would go a long way to pushing higher EXP progression away from RNG gates.

Regarding time to make it to endgame--by which I mean maps--there are too many variables, it's too subjective and EXP is probably the smallest part of it. Did you trade? Did you party? Did you follow an established build? Did you follow a guide? All these would affect time to maps more than EXP, and if you answer no to the build and guides questions, I highly doubt you'll get to Merc, much less maps.

Yeah, I can agree with most of that. The only issue I'd have with nerfing the deah xp penalty again is that it would make dying almost meaningless at lower levels. Maybe if they had something where it's 10% until you hit level 70 or 80 or so, then gradually decreases from there?

"

LMTR14 wrote:

or even more

not everybody has 16 hours a day or is willing to spend that time on this game. when D2's levelling progress was slowing down dramatically (for me at least) at level 80, in this game it's more like level 60 (!).

The level soft caps are different from D2. In PoE, end game starts at about 65 ish, with levelling beyond that a grind. You're comparing tomatoes and oranges.
Changing the exp gain like that would completely throw out the level balance of the monsters. Everything would be too easy.