The -15% exp penalty is obnoxiously bad outdated design.

"

deteego wrote:

"

Courageous wrote:

"

...I played my fair share of D3. Have 10 level 60s. My SC monk is like paragon 71,...

This description shows you to be a diligent, dedicated, "hard core" gamer.

Your average every day gamer, when they first encountered the heavy repair bills prior to the nerf, the paragon system, and loot dropping like candy, risked reverse revenue flows due to the penalty. Perhaps, however, you were unaware of that. Due to, you know, your l33+ status... >;-/

Anyway, my point here is that there was a time where repair bills were a semi-okay way of keeping people from being too reckless. If they persisted on, they would run out of cash, with about the only feasible option being dropping back 1 Act or so.

I mean people should stop bitching about D3 so much. Yes it did fail massively in some areas, but in others it did very well.

The death penalty in D3 was actually very well designed (and yes its a penalty, anything that impacts you directly in a negative way when you die is a penalty, thats the definition)

It was better designed than PoE's system, because it actually prevented carrying, and it wasn't so harsh on incidental deaths (however it was much more brutal against constant dying than PoE's)

PoE's death timer is meaningless when you have just gained a level. People just rush through quests (regardless if they die constantly) and then they just farm in easy areas to make up for lost EXP (often in parties). Its actually made some parts of the game pretty boring

One question... how did D3's lack of a death penalty prevent carrying? The player being carried doesn't even need to be present when you kill diablo let alone do the other quests!!!! You can just sit in town... Seriously, how can you honestly say that they 'prevented carrying'. Hell, there are even ways to get XP in town while someone carries you through the content.

The death penalty in D3 FAILED MISERABLY. There is a reason that everyone stacks damage, damage, and more damage in that game (softcore)... its because dying doesn't matter in the slightest.

"

thepmrc wrote:

One question... how did D3's lack of a death penalty prevent carrying? The player being carried doesn't even need to be present when you kill diablo let alone do the other quests!!!! You can just sit in town... Seriously, how can you honestly say that they 'prevented carrying'. Hell, there are even ways to get XP in town while someone carries you through the content.

The death penalty in D3 FAILED MISERABLY. There is a reason that everyone stacks damage, damage, and more damage in that game (softcore)... its because dying doesn't matter in the slightest.

Repair costs, thats how. If you constantly die (which happens when you are carried and underlevelled, you basically get one shot by the boss), you will basically have almost no gold when you proceed into the next act, and your terrible gear means that your experience in the next area would be so painful that you would probably just wished you didn't get carried

Also if you don't actually participate at all in boss fights, unless you are overgeared/overlevelled in the fight, having one useless person is enough to make a boss fight incredibly hard with respawn timers

I get the "pro-arguments", but it's a bit too high percentage wise and it can be really really frustrating. Dieing 5x in a row because of rubber banding or lag is just silly. Everytime that happens I regret going pure caster/ES witch lol.

"

deteego wrote:

"

thepmrc wrote:

One question... how did D3's lack of a death penalty prevent carrying? The player being carried doesn't even need to be present when you kill diablo let alone do the other quests!!!! You can just sit in town... Seriously, how can you honestly say that they 'prevented carrying'. Hell, there are even ways to get XP in town while someone carries you through the content.

The death penalty in D3 FAILED MISERABLY. There is a reason that everyone stacks damage, damage, and more damage in that game (softcore)... its because dying doesn't matter in the slightest.

Repair costs, thats how. If you constantly die (which happens when you are carried and underlevelled, you basically get one shot by the boss), you will basically have almost no gold when you proceed into the next act, and your terrible gear means that your experience in the next area would be so painful that you would probably just wished you didn't get carried

Also if you don't actually participate at all in boss fights, unless you are overgeared/overlevelled in the fight, having one useless person is enough to make a boss fight incredibly hard with respawn timers

Considering I have carried a player 1-60 in about 5 hours in HC with MP10 I think your assumptions of constantly dying is far off base. You can stay well out of danger and still get xp. Well geared characters completely trivialize the content and the amount of gold that drops completely trivializes the death penalty. Again if death was meaningful (like it is in PoE), players would value defensive statistics more than damage.

No boss is difficult in D3 if you have decent gear. My monk could carry 3 invalids on mp8 ubers and he isn't even that amazing.

"

idky88 wrote:

do u know what the word challenge means ?

I doubt most people play ARPGs for the challenge. At least for me it has always been about progressing my gear and character by killing swarms of mobs. You don't want it to be too easy as that gets boring, but being punished for playing recklessly in this type of game is stupid IMO.

"

MrH wrote:

"

idky88 wrote:

do u know what the word challenge means ?

I doubt most people play ARPGs for the challenge. At least for me it has always been about progressing my gear and character by killing swarms of mobs. You don't want it to be too easy as that gets boring, but being punished for playing recklessly in this type of game is stupid IMO.

Actually, it's worst than that.

The XP penalty is forcing the 'One True Build' syndrome. Now, with all the choices in the skill tree you're probably thinking, "What 'one' true build? Nagi, you're a moron." Well, I am but that's not the point. The point is that all the builds that are in the top end of the game use a 'ranged' attack of some sort. Lightning Strike and/or Ground Slam (which can hit targets well before they can get close to you), or spells and arrows. The 'One True Build' is don't Melee. At all.

That's not Challenge, that's Bad Design.

"

MrH wrote:

"

idky88 wrote:

do u know what the word challenge means ?

I doubt most people play ARPGs for the challenge. At least for me it has always been about progressing my gear and character by killing swarms of mobs. You don't want it to be too easy as that gets boring, but being punished for playing recklessly in this type of game is stupid IMO.

I agree.

I play the game for the fun time I have. A challenge does not really enter into it. In fact the game offers a mode that is a challenge. I think it is called hardcore.

Anyone who selects default probably realizes they do not really want a challenge but a fun time playing a game.

They should not even have released hardcore mode until the servers stabilized. It's going to cause massive frustrations for death over lag and desync. It not very funny to die suddenly when the nearest mob is 10 meters away from you and not doing anything.

"

zqlimy wrote:

If people can make it to lvl 90 in hardcore, i dont see the problem.

No one has, the highest so far in OB is level 87.

"

thepmrc wrote:

Considering I have carried a player 1-60 in about 5 hours in HC with MP10 I think your assumptions of constantly dying is far off base. You can stay well out of danger and still get xp. Well geared characters completely trivialize the content and the amount of gold that drops completely trivializes the death penalty. Again if death was meaningful (like it is in PoE), players would value defensive statistics more than damage.

No boss is difficult in D3 if you have decent gear. My monk could carry 3 invalids on mp8 ubers and he isn't even that amazing.

This isn't really a counter argument because people could get from 1-60 even while wanking.

And people did have to value defense statistics, if you were monk, you basically had to put 4/5 of your abilities into defensive ones and leaving your offensive ability to something like Thunder Strike

In any case, the current exp penalty is stupid and badly designed. Im not for removing a penalty, I however strongly agree that the current penalty is really badly designed, and its actually impacting the games balancing severely (to the point where any successful late game build is now just HP tank maraders/templars) because if you are not sitting at 3k+ HP when you reach the later stages of merciless, you basically get one shot.

I guess it can be a whole cause/effect discussion, if builds that weren't purely defensive were more viable than the EXP loss wouldn't be so hard on them, but even then, EXP loss does harm more offensive based builds much more than the defensive ones, and its mainly due to how the EXP loss is scaled (its just a flat 15%)

Either the exp loss is scaled better, or its changed entirely so its not so punishing for certain builds, and doesn't allow gimping as it does in the current form (like being able to be carried through bosses with portal scrolls when you just gain a level)

Hell, having armor break when you die (which you need to repair with some orbs, the amount of orbs increase as you level) sounds like a better idea as a death penalty.