Death Penalty Adjustment Discussion

Not even.

For them to test it they'd have to change their stance on leagues never being easier, always being added challenge.

As such, you would either have MF penalties that diminish as you accumulate experience w/o dying, or suffer an MF penalty on death that similarly diminished.

"

CanHasPants wrote:

Not even.

For them to test it they'd have to change their stance on leagues never being easier, always being added challenge.

As such, you would either have MF penalties that diminish as you accumulate experience w/o dying, or suffer an MF penalty on death that similarly diminished.

Except plenty of the leagues have been easier. Rampage would be the latest example. Just lower the drop rates slightly but have the max MF bonus that accumulates from not dying go a little over where current drop rates are.

"

Telzen wrote:

Except plenty of the leagues have been easier. Rampage would be the latest example. Just lower the drop rates slightly but have the max MF bonus that accumulates from not dying go a little over where current drop rates are.

Well first, the concept of rampage couraged fast play, which in the end results in more mistakes trying to keep the counter going. You can't honestly say that the rampage bonuses really made anything easier can you? Oh look, the mobs I one shot are stunned before I can hit them. But even if we just conceded this one to you, name another league that is easier. Rampage is literally the only one that comes close because it was implied danger rather than direct.

Also with 3 month leagues, it's to test changes for the entire game. Are you saying that people should just be rewarded for playing HC in general? Also wouldn't having shittier drops be worse than an experience penalty for the majority of players? I mean we have to assume that some people just have a hard time staying alive, if they don't get to higher levels the penalty is never more than a slap on the wrist to remind them they should improve. If you start taking away their drops they'll feel it's an endless circle of failure. They don't have good items so they die and they don't get good items because they die.

Seriously people, Chris said they're happy with the current death penalty, just let it go. Both of these threads have equal parts agreeing and disagreeing, which seems balanced from an unbiased position. It's a penalty, meaning punishment. A punishment that people don't get hurt by never deters the behavior the punishment is set in place for.

So move on and L2P

You can add Invasion to that list, too, because if you really wanted to you could just sit in town all day.

The XP penalty for gaining XP compares monster level to character level and punishes you the wider the gap is.

The XP penalty for death should do precisely the same, further pushing players towards higher-level content rather than timidly farming safe zones.

Also, like the XP gain penalty, the XP death penalty would then become increasingly severe as players close in on 100, ensuring it is still as epic of an achievement as possible.

i agree with the OP, death penalty is really dumb and boring, i really liked the non-dying buff idea.........i guess its a reflex of poor endgame, and they think they will kp people interested on playing by making it hard to achive, but in truth, the oposite occours, many people give up cze the reward is not proportional to the effort. if you dont belive me, look the playerbase, permanent leagues looks like a ghost town.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

The XP penalty for gaining XP compares monster level to character level and punishes you the wider the gap is.

It's totally not hardcore to be punished for doing higher lvl content than your char :)

"

andrehbg wrote:

i agree with the OP, death penalty is really dumb and boring, i really liked the non-dying buff idea.........i guess its a reflex of poor endgame, and they think they will kp people interested on playing by making it hard to achive, but in truth, the oposite occours, many people give up cze the reward is not proportional to the effort. if you dont belive me, look the playerbase, permanent leagues looks like a ghost town.

Why must you revive a thread that can wait until Act 4 changes to be discussed intelligently, this isn't going to change before then so talking about it really is quite pointless.


Its not that great of an idea TBH, its very similar to what D3 does in rewarding not deing for a period of time, but lets be honest here, its not a penalty at all, but rather some discouragement from deing which doesn't fit PoE's hardcore mentality.

Standard is very much alive I can promise you that much. Go into Act 3 merciless look at the parties, filter without wtb\wts and people are playing. Right now is probably the lowest its been because 1 month is going on for sick MTX (not really IMO, but most like it) Regular HC has been dead since the introduction of HC temp leagues, it will always remain so because the players that enjoy HC, enjoy a ladder\economy reset as well.

All of OP's responses have completely avoided answering the obvious question, which is why wouldn't SC players build vastly less defensively when the viability criteria now enable five deaths per map before the game exercises any sort of pushback? And thus, what would the role of defensive stats be in the first place, which is to enable you to overcome enemy damage? Until he directly answers this challenge, none of the "remove death penalty" advocates should expect to be taken seriously.

Of course *some* players would advocate and play more under such a system, because it's a system that gives you free shit and asks for nothing in return. That is antithetical to the core design principles of PoE. Other players who want to gain levels because of the challenge and prestige associated with making progress, would see that the bar has been lowered so much that there's no point in playing anymore. Those players would leave, and GGG knows this.

Another thing that's wrong about the arguments being presented is the lvl 100 smokescreen, as if this is the only reason there should be a death penalty is to make lvl 100 harder. It's not. Every piece of character progress should have associated challenges and rewards for overcoming them. For example, getting through those first few 66 maps in the high 60s/low 70s is often tough in a new league with bad gear. But, if through careful play and good planning, you do it without dying, you should be farther along than an equivalent player who slammed them down and hoped for the best. An XP penalty system accomplishes this; it rewards foresight and recognizing dangerous monster scenarios. Under OPs system, only after dying 6 times, do you lose part of a 66 map.

PoE doesn't have checkpoint reversion. It doesn't send you "back" when you die, largely as a consequence of party play. The way ARPGs accomplish this is through reverting a portion of experience gain while leaving the health of the monsters intact. One might imagine other forms of reversion, like that of Dark Souls, but the point is that something has to be lost not as a "punishment" in the retributive sense, but as a means of making the optimal way of playing a balance of offense and defense. In the current model, I get more XP and loot if I clear faster, because more monsters die per unit time. And I get more effective XP the more defensive my build is, because I lose less to the XP death penalties.

Of course you "feel" bad when you fail. But that seems to be all OP can use to justify his position, and that doesn't amount to anything. Removing the failure states is not the solution, because then PoE ceases to be a game, and becomes a toy.