The map level renaming and exp penalty rework are disrespectful to players

"

vio wrote:

so you don't think it's misleading for a player to level from 1 to 60 always doing areas of the same level and then at 60 it suddenly switches and you do area level 70 instances with your level 80 char?

you see no discrepancy by the fact that a char can be level 100 but area levels only go to 82?

to make a clear cut at a point where characters aren't supposed to be at the same level as their area is the right decision and long overdue.

GGG has never based difficulty on monster or area level. Once your war-worn tootsies step foot in merc they make it well understood a direct correlation between area level and difficulty go out the window. So it's up to the player to figure out for his skill level/build/gear what he can handle and my problem with changing lvl to tiers is they are still going to have to figure that out for themselves, tiers won't be able to tell the new player this, especially the new player who won't have an established point of reference.

"

GeorgAnatoly wrote:

"

vio wrote:

so you don't think it's misleading for a player to level from 1 to 60 always doing areas of the same level and then at 60 it suddenly switches and you do area level 70 instances with your level 80 char?

you see no discrepancy by the fact that a char can be level 100 but area levels only go to 82?

to make a clear cut at a point where characters aren't supposed to be at the same level as their area is the right decision and long overdue.

GGG has never based difficulty on monster or area level. Once your war-worn tootsies step foot in merc they make it well understood a direct correlation between area level and difficulty go out the window. So it's up to the player to figure out for his skill level/build/gear to figure out what he can handle and my problem with changing lvl to tiers is they are still going to have to figure that out for themselves, tiers won't be able to tell the new player this, especially the new player who doesn't have an established point of reference.

^Your point is accurate, however if we put it in reverse we get the following scenario ->

Hmm i'm level 80 so i should be able to do a lvl 80 map now.

Which is most likely the current experience of newer players to the game reaching maps for the first time.

So while difficulty is indeed arbitrary and depends on many factors, the inherent map levels where not contributing to this.

It's irrelevant for experienced players though, like you suggest, experience triumphs in this case.

Peace,

-Boem-

So either way we haven't helped the new player realistically assess his character's ability without gaining that knowledge simply through experience. GGG was right, this is quite the conundrum.

Edit: Maybe they need to start the tier system in merc, starting in merc act 4 for example. That would help the new to late game/mapping establish a reference for map tiers.

Has anyone done the maths compared to 1.3 xp gains for chaining maps with the new lower exp, I wonder if it works out about the same.
I find ggg's wording disrespectful and obfuscating about the community desires to see lvl 100 take longer, no one i knew cared to watch etup take longer or havoc on his 2nd character, its not like i logged into twitch and went darn i wish i could watch etup do this for another day.
About map difficulty and tiers, poe is a game that doesnt hold your hand anywhere, you have to go online and read. If a player couldnt work out they were meant to be doing maps at a lower lvl then they were to bad. Its a game where noobs get scammed left and right and you have to work out how to use a site not mentioned in game officially to trade well.

"

Boem wrote:

You seem to forget that only one league ago people where chaining 78 maps to reach lvl 100.

Now as somebody that has experience going past lvl 95 i assume you know how the experience penalty's work in PoE and understand the drastic increase in xp availability because of upping the map tiers by 4 levels?

82 maps are significantly harder than alt-regaled 78s, and they cost significantly more to buy, roll, and ambush. In terms of exp/hr and exp/cost we are actually very close to 1.3 now. If they increase the exp penalty without increasing 79+ drop rates, we will go to lower exp/hr and exp/cost than 1.3, simply because we no longer can run these maps blue.

"

Boem wrote:

Simply put, only one league passed with the 82 maps and your already feeling entitled to that progression rate.

How am I entitled? I'm sinking in tons of currency and time in order to progress, and I'm still not even L98. There is simply no way that making the grind to 100 more tedious benefits players. Factually, players get less experience per unit time, and for players whose goal is L100, this means they get less utility per unit time they put into the game. Watch the Video, the guy is brilliant and he literally talks about this!

This means GGG is making the game less rewarding to these players. This is the same way how evil games like clash of clans or farmville punish their players: if you start playing too much the game locks you out and limits to how much you can progress. This is because these games don't have content and don't want you to consume the little they have too fast so they can keep you hooked longer.

Now by playing PoE we already accept some level of grind. What's upsetting is the change in the level of grind, which shows the developer's attitude towards its players and what they think is an acceptable level of utility per unit time for the player.

"

GeorgAnatoly wrote:

So either way we haven't helped the new player realistically assess his character's ability without gaining that knowledge simply through experience. GGG was right, this is quite the conundrum.

True, but in the new "tier" system the game is not implying a character of lvl 80 should attempt a lvl 80 map.

Which could be argued in it's current iteration is the case for newer players, which will most likely result in frustration and a bad experience.

We are blessed with experience, thus this also clouds our judgement when evaluating these changes. We don't consider things that are considered obvious to a new player.

This is aching similar to the statement chris made about "+2 maps are dangerous"

In reality this was a fair statement, in light of newer players, totally hogwash for experienced players though.

Peace,

-Boem-

edit: @matrix

In one post you say "damage is irrelevant for people in the 95+ region" in the next post you state maps are significantly harder thus slowing down the progression rate, there is a conflict either it is A or it is B.


edit2 : typU

I... loathe this community so much sometimes.


"GIEB MORE MEPS!!"

- Leveling to 100 isn't supposed to be the standard though.

"I DUN CARE JUST GIEB MOAR MEPZSZ!!!"

- Here's more maps, at a minor compromise. You actually have to play a fair amount of them

"GIEB M04R MEPZ N XP GAWD WTF GGG U WANT 99% PLAYS KWIT DAFUQ?!?!"




I wish they would just stomp these people out with crippling map drops but I suppose that's too much lost revenue at this point.

"

Boem wrote:

1) obfuscation :



Peace,

-Boem-

I seen this word as i was scanning through and realized i want to listen to Between the Buried and Me now! Thanks! \m/

The XP penalty rework definitely does not seem disrespectful to me, based purely on what was in the manifesto. My feeling on that is that player choice for these things tends to be remarkably binary, and that if 15% more XP for +1 maplevel is sufficient motivation, then you won't see much behavior deviation from when the difference was greater... but it's risky, because if it's not sufficient motivation you'll see endgame mapping abandoned on a massive scale. But they're using one-month as a beta, so the data should tell the story on that one.

The "tier" renaming, however, is kind of blatantly disrespectful. In my darker moods I might say such disrespect has been earned, but at the end of the day you shouldn't judge a community by the worst within it.

I'm all in favor of increasing map drops and lowering the exp gain in the highest tiers. I want higher maps so I can put my build to the test, not just so I can level faster. Endlessly grinding on the same character isn't for me at all but I do want to be able to make a character that I can say took on some of the highest level content in the game and came out on top. I can't say that if I never reach said content.

The tiers thing however I'm slightly annoyed by. It's just extra complexity they've added to the game to play psychological tricks on a certain class of players. I don't think that adds anything useful.

I wouldn't be opposed to seeing map tier and monster level on the item though.