Those who think to use XP penalty to get challenge is serious wrong.
a simple flat minus Xp penalty is not a solution to push players to play challenging content. It simply push them away from it. There are many ways to punish a glass cannon careless player, just not in this way.
It seems to me that those who think XP penalty is fine on high lvl, didnt seems to experience Lag issue.
Lag spike, random crash etc can easily wipe hours of work that is not the player's fault. The flat XP penalty doesnt know it is genuine player death or lag spike cause it.
Penalty is fine if it was up to me, It would be MUCH harsher.
I'd go with this, in combination with maybe balancing out some of the incoming damage spikes.
As it stands though, the current XP loss is what GGG has chosen. It may not be your preference, but until such time as they decide to reassess it and request feedback on it, all you're going to do with these threads is incite less than polite arguments.
I've never seen an argument for the current death penalty being "fine". It's always just an assertion.
You need arguments in something that is more a feeling than something that can be proved? OK, here we go...
I'm lvl 91 and I want reach level 100 (self-found player in Standard). Along the way I've died many times and I've never felt that the punishment for those deaths is a bad thing. Each death is an opportunity to learn (unless it is because of lag or something similar), learn to be more careful. If the penalty for dying is very light then that opportunity to learn is lost and is simply replaced by "does not matter"... I FEEL that the punishment is necessary and is good.
Bethesda is known for having good ideas and terrible realization of them. GGG is a Bethesda subsidiary or what?
Last edited by Actkqk#4579 on Oct 14, 2015, 9:45:36 PM
We see threads like this created or bumped multiple times a week, and the same handful of people post extensively in each one, burying the OP with declarations that the death penalty is fine. But you can't sit there with a straight face and say it's fine when we continue to receive so many complaints about it.
To the upper echelon of players representing the greatest forum voice (top 10%, i.e. anyone consistently running mid-upper tier maps), the death penalty is probably almost universally viewed amongst this group as being fine at lower levels, where XP loss from a death might equate to 5 minutes or less of lost progression. However, only a much smaller portion of this group (top 1% or less) have actually experienced the death penalty in the extremely punishing range (level 95-100), where a death removes multiple ex worth of maps and a day or more of progression.
The scaling of the penalty is problematic. To me it's only absurd at the 95-100 range, but I suspect the progression loss can begin to feel overly punishing to the non-upper echelon of players at a lower level. In fact, I suspect it's one of the reasons why we see such a large % of the player base cease leveling goals so early.
In addition to negatively impacting the motivation to level, the severity of the death penalty when scaled at 95-100 has a strong, and arguably negative, influence on behavior and build design. If/when the penalty begins to feel too punishing, players will begin to opt out of challenging content in order to level (fundamentally hampering their own enjoyment of the game). Furthermore, players who are dead set on reaching the highest level will exclusively seek out build designs that eliminate any risk of death - this may even impact non-upper echelon players, who theory craft a 100 viable build and get bored playing it.
The oft lauded solution to the death penalty of "don't die" is exactly the problem, because of what "don't die" does to gameplay and build design. When a single death eliminates 40 consecutive maps and 8 hours of playtime, the only choice for someone aiming to reach 100 is, indeed, not to die. Ultimately this pigeon holes players into playing one out of a tiny number of very safe but incredibly boring builds. GGG is basically encouraging players aiming to reach 100 to suck the fun out of the game by selecting a build that has no risk of death (and hence, no excitement, no tense moments, no room for skill/twitch based gameplay). The only real challenge is overcoming the boredom and monotony to grind to 100 in a sleepfest build. I can't see this as being good for the game, and the fact that after a couple years we still have under 500 level 100's on standard (along with Chris's recent statement that map changes only target 10% of the player base) suggests there's a problem with retaining/engaging the player base in prolonged leveling.
I'm not sure what the best solution is, or if changes to the death penalty would even improve engagement of the non-upper echelon. But improvements to build diversity and willingness to attempt challenging content could definitely be made for the 10% by adjusting how the death penalty scales. GGG could cap the XP penalty to what a player would lose at a particular level (i.e. instead of keeping it at 10% of 99, it would cap at 10% of 90, or 85, or whatever level GGG feels is sufficiently punishing without negatively impacting behavior and design). Even so, deaths at 95-100 could still be too punishing because experience is harder to come by, due to the level difference penalty. One way around that is to cap/lower the level difference penalty and raise the XP requirements for each level (then if the XP penalty was capped to what a player would lose at a particular level, the progression lost would be more consistent).
Alternatively, GGG could look at penalties in addition to or in lieu of XP loss (such as a stacking IIR/IIQ penalty affecting the zone itself, so you can't simply wait it out). One of the issues I have with the current death penalty is that there's effectively no added penalty for players who aren't trying to level. It gives a free pass to IIR/IIQ farmers, speed runners, characters who are already level 100 who go yolo farm mode, and bots (which die a lot).
your premise is wrong.
Don't die can equally apply to a fun build, it only requires more focus and dedication.
But most of the times, in return, you will get faster experience (since most of the time = fun build = dps canon style)
Nothing dictates a player cannot level to 100 with a glass canon build if his observation and reactionary skills are matching his expectations of the content he is in.
In the old map system i ran 77 shrines with 140% on a 2800 hp ranger, deathless without issue's. She would get insta shrekt though if i played her when i am sleepy or not up to it.
A 100% tank build is only utilized to enable progression without much difficulty, that doesn't imply you can't make progression with difficulty.
Peace,
-Boem-
Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes
Don't die can equally apply to a fun build, it only requires more focus and dedication.
But most of the times, in return, you will get faster experience (since most of the time = fun build = dps canon style)
Nothing dictates a player cannot level to 100 with a glass canon build if his observation and reactionary skills are matching his expectations of the content he is in.
In the old map system i ran 77 shrines with 140% on a 2800 hp ranger, deathless without issue's. She would get insta shrekt though if i played her when i am sleepy or not up to it.
A 100% tank build is only utilized to enable progression without much difficulty, that doesn't imply you can't make progression with difficulty.
Peace,
-Boem-
make all monster regen 50% hp everytime player death. Problem solved.
if u die on enough, you probably isnt worth killing that monster at all.
We see threads like this created or bumped multiple times a week, and the same handful of people post extensively in each one, burying the OP with declarations that the death penalty is fine. But you can't sit there with a straight face and say it's fine when we continue to receive so many complaints about it.
To the upper echelon of players representing the greatest forum voice (top 10%, i.e. anyone consistently running mid-upper tier maps), the death penalty is probably almost universally viewed amongst this group as being fine at lower levels, where XP loss from a death might equate to 5 minutes or less of lost progression. However, only a much smaller portion of this group (top 1% or less) have actually experienced the death penalty in the extremely punishing range (level 95-100), where a death removes multiple ex worth of maps and a day or more of progression.
The scaling of the penalty is problematic. To me it's only absurd at the 95-100 range, but I suspect the progression loss can begin to feel overly punishing to the non-upper echelon of players at a lower level. In fact, I suspect it's one of the reasons why we see such a large % of the player base cease leveling goals so early.
In addition to negatively impacting the motivation to level, the severity of the death penalty when scaled at 95-100 has a strong, and arguably negative, influence on behavior and build design. If/when the penalty begins to feel too punishing, players will begin to opt out of challenging content in order to level (fundamentally hampering their own enjoyment of the game). Furthermore, players who are dead set on reaching the highest level will exclusively seek out build designs that eliminate any risk of death - this may even impact non-upper echelon players, who theory craft a 100 viable build and get bored playing it.
The oft lauded solution to the death penalty of "don't die" is exactly the problem, because of what "don't die" does to gameplay and build design. When a single death eliminates 40 consecutive maps and 8 hours of playtime, the only choice for someone aiming to reach 100 is, indeed, not to die. Ultimately this pigeon holes players into playing one out of a tiny number of very safe but incredibly boring builds. GGG is basically encouraging players aiming to reach 100 to suck the fun out of the game by selecting a build that has no risk of death (and hence, no excitement, no tense moments, no room for skill/twitch based gameplay). The only real challenge is overcoming the boredom and monotony to grind to 100 in a sleepfest build. I can't see this as being good for the game, and the fact that after a couple years we still have under 500 level 100's on standard (along with Chris's recent statement that map changes only target 10% of the player base) suggests there's a problem with retaining/engaging the player base in prolonged leveling.
I'm not sure what the best solution is, or if changes to the death penalty would even improve engagement of the non-upper echelon. But improvements to build diversity and willingness to attempt challenging content could definitely be made for the 10% by adjusting how the death penalty scales. GGG could cap the XP penalty to what a player would lose at a particular level (i.e. instead of keeping it at 10% of 99, it would cap at 10% of 90, or 85, or whatever level GGG feels is sufficiently punishing without negatively impacting behavior and design). Even so, deaths at 95-100 could still be too punishing because experience is harder to come by, due to the level difference penalty. One way around that is to cap/lower the level difference penalty and raise the XP requirements for each level (then if the XP penalty was capped to what a player would lose at a particular level, the progression lost would be more consistent).
Alternatively, GGG could look at penalties in addition to or in lieu of XP loss (such as a stacking IIR/IIQ penalty affecting the zone itself, so you can't simply wait it out). One of the issues I have with the current death penalty is that there's effectively no added penalty for players who aren't trying to level. It gives a free pass to IIR/IIQ farmers, speed runners, characters who are already level 100 who go yolo farm mode, and bots (which die a lot).
your premise is wrong.
Don't die can equally apply to a fun build, it only requires more focus and dedication.
But most of the times, in return, you will get faster experience (since most of the time = fun build = dps canon style)
Nothing dictates a player cannot level to 100 with a glass canon build if his observation and reactionary skills are matching his expectations of the content he is in.
In the old map system i ran 77 shrines with 140% on a 2800 hp ranger, deathless without issue's. She would get insta shrekt though if i played her when i am sleepy or not up to it.
A 100% tank build is only utilized to enable progression without much difficulty, that doesn't imply you can't make progression with difficulty.
Peace,
-Boem-
And your 2800 hp ranger made it to what level? (It's not on the ladder, so it's below 92).
Not a single 100 got there using a glass cannon build. Not one. Of course it's technically feasible, but in a practical sense the deathless consecutive performance requirement is simply too high to use anything but a very safe build, especially given that the baseline grind itself generally requires no-life dedication, which means leveling in a sleepy state.
If you died once every ~40 77 shrines, it would take around 4000 of them to go from level 99 to 100 (~11% per ~40). That's a cost of about 1000ex. But no one is going to continue playing a build that only progresses 1% after 8 hours of dedicated mapping. So again, in a practical sense, the current minimum performance standard is well over twice that. This really restricts build options, no matter how you spin it.
[and actually, it was a little over 40 78 maps to gain 11% at 99 before GGG dropped the effective level from 78 to 77.7, so using the ~40 77 deathless shrines as a minimum performance standard (which are now 76.9) is being conservative].
Never underestimate what the mod community can do for PoE if you sell an offline client.
A good build is a proper mix of offense and defense. Overly defensive builds with terrible DPS aren't the ones making their way into the high 90s on a regular basis, as they will quickly get overwhelmed when they can't keep monsters at bay. Glass cannons don't either, for obvious reasons.
This notion that the xp penalty limits people to 8k+ life/<10k dps builds is BS. It limits people to good builds. Bad builds get weeded out whether they're lacking in defenses or otherwise. It works both ways.
Build choice demands consequence. The game is about making builds, after all.
Penalty is fine if it was up to me, It would be MUCH harsher.
How much harsher? Twice as harsh? 8 times more harsh? 50 times more harsh?
If you want a harsher penalty, all you need to do is level, because the penalty will scale up for you. The option to brutalize yourself with death penalty harshness is already here, right in standard (you don't have to play hardcore!). You just need to level a character in the 95-100 zone (with no one on the ladder, unless you delete high level characters, you've only experienced death penalty harshness up to a max of 92, though the highest I see for you is 89 - you must go higher to experience playing with the current death penalty at levels where many hours of progression are lost).
Penalty is fine if it was up to me, It would be MUCH harsher.
How much harsher? Twice as harsh? 8 times more harsh? 50 times more harsh?
If you want a harsher penalty, all you need to do is level, because the penalty will scale up for you. The option to brutalize yourself with death penalty harshness is already here, right in standard (you don't have to play hardcore!). You just need to level a character in the 95-100 zone (with no one on the ladder, unless you delete high level characters, you've only experienced death penalty harshness up to a max of 92, though the highest I see for you is 89 - you must go higher to experience playing with the current death penalty at levels where many hours of progression are lost).
