Exp loss due to death's - Must read (Suggestion)

@Crackmonster

"

That's because you have a reading comprehension issue then.

Yep clearly starting off with an insult is the best way to prove your point.

"

It is demotivating. It destroys only - for no gain. The people who have issues with dying will never compete for the number 1 spot. In essence it serves no purpose only destroys the game for tons of people.

The XP penalty isn't about keeping people reaching level 100 so the ladder can be competitive, its there for the reasons I listed above which is to give a consequence for death. Because death has a consequence you must choose your actions based on such.

"

ARPG have hardcore mode for the epeen people and those who really wanna see who the best is, and softcore mode for those who just want to have fun. Do the math on that.

Do the math on this, this game isn't a traditional setup where HC is for the elite and SC is for those that want no consequences, you and others are arguing it should be, I'm arguing as it shouldn't be because this is the design on the game.

Hardcore in poe is for those players that want to build a character that only lives once. Standard was created or designed in poe as a non-perma death league, not as a "softcore" environment. Its a crucial difference here and one you and others are not understanding. By having a league that is "i dont have to care about consequences" you are suggesting that you should be allowed to play the game in a way the game was never designed to be played as, similar to self found (although self found isn't suggesting the way others are playing the game)

If you cannot have fun with the XP penalty in SC then this simply is the wrong game for you, by not having a penalty the same choices HC players make for mods, challenges, ect you aren't playing the game GGG wants you to play, you are wanting to play some dumb down version of it because you are afraid to make decisions or choices and live with them.

"

Furthermore it's form is bad where it's okay below level 90, and 90+ it becomes outrageously balanced.

It allows for you to get acquainted with the game and your character, after 85 I'd say that character should be complete, not many builds really rely on higher level characters to work. So by the time you reach that level you should have mastered the playstyle and know what your character can and cannot handle. The highest level content in this game is 82, while your character is 90, shouldn't your character, being 8+ levels over the content have a better chance at living then one the same level? Therefore its more punishing when you should be better prepared.

"

It interacts with the xp gain penalties and huge costs of maintaining high maps in a way that leads to a deadly combo of ragequit's - again for no gain, these people will never compete for first spot.

I care not if players quit because of the penalty, if you use this as an argument, then what if I say i'll quit if GGG makes this game more casual, seeing as I'm a supporter of the game (a rather large one 1k+) I think loosing me is probably worth 100 casual players, you do the math there.

"

It destroys builds, that again will never compete for first spots, but are plain out destroyed in terms of fun - again for no gain.

How about people that just want to have fun just level to 90-92 and give a shit less about XP gain, the reason why they won't is because in standard no progress is achieved in items because of the "crap economy" that makes it almost impossible for new players to even understand.

"

These are just some of the simple arguments. Have you ever actually considered that this form of death penalty add's nothing to the game but destroys it for some people?

Have you ever considered that all of these arguments have been made before and discussed by others as well? Have you ever considered that I listed why as a design feature the XP penalty exists? Have you ever considered that this game wasn't meant to be causal and if players are not willing to live with the consequences and the penalty they don't deserve to have the game catered to them.

Please stop with your comments that are nothing but the usual repeat that every single "casual" player uses. We won't need to homogenize poe, the game wasn't founded and supported by players like myself to have it changed into a completely off the core principle of a hardcore ARPG.

Just half gained xp until the next 10% when you die.

Removed progress feels shitty while slowed progress feels like a penalty that you can play through for alot of people.

Reasoning is to counteract the 10% loss xp, you need to get 20%. To reverse the 10% loss and to gain 10% progress. In the change you still get "penalized" for dying in the same amount of time for you don't loss progress if you die twice in a row or get to 9% and die.

If that's too nice then do half xp + -1% xp or something.

Boem, I stated that, to me, the scaling of the death penalty was only absurd at the 95-100 range. It is so severe at this level range (based on total xp lost relative to xp gain as a function of level difference penalty), that it has:

1. an overly negative impact on player motivation to level (under 500 level 100's on standard after years),
2. an overly negative impact on player behavior (challenge skipping, not trying new things like new maps, new map mods, or new bosses), and
3. an overly negative impact on build design (not a single 100 got there using a build that couldn't either safely off-screen clear or afk tank; builds that eliminate the risk of death (i.e. avg. 100+ 77 maps without a death) are i. very narrow in skill, passive, and gear selection and ii. notoriously boring to play, since there are few or no tense moments).

That you've leveled 40 characters to 80-90 and think the death penalty is fine does not resolve the concerns I've raised. And the fact that you are able to level a character to 89 in 5 days in a solo race (#1 ranger for that race btw, congrats), but have yet to level anyone above 92 only reinforces my concerns.

If the bulk of my gameplay experience was spent leveling characters to 80-90 (and a handful above 90, up to 92) I'd probably also think the death penalty was fine. But it keeps scaling. It gets much, much, more punishing. At 95, I find it becomes overly negative. But that's the opinion of a 10% to 1%er. Some of the other 1%ers (top 5000 ladder) may think losing a full-time work shift worth of progression after 1 death is fine. But if GGG exclusively caters to that mindset, we'll continue to see very low engagement in higher leveling.

GGG doesn't have to exclusively cater to anyone - the league system enables GGG to entertain different audiences using different rule sets. I'd like to see something done about the death penalty scaling, to reduce the punishment in the 95-100 range. There is little that stops GGG from easing that up on standard, while retaining the harsh scaling in temp leagues and races.

I'm only level 58 but I can sympathize with the 95+ crowd.

Here's a suggestion for GGG: Make it so that a small portion of your xp gain (maybe 1%) is set aside in a separate pool. This xp does not go toward leveling. Upon death, the player can use some or all of this "death pool xp" and apply it toward leveling.

If you die IRL you dont only lose 10%. think about it...

"

HeroOfExile wrote:

i guess any "its fine" guys never had a char above 90.

My highest is 95 (may even go higher if maps keep dropping, cautious optimism...), and I'm generally fine with a penalty, and with the penalty being where it is. There's a few reasons, outside of the history I bring to gaming:

- As we know, if there's no penalty there's no sense of satisfaction, because it then doesn't matter how many attempts you need to kill Uber or your personal nemesis;
- If we take as given there must be a penalty, then the only question is how harsh it should be;
- Which brings us back to point 1. If we nerf the penalty too much, then everyone zergs to 100 without a care for the occasional death.

Ergo, my view is that there has to be a reasonably tough penalty.

I don't think it's a given that build diversity should be equal to the ability to level to 100. This, by the way, is a different argument to build diversity being limited by the current meta of high damage.

If your build sucks, you made some bad choices and the game should penalise you for that. And by 'sucks' I do mean builds that are perfectly capable of killing everything in one shot but die too often; because ultimately that build sucks at getting to very high levels, even if it can do a bunch of other things you enjoy. You may be able to clear 30 maps in a row without a death, but if you die on the 31st the game will eventually penalise you (not in the 70s, not in the 80s, but at some point in the 90s).

Getting to 100 means some sacrifices. As it should.

If you change the penalty to 5%, for example, then GGG will most likely just rescale map xp. Don't see a benefit.

This post is in favor of all those who play for 3-4 hours a day. Players who play whole day don't reply to my post because you will never understand what I'm trying to say.

1) The death penalty becomes worse as you keep leveling up. A level 50-60 character does not even care if he/she dies because the EXP loss can be recovered within 10 minutes, whereas a level 90+ character will take 2-3 hours to recover the loss and in most cases after death the player straight away closes the game, because the punishment is so harsh.

In other words, a level 50 player loses 10 minutes of hard work if he dies and a level 90 player loses 180-240 minutes of hard work for dying. Isn't that harsh? Doesn't it bring a feeling that makes you want to quit the game? (for players who can only play 3-4 hours a day)

Please keep in mind guys, not all players can play ALL DAY. This punishment is very harsh. This punishment actually makes you feel worse than getting bad team mates on league of legends. You can all keep talking about this punishment being ok, but which other game has such a harsh punishment?

"

Krish25 wrote:

Isn't that harsh? Doesn't it bring a feeling that makes you want to quit the game? (for players who can only play 3-4 hours a day)

i only play a few hours in the evenings after work and my answer is: no its not harsh and no it would never make me quit the game, its rather things like that that keep me playing it.
its the perfect punishment if you dont wanna play hc but still dont want a brainless piece of cake game. you'll be annoyed of every death but it wont be the end of the world.

"

MrTremere wrote:

"

kamil1210 wrote:

(...)
more or less:
To get lvl 70 you need good enough build to don't die every 15 minutes.
To get lvl 80 you need good enough build to don't die every hour.
To get lvl 90 you need good enough build to don't die every 5 hours.
(...)
Penalty force you to became better in game.
(...)

To get lvl 70 you need to finish the game.
To get lvl 80 you need to play maps.
To get lvl 90 you need to skip difficult content.

Penalty force you to skip content.

You can get lvl 80/90/100 farming dried lake and skip all hard content. Or you can learn game make better build and get high level much faster in harder content.

You talk about doings maps but maps already have penalty for death: 6 portals. If you die too many times in map you will not be able to get more maps. So portals penalty already force you to learn game so you can run map and not skip them.

death penalty force you to learn more and become even better player.

If penalty force you to skip content then you are bad player. Many people die to boss in orchard map. I died to him before, now I know how to counter him and by killing him I get adventage over people who skip him.