Remove xp loss on death, replace with xp bonuses for surviving

"

Turtledove wrote:

A level 100 bot should be able to clear higher level maps more efficiently.

Why would a bot need to roll high maps? Like 99.5% of the items drop in Dried Lake anyway. And 100% of currency.

"

morbo wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

A level 100 bot should be able to clear higher level maps more efficiently.

Why would a bot need to roll high maps? Like 99.5% of the items drop in Dried Lake anyway. And 100% of currency.

Here's the rational for my theory about death penalty being primarily an anti-bot mechanism.

The death penalty is annoying and frustrating.

Annoying and frustrating things are generally not good for games.

GGG knows that the death penalty is annoying and frustrating and that annoying and frustrating things are not good for their game. They have nerfed the death penalty in the past exactly because of that.

My thought was why would GGG not remove the death penalty altogether, it would be easy to do? True that the few people that make level 100 can feel very proud. However, that is such a super tiny percent of the player base I discounted that as an explanation. So my thought was why would GGG keep such an annoying frustrating thing in the game? GGG has always been very keen and smart in protecting the PoE economy. So that's basically how I came up with this theory.

If you don't buy it then fine, I don't care. It's just a theory.

^
You are not being rational at all.
In fact, you are being completely emotional.

"

Crackmonster wrote:

I does not do anything except give a small circle of people satisfaction because baddies rage over it. If you want to feel you are at constant risk - do play hardcore and leave softcore to those of us who prefer just playing whatever characters we like.

Oh please with the paranoia ...
Of couse, somebod disagreeing with you has to be feeding on your misery, there is no other way right ?

That abscence of middle ground after is ridiculous for obvious reasons too.
If PoE was only "my little poney style" or straigth hardcore, there would probably be far less people playing.

A penalty for dying is functionally the same thing as a bonus for not dying. The main difference is psychological; people with poor critical thinking skills will view the latter as preferable. This basically means the latter is just plain preferable; for those where it matters, the bonus is better, for those where it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter. Stupid wins this round in an upset.

I should emphasize that I would be against a death-penalty/survival-bonus that encourages recently dead players to repeat the behavior that killed them in the first place (ex: corpse reclamation) and/or immediately resume play. Death should send a message to players regarding what NOT to do, and taking time to ponder one's death is a potential learning experience. The construction of any death penalty should take this into account.

"

Tempada wrote:

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

I think its just open to being 'gamed' too in unfun ways. So how are we doing this? Map tiers? So I go boss rush how many white tier 7 maps to get my xp booster back up before I feel like I can go back to playing red tier maps again with the full xp rate? go on actual xp instead? So Id full clear lower content? any way around Im not wasting high maps when I dont have my full bonus right? Id go and suffer some really unfun kind of trivial nonsense to get my booster back before using my good maps surely?

Ok, now this here is the best argument against the proposal that I've seen.

Clearly a number of things need to change. Volatiles are overtuned, corpses detonated by monsters you can't see (or don't have time to react to) are ridiculous, and the xp penalty or xp gains in maps could use tuning to make unexpected deaths, at the very least in Standard, much more bearable. Right now you can farm high level bosses with a powerful character and profit from either good drops or carries, other people get their kicks from trading or crafting, but grinding for xp, another way to enjoy the endgame, is rarely, well, enjoyable. People hit a wall around 90 then are expected to "get good" (plenty of us already treat SC characters like HC ones) or reroll. It's not very satisfying.

If you fix volatiles and all other stupid deaths, why do you need to remove death penalty in the first place?

Where does this urge to get level 100 come from? I mean, it isn't even something that you need to do. You have plenty of challenges to complete every league, metric shitton of uniques and builds to try. Why do you insist so much to play every character build to level 100? .-.

Why do you want to take this challenge away from players who want to push themselves to get to level 100? Again, if you take away the possibility to fail, the challenge to get level 100 becomes a challenge in endurance - whoever spends more time, wins.

And how it is wrong that all characters have to be built with defense/offense balance in mind? Do you REALLY want to see even more glass cannons on SC?

"

Perq wrote:

If you fix volatiles and all other stupid deaths, why do you need to remove death penalty in the first place?

Where does this urge to get level 100 come from? I mean, it isn't even something that you need to do. You have plenty of challenges to complete every league, metric shitton of uniques and builds to try. Why do you insist so much to play every character build to level 100? .-.

Even if GGG fixes those elements (which would be an amazing start), the existing penalty is so harsh at high levels. A single death, however it happens, is a major setback when you're in the 90s, enough to make you lose the will to play if you're the kind of person who likes to develop one character over a long period of time, who isn't interested in gaming the economy or rolling multiple characters in a league. I don't insist on getting every character to 100; I don't know where that came from. But I would like the opportunity for guaranteed steady (if very slow) xp growth that doesn't involve running the same map over and over or tackling a small set of maps far below my level.

"

Why do you want to take this challenge away from players who want to push themselves to get to level 100? Again, if you take away the possibility to fail, the challenge to get level 100 becomes a challenge in endurance - whoever spends more time, wins.

The climb to 100 is already an endurance challenge, and hardcore gives you that possibility of failure if you get your kicks from fear like a horror film fan. I honestly don't see the problem with more people reaching 100 in softcore. I'm not saying the road should be a cakewalk, but it doesn't need to be so directly punishing and devoid of variety if you want to guarantee your progress.

"

And how it is wrong that all characters have to be built with defense/offense balance in mind? Do you REALLY want to see even more glass cannons on SC?

It's not wrong. I'd love for GGG to reign in player damage so glass canon isn't always the most effective way to level through the main game and tackle bosses. The general idea, whether it's implemented through penalties or rewards, is that you make the most efficient leveling progress by surviving.

"

Tempada wrote:

The climb to 100 is already an endurance challenge, and hardcore gives you that possibility of failure if you get your kicks from fear like a horror film fan. I honestly don't see the problem with more people reaching 100 in softcore. I'm not saying the road should be a cakewalk, but it doesn't need to be so directly punishing and devoid of variety if you want to guarantee your progress.

If you die enough, you won't ever reach level 100. Even of softcore. And if it isn't a problem to reach lvl 100 now, where is the problem exactly, again?

"

Tempada wrote:

And how it is wrong that all characters have to be built with defense/offense balance in mind? Do you REALLY want to see even more glass cannons on SC?

It's not wrong. I'd love for GGG to reign in player damage so glass canon isn't always the most effective way to level through the main game and tackle bosses. The general idea, whether it's implemented through penalties or rewards, is that you make the most efficient leveling progress by surviving.[/quote]

It being simply efficient is not enough. Denying progress to characters who use zerg tactics is only way, sadly. As you said, it is ALREADY easy to level up by simply running low level maps, clearing them with one click of a mouse. Enabling zerg tactics will only make it even worse and as an extra bonus you'll get people botting, because their bot dying loses nothing. It can stay up all night and get levels, it doesn't matter if it isn't efficient because it has no bonus. It still progresses, day and night. This won't work.

"

Fruz wrote:

^
You are not being rational at all.
In fact, you are being completely emotional.

"

Crackmonster wrote:

I does not do anything except give a small circle of people satisfaction because baddies rage over it. If you want to feel you are at constant risk - do play hardcore and leave softcore to those of us who prefer just playing whatever characters we like.

Oh please with the paranoia ...
Of couse, somebod disagreeing with you has to be feeding on your misery, there is no other way right ?

That abscence of middle ground after is ridiculous for obvious reasons too.
If PoE was only "my little poney style" or straigth hardcore, there would probably be far less people playing.

Actually you are right - there are also those who love to self-inflict punishment upon themselves, they also love the penalty. Forgot them, thanks.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

A penalty for dying is functionally the same thing as a bonus for not dying. The main difference is psychological; people with poor critical thinking skills will view the latter as preferable. This basically means the latter is just plain preferable; for those where it matters, the bonus is better, for those where it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter. Stupid wins this round in an upset.

I should emphasize that I would be against a death-penalty/survival-bonus that encourages recently dead players to repeat the behavior that killed them in the first place (ex: corpse reclamation) and/or immediately resume play. Death should send a message to players regarding what NOT to do, and taking time to ponder one's death is a potential learning experience. The construction of any death penalty should take this into account.

I think this is a good post.

However, i would also like to point out that changing it from penalties to bonuses would have an additional effect that means death penalty will become entirely altered in the way it interacts with players.

It will mean there is no more getting stuck trying to level. Period. There is no more losing xp, there is only reduced rates of future gains, which is quite a fundamental change.

"

Perq wrote:

"

Tempada wrote:

The climb to 100 is already an endurance challenge, and hardcore gives you that possibility of failure if you get your kicks from fear like a horror film fan. I honestly don't see the problem with more people reaching 100 in softcore. I'm not saying the road should be a cakewalk, but it doesn't need to be so directly punishing and devoid of variety if you want to guarantee your progress.

If you die enough, you won't ever reach level 100. Even of softcore. And if it isn't a problem to reach lvl 100 now, where is the problem exactly, again?

I mean, we've been talking about the psychology of progression, one shot deaths, and lack of challenge/reward/variety on the way to 100...

"

Denying progress to characters who use zerg tactics is only way, sadly. As you said, it is ALREADY easy to level up by simply running low level maps, clearing them with one click of a mouse. Enabling zerg tactics will only make it even worse and as an extra bonus you'll get people botting, because their bot dying loses nothing.

Again, I don't quite know how this works. Are you talking about leveling up via Dried Lake, because that can be solved. But if you mean that people use the tactic with the map device... This consideration is not a good way to balance the game. As someone said earlier, GGG has to focus on catching/banning these players rather than balancing the game around what must be a minuscule fraction of the playerbase.