XP Death Penalty level 90+

"

ghoulavenger wrote:

But the grind isn't really the emphasis of the game to get to level 100 -- the emphasis is on clearing maps quickly, ignoring loot and skipping bosses (playing efficiently). Making the death penalty lower, or xp faster for slower clearing builds doesn't really change that.

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

"

ghoulavenger wrote:

But the grind isn't really the emphasis of the game to get to level 100 -- the emphasis is on clearing maps quickly, ignoring loot and skipping bosses (playing efficiently). Making the death penalty lower, or xp faster for slower clearing builds doesn't really change that.

This here is the problem. The affordances in this game are completely fucked.

What is rewarded is efficiency, not skill NOR grinding, and efficiency is determined again not by skill but by copying the opie-op meta and ignoring a great deal of content (loot, bosses, and high-level maps).

The "metagame" is, by definition, "that which lies next to the game." That is to say, outside the game.

Thus players are rewarded with high levels not by PLAYING the game but instead by "gaming" the game: I.e., exploiting unintended (or sometimes, I am very sad to say, intended or at the very least tolerated) imbalances in game design. Usually horribad imbalances.

Those who actually try to play the game on its own terms are the ones who will never see the number 100. Is it any surprise that such players are so demoralized by the death penalty? Does PoE truly become a better game by punishing those players in order that those who exploit imbalances get to have a sense of "pride and accomplishment?"

Because make no mistake: That is precisely the compromise that characterizes the status quo.

"

M4gnific wrote:

People who say the penalty is fine are probably the ones playing tanks. Of course they think it's fine, almost nothing can kill them. If the penalty were 100% they would still say it's fine, because, again, they don't die anyway.

"

Lorcain wrote:

To GGG:

The death penalty is too high after level 90 especially when you die so quick you cannot see what the hell happened.

I have raged quit for the last time and ggg will no longer get any more support from me.



Spelling mistake edit.

"

North2 wrote:

Preface: In all my years of playing PoE, I never had any real problem with Uber Atziri. I always kinda wished it was cheaper to enter, but it was understandable. However, I seem to instinctively have a huge problem with the drop rates of high tier maps currently. Why? What's the difference between these two end-game contents?

The answer: We're actually looking at two different things. Uber Atziri has always been "Bonus Content". Much like the Ultima Weapon in Final Fantasy series, Uber Atziri isn't really required to get through all the main content of the game. It's something that's out of the way and it's the player's choice to go after it if they really want to.

Now let's look at the Atlas. From what I can tell, the Atlas is part of the "Main Content". At the very least, if this was supposed to be "Bonus Content", then it is presented terribly. The atlas itself shows a web of maps that all leads to the center, where there's a big star that represents the final boss. Zana constantly reminds you of your progression. There's even a storyline that leads up to the final encounter. And, it's simply what you do once you beat Kitava. The Atlas is not out of the way for the player, it is simply the natural progression of the game.

The problem with the Atlas currently is that while everything about the game tells us it's the "Main Content", the drop rates of maps treats it as "Bonus Content'. This just will not do. The drop rates need to be reverted to how it was in Harbinger league to put it back in line, since anything that's "Main Content" should be easily accessible as you progress through the game.

~~~*********~~~

While we're at the topic of Main Content vs Bonus Content, let's look at level caps. There's two different level caps in any game: the "functional level cap" and the "physical level cap". Take Diablo 3 for example. The "physical level cap" is 70 for the character, while the "functional level cap" is infinite with paragon levels. Separating the two level caps is usually a great idea for ARPGs, since it gives that sense of "Main Content" vs "Bonus Content". Indeed, Paragon levels in Diablo 3 feels like bonus content that nobody is really forcing you to go after.

Now let's look at Path of Exile. The "Functional level cap" and "Physical level cap" are both lvl100. You need to get to level 100 to get the final passive point. Without it, your character is never truly complete in the functional sense. While this may not be something people think about too much, I'm sure it's a nagging feeling that's in the back of most players' heads. We need to separate the two.

I'm not suggesting adding Paragon Levels because I think that's a terrible idea for PoE. Instead, I suggest simply giving all the passive points that a player can ever attain at lvl95. Possibly lower, but let's just start at 95 for the sake of discussion. Distribute the remaining 5 points that you would get from 96-100 wherever you want. Storyline, extra quests, I don't care. Very simple.

This way, lvl95 is the "functional level cap", which can be considered the "Main Content"(note that this is opposite of D3, but that's fine. The important thing is to separate the two level caps). Once you get lvl95, you can consider your character fully complete, at least level wise. Lvl96-100 then becomes "Bonus Content" that players can choose to go after if they want to.

Nobody that grinds past lvl95 is doing it for the measly extra passive points anyways. They're doing it to either challenge themselves or get up in the leaderboards. What can we give them instead? Trophies! Something that they can put in their hideout that reads something like, "TornadoMan - lvl97 Deadeye - Bestiary League" when people highlight over it. This is something that these people would appreciate far more than a single passive point.

In summation, we really need GGG to start giving a little more thought on what "Main Content" and "Bonus Content" should be, and stop mixing the two together.

"

M4gnific wrote:

People who say the penalty is fine are probably the ones playing tanks. Of course they think it's fine, almost nothing can kill them. If the penalty were 100% they would still say it's fine, because, again, they don't die anyway.

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

In fact the only compelling argument I've ever seen for keeping it in the game is that it prevents people from going full-on glass cannon. But if you look at reality, you see that isn't the case at all: Glass cannons reap their experience benefits from trash mobs in maps, not bosses, because, with the exception of those playing truly broken builds, they know better than to step into those arenas. Trash mobs are not a threat to glass cannons, and if anything are less of a threat than they are to players who deliberately build defensively.

Now, I've just brought up two problems with the game that are directly connected to this issue:
1. Map bosses do not give significant exp relative to the map as a whole.
2. Players who build defensively are penalized, not merely in spite of the exp penalty but in fact because of it. This is devastating to the morale of such players.

I expect GGG will eventually fix issue #1, but who knows if they will ever fix #2, or if they even can. (Remember when they talked about finally making armor effective against big hits? Yeah, me neither.) And under this particular set of circumstances, the experience penalty is not good for the game.

I personally don't have a horse in this race, because I'll never even bother trying to level a character above the early 90s and am pretty relaxed about it at earlier levels besides, but I do care to the extent that it is having a negative impact on many players' experiences and therefore on the game as a whole.

The REAL reason the experience penalty remains, and so many support it, is much simpler than anyone wants to admit: conservative mindsets. "Change is bad, man."