XP loss on death suggestions.
" Yet you have not yet reached lvl 100 (it's been a while), which is a goal to you, and you have been complaining against the death penalty for a long time .... which you would not if there was no actual difficulty. And that's enough said about it, whatever excuse you can throw here will not change that. The first level 100, in a "timely" manner ? Oo /played on the character after reaching the lvl 100 : " " No I don't, I know what high level maps are like. And lol @running normal high level maps, have fun sustaining them now. The rest of what you said is mostly irrelevant, or already "addressed" honestly. There was none of it "null from the start either", not being efficient is always worse than being efficient, you just want to make it feel even worse for the concerned players. And no, it's not "a bit more complicated than the current death EXP penalty", it's confusing while the current penalty is extremely simple. You've not even managed to make your system easy to understand with your own words. No need to try repeating the same things over again by the way, this is not going anywhere imho. It's also my fault I guess, I should completely avoid all thread of people who wants to suggest a "better system than the current exp penalty", because it is pretty much always the same .... " That would matter for some difficult encounters .... and for the majority of the game, you would pretty much regain it super easily. There is little point because you can get to the same place in no time to beat the thing that you died to. What if you died to bearers ? volatile ? DD ? If you would implement such a solution, the penalty would likely need to be increased to compensate ... in which case it would just make difficult encounters even less appealing. I liked the concept of having a grave with some experience to recover a long time ago in DaoC as an example, but ... that kind of thing unfortunately does not apply to PoE I'm afraid. About your suggestion ... removing the penalty all together would have pretty much the same effect. Reset the timer regularly and you're safe. And one pack of monsters is pretty much worth nothing xp-wise. SSF is not and will never be a standard for balance, it is not for people entitled to getting more without trading. Last edited by Fruz#6137 on Jul 27, 2018, 1:57:59 PM
| |
" Not necessarily. We aren't all on the same type of computers, have the same reaction times, have the same builds or luck in terms of getting gear that matches our level. Those of us who are affected by one or more these elements will be encounter a slower experience gain than the ones conforming to the cookie-cutter build of the week. It won't be anywhere near as punishing as it is in the current system, but there will still be penalties to contend with. 0-growth is still a penalty, while negative growth is also an insult. " What you have to realize is that the 25% was just grabbed out of thin air. It was just a basic example to show what I meant with the mechanic, not an attempt to actually provide the final number. That is up to the designers. In essence it could be any number - Even beyond 100% of the encounter value, which I admit would make more sense in relation to maps (With the 6 death limit), assuming the player will let the combat timer expire on each successful pack. Of course many players would opt to play it safe. The players who are already attempting to do so will continue will doing so, while the ones who play more recklessly currently (Or who out-gear the content) won't particularly care either way. Now the big question is of course if it is worth making any adjustments to penalty system. From a general player perspective the answer would probably be a yes (If the silent majority are included - The ones who never come to the forums or other channels of communication that have a potential to reach the development team). From the developer perspective the answer would be... It depends... It depends on if the people being affected by this constitute significant amount of the people who provide the revenue stream for this game. After all it is a free to play game, with only non-critical micro transactions that are completely optional as a revenue source, so keeping the player base as large (And thereby as diverse) as possible is in the developers best interest. Personally I have no idea how the correlation is between the people using the transactions and the ones suffering the most from the current experience penalty. I'm assuming the player base who are liable to run into this issue is significantly larger than the ones who are hardcore players. By that metric alone, chances are high that frustration with this eventually can cost the company significant chunk of their revenue stream. However it is difficult to say for sure, as the player base of any game is like an iceberg... Most is hidden and will never be seen or heard from. It is usually only the minority that actually voice their opinion directly - The rest need to be inferred from statistics that we as players don't have access to. |
|
" why? Why would the general player perspective be a yes? " why would you presume the people who arnt "hardcore players" would all want the xp penalty removed or changed? I love all you people on the forums, we can disagree but still be friends and respect each other :)
|
|
|
"Improving your build"
Lul Alkaizer getting bursted at 8.5k hp, that's an insane "build" right there and he still gets instakilled. Real? Build has nothing to do with it, it's RNG. https://youtu.be/Ogux18vEwDY?t=208 But I guess "feelings" over "facts" more than facts don't care about your feelings. 8.5k HP instagib "build" didn't do crap vs. the bad design RNG burst. |
|
" Oh so we now resort to "you're not level 100, git gud" rhetoric. Nice. I expected that. Regardless of your own impression, I level in my own time, and I can do it whenever I want. Thanks for the "support". Beside that it's only a matter of time to hit 100 on Softcore, hitting 100 became a goal for me just after I reached 99. I took every level since 90 as a goal. Fun fact, I already reached most of them, in a "quite timely manner". And I don't have to justify myself to anyone, but if you showed that much interest, you deserved my "excuse". For an unattainable goal, level 100 was reached in a "too timely" manner. It didn't took even 365 days of 24/7 playtime. So much for having that as the "pinnacle" of unobtainable goals (and as I simply illustrated, it could have been rendered a VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE GOAL - at least for 3 month leagues - EASILY, if they really deemed it so)... Oh no, you can't sustain high tier maps without respecting the color - they even added that nice hint of making last tier maps red to subtly induce the idea that they need to be vaaled - but carry on. As a matter of fact I believe I have runned more red tier maps than most simply magic and I still got returns high enough to at least start a pool, and tier 11-12 maps can be sustained even magic if you're interested. What do you find complicated into having portals linked to the map EXP? Each death EXP penalty can be displayed on a simple additional bar (placed above the current EXP bar), divided for the number of portals, and additional visual markers like the 5% ones could be interswapped in each case, and the fun fact is that said bar can be gained post Kitava, and would work for "Labyrinth" too. A "graying" of the unobtainable percentage per death would make everything so obvious no one would be confused about it. Very complicated system. No player could possibly comprehend and adapt to it. /s It's also my fault for not presenting very clearly from the start said proposal, but it is a simple proposal, it's just that the explanation might seem more complicated, as I intertwined the additional possibility of adjusting the number of portals in subtraction while keeping the entire map EXP constant each time. For me, such a rework would make a lot of sense, but I also understand why for others it wouldn't have the same impact. I never suggested that said rework would be the best solution, but simply that it is a very plausible alternative. Hopefully, when (not if), TencentGGG think about a death EXP penalty rework, they will think at least about said alternative... PSS: Our almighty TencentGGG overlords are very scrupulous regarding criticizing their abilities to take proper decisions and consider everything "needlessly harsh and condescending"... Good to know "free speech" doesn't apply in any form or manner on the forums these days... Last edited by sofocle10000#6408 on Jul 28, 2018, 10:20:57 PM
|
|
|
So, here are a few suggestions:
1) Link experience loss to the map experience value. This avoids a massive setback to the many players (like myself) that are already running away from higher level content. 2) Drastically reduce boss fight experience loss. It is a very bad thing to incentivise skipping bosses altogether because the rewards are way too low compared to the penalties. 3) Have the penalty intensify if you die multiple times against the same thing. You could even have the deleveling process apply, but not before the second death. This would avoid the zerging process. 4) Lower experience loss based on map rarity. The goal, once again, is to incentivise playing harder content. Whatever the penalty is, please make sure all relevant information about experience gains and losses in a map are easily available to the players. Having "simple" information like average experience that would be gained in map and experience loss on death available would allow players to better evaluate how much risks they are willing to take, and how much risk they will desperately want to avoid. |
|
|
I like the on death xp penalty and think it's at just the right spot.
It separates good builds from better, and so forth. I usually make builds good enough to quickly get to 96ish, but after that I'd need a very solid build to not die. One tip other than making a solid build to not die is to really avoid backtracking, cause then you might get hit by stuff and it'll kill you eventually. I'd agree that this game can kill you in a manner which seems unfair. Most of the time then it is a question of risk/reward or laziness, sometimes a lack of knowledge/awareness, so it is on the player. In some cases historically the mobs have been unbalanced but then that'd be a question of balancing them, not about the xp penalty being too harsh. |
|
" No it isn't. " No secondary defenses at all on his build meaning that he pretty much did mitigate any of the molten projectile, so a situation that his character was weak in. But I'm not expecting random private account trollers to have enough knowledge/understanding of the game to get that. Altho this kind of overlap and missleading visual effect is not a good thing imho. " It's just very simple, you pretend that it's all not a difficulty problem and yet you want the game being made easier (Because yes, by "reworking" the death penalty, that is pretty much what you want ) It's only a matter of time if you don't die. And if you were not dying, you would not be here QQing (yes, QQing). " /rofl It WAS pretty much an impossible goal for temp leagues .... c'mon ... : / GGG didn't make it impossible, it was just pretty much inaccessible unless spending a tremendous amount of time playing the game And no, if your brilliant idea was simple, you would not have struggled to explained it to begin with. But you didn't actually read and think about all the negatives, even the one that have been told to you already here, so I'm not expecting you to change for this time. You know what actually is simple ? you loose 10% xp (of the value required to progress to the next level) on death. That's it, and it does not need to change in any way, because QQers will keep QQing unless everything is made easier to them, that's all that it boils down to actually. And of course these people are going to try to find excuses to justify themselves instead of being honest. But it does not change what it is. SSF is not and will never be a standard for balance, it is not for people entitled to getting more without trading. Last edited by Fruz#6137 on Jul 29, 2018, 12:43:42 PM
| |
|
You do realize that not all requests to make something easier are necessarily bad, right?
The current penalty does cause some major issues that are major design flaws, like pushing players to avoid content. Most of us do realize that it's not all bad, though, which is why we are pushing for a rework rather than a simple removal. |
|
|
I am for change to, but not elimination of, the SC Death Penalty. The suggestion that I currently like the most (and by a long shot - but I have not read all the various suggestions) is the ability to turn off and on the experience process (while "off", there is no Death Penalty but no experience is gained - some may have referenced it previously as "parked experience").
It would need some serious thought put into when the on and off features could be used, and some more serious thought as to how it should interact with group play. It allows me to manage my risk as opposed to avoiding most risk. Sounds good for players concerned about controlling their own game experience, perhaps not so much for players concerned with managing other players' game experience. I now comment in Forums with my Xbox account:
https://www.pathofexile.com/account/xbox/view-profile/walkjohn55 |
|
