XP loss on death suggestions.

"

MrTremere wrote:

You do realize that not all requests to make something easier are necessarily bad, right?

It's not about making things easier in case of quality feedback usually, it's more about balancing the game, keeping it consistent, etc ....
Or some actually welcomed QoL things.

Here .... it's none of that.

"

MrTremere wrote:

The current penalty does cause some major issues that are major design flaws

No it does not.
Good players with good builds are not avoiding bosses, people have been farming guardians, shaper and co even in HC.

Skipping bosses was a thing maybe what ... 1~2 years ago ?
I seriously doubt that it's still a thing now, with all the powercreep, people have enough dps to burst down pretty much everything quickly enough usually.

Now there might be some unbalanced encounters (@red eradifucktor, or couple of bosses a bit over the top), but the death penalty is not the culprit in any way.

"

Fruz wrote:

"

MrTremere wrote:

The current penalty does cause some major issues that are major design flaws

No it does not.
Good players with good builds are not avoiding bosses, people have been farming guardians, shaper and co even in HC.

Skipping bosses was a thing maybe what ... 1~2 years ago ?
I seriously doubt that it's still a thing now, with all the powercreep, people have enough dps to burst down pretty much everything quickly enough usually.

Now there might be some unbalanced encounters (@red eradifucktor, or couple of bosses a bit over the top), but the death penalty is not the culprit in any way.

Well I suppose that there is room for both of you to be correct - from the perspective of differing player groups that is. So perhaps the "good players with good builds" agree in the main with Fruz and a chunk of the rest of the players tend to line up with MrTremere. It begs the question, what percent of the player base does each group represent? The answer to that of course depends on how one defines player base (maybe anyone who played POE in the last 12 months, maybe anyone who made it to mapping in the same period, maybe anyone who bought points in the last year, maybe "other" - but I expect that the definition would materially affect the percentages). So should the statement with the backing of the larger number of players be deemed to be the correct statement? Or if the opposing statement has enough support (x% say), should the issue be considered undecided or the ever popular "complicated"? Do some opinions/"votes" count more than others?

I think that POE is a marvel, created by a mind with the vision and the drive to make that vision happen. And supported by people who understood the vision. But ... it's a bubble world. POE has no peers and I think that means that even significant missteps will not visibly harm it and being out of date won't either. But the infrastructure is crumbling and who knows how the revenue base fares. And Chris just blinked big time with that Tencent thing. So yah, I think that there are problems (the unnecessary parts of the discouragement generated by the SC Death Penalty being one) that really should be faced up to. Unbalanced encounters could be another.

"

OverratedGame wrote:

"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.

if you think simply having 8.5k hp = and insane character in terms of defences then you dont know a lot about using defences in path of exile, and if you are having issues with the death penalty thats probably why.

He made it to level 94 and that was the only death he suffered, on a melee build that didnt really have much in the way of defence at all. That should tell you that making it through the game with extremely minimal deaths is not an unreasonable task to perform.

"

Fruz wrote:

Spoiler

"

sofocle10000 wrote:

[...]

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).

"

sofocle10000 wrote:

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)...

/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.

No, I want the game to become more difficult by reworking the death penalty on most of the threads where I entertained said idea, but that would also require "balancing" all the skewed aspects of PoE.

At the moment, moving that death EXP penalty to every map and interlinking it to the map portals simply seemed to me more intuitive, and the best part would be that it wouldn't require further reworks, especially as it would add a further diversity dimension regarding player choice and difficulty - we're already forced to make PoE as hard as we want, so the only sane and reasonable thing that TencentGGG should do would be to go the extra mile and follow said suggestion and let everyone custom tune the "experience" to the max.

With an tremendously high number of deaths per played hours I did manage to succeed in reaching 99 (even disregarding the time when I played cast on death, I still died at least once every 10 hours played), but you should also know that I have died fewer and fewer times post level 95, where said deaths are important and I know that beside out of my hands factors (power/connection loss mainly) I will not die leveling to 100 a single time. So no QQ-ing from me, even if you think so...

Funny, even if a 3 month league was 90 days from the start and 74 days played ALWAYS were encompassed in that interval, hence reaching 100 was NEVER an impossible goal (inaccessible sure, overtaxing sure, but for it to really be impossible it should have taken at least 91 24/7 days from the start), it somehow become "the norm" to constantly have people reach it in less than 3 months, heck some did it in less than 48 hours. It was their choice to "go with the flow", and I'm not disappointed in them doing so, but I'm sad that they didn't properly adjust the EXP gain post finishing the storyline content and keeping a "balance" regarding said gains no matter the content they added since 1.0.

My "brilliant idea" is simple, and I struggled to explain it due to me having other thoughts on my mind, and you can't even be satisfied when I specifically offered you the short explanation and disregard all my counter-arguments regarding said "negatives" so it seems you're not reading my posts too, so "I'm not expecting you to change for this time" either.

Losing 10% EXP on death is simple, just as simple as not losing any % when you hit 0%, which actually gives the same benefit as reaching level 100 on every level up, but you still didn't provide a good enough reason why this penalty couldn't be moved to each run content and interlinked with the number of tries.

And this is not a productive conversation. You say it's "QQ-ing" while disregarding explanations and just think that the current method is "the best. I think it's not "the best" and come with an alternative. You keep on saying "QQ-ing" and keeping your stance. I'm sorry, but I don't think this is a conversation and it surely isn't productive.

I can concede I will not change your mind, and I'm not even trying to anymore, but you will have to concede my (and other forumers concerns) are justified, and either start helping into reaching a better solution, or simply stop reverting to the "same old, same old" point of view. We got you the first time, bring something else if you're participating and don't want to simply being disregarded as "missing the point"...

"

AnExile_onthePath wrote:

Well I suppose that there is room for both of you to be correct - from the perspective of differing player groups that is. So perhaps the "good players with good builds" agree in the main with Fruz and a chunk of the rest of the players tend to line up with MrTremere. It begs the question, what percent of the player base does each group represent? The answer to that of course depends on how one defines player base (maybe anyone who played POE in the last 12 months, maybe anyone who made it to mapping in the same period, maybe anyone who bought points in the last year, maybe "other" - but I expect that the definition would materially affect the percentages). So should the statement with the backing of the larger number of players be deemed to be the correct statement? Or if the opposing statement has enough support (x% say), should the issue be considered undecided or the ever popular "complicated"? Do some opinions/"votes" count more than others?

You need to take into account the dev's vision too.
Now, has GGG been doing a good job at keeping their initial vision, their initial audience while satisfying a more casual crowd ? I think so, but I honestly can't tell as it could definitely have gone more either way.
It's a complicated system, with many parameters.

But anyway, overall .... "QQers gonna QQ"
So would it be worth spending time and money about something that is working as intended, knowing that any other "working as intended"-solution will make the same ( let's say most of them ) players complain anyway ?
I don't think so.
And hopefully, people at GGG don't think so either.

"

sofocle10000 wrote:

At the moment, moving that death EXP penalty to every map and interlinking it to the map portals simply seemed to me more intuitive

as said before ..... it's clearly not.
Your explanation was very intuitive either to be honest, it's understandable at least, but not intuitive or easy for all to understand.
not at all.

so ... a system that you failed to explain on the first time being more intuitive that something as simple as the current death penalty ?
No, seriously you should really stop with that kind of thing.
You can think that it's simple, but pretending that it's simpler than the current system ... lol.

"

sofocle10000 wrote:

Funny, even if a 3 month league was 90 days from the start and 74 days played ALWAYS were encompassed in that interval, hence reaching 100 was NEVER an impossible goal (inaccessible sure, overtaxing sure, but for it to really be impossible it should have taken at least 91 24/7 days from the start)

I see, so we reached the "It was possible to reach lvl 100 in the first temporary leagues, the guy only took 74 days, so it was definitely not an impossible goal" level of nonsense.
Let's all sleep 3 hours per night and barely eat for 3 month shall we ?

I suspect that GGG did not increase the amount of xp necessary or nerf the xp, because it would have lowered the credit of the first ones to reach level 100, and they do not want to alienate their old players too much ( see legacy items for example ). There might be other reasons of course. They might be fine with the current pace too.

"

sofocle10000 wrote:

Losing 10% EXP on death is simple, just as simple as not losing any % when you hit 0%, which actually gives the same benefit as reaching level 100 on every level up, but you still didn't provide a good enough reason why this penalty couldn't be moved to each run content and interlinked with the number of tries.

so to you, "reaching a level" <=> "same benefit as reaching level 100" ????
In absolutely no way, leveling up and securing the xp gained until that point is specific to level 100, at all.
No wonder we are having a hard time communicating sometimes.
It's just a basic rule, that has nothing to do with being level 100.

And I ( we? ) did provide reason(s) already, I'm not going through that again.

"

Fruz wrote:

Spoiler

"

sofocle10000 wrote:

At the moment, moving that death EXP penalty to every map and interlinking it to the map portals simply seemed to me more intuitive

as said before ..... it's clearly not.
Your explanation was very intuitive either to be honest, it's understandable at least, but not intuitive or easy for all to understand.
not at all.

so ... a system that you failed to explain on the first time being more intuitive that something as simple as the current death penalty ?
No, seriously you should really stop with that kind of thing.
You can think that it's simple, but pretending that it's simpler than the current system ... lol.

"

sofocle10000 wrote:

Funny, even if a 3 month league was 90 days from the start and 74 days played ALWAYS were encompassed in that interval, hence reaching 100 was NEVER an impossible goal (inaccessible sure, overtaxing sure, but for it to really be impossible it should have taken at least 91 24/7 days from the start)

I see, so we reached the "It was possible to reach lvl 100 in the first temporary leagues, the guy only took 74 days, so it was definitely not an impossible goal" level of nonsense.
Let's all sleep 3 hours per night and barely eat for 3 month shall we ?

I suspect that GGG did not increase the amount of xp necessary or nerf the xp, because it would have lowered the credit of the first ones to reach level 100, and they do not want to alienate their old players too much ( see legacy items for example ). There might be other reasons of course. They might be fine with the current pace too.

"

sofocle10000 wrote:

Losing 10% EXP on death is simple, just as simple as not losing any % when you hit 0%, which actually gives the same benefit as reaching level 100 on every level up, but you still didn't provide a good enough reason why this penalty couldn't be moved to each run content and interlinked with the number of tries.

so to you, "reaching a level" <=> "same benefit as reaching level 100" ????
In absolutely no way, leveling up and securing the xp gained until that point is specific to level 100, at all.
No wonder we are having a hard time communicating sometimes.
It's just a basic rule, that has nothing to do with being level 100.

And I ( we? ) did provide reason(s) already, I'm not going through that again.

Let's try this again.

My last explanation is very intuitive, but not as intuitive as the current static % based penalty. I agree to that. But my system would entice everyone to try to perform better on each run, and would help alleviate the requests for locking the gain when attempting difficult content, not to mention that it would also help with making some choices matter more than currently - 1 try to finish a multiple selection of areas is "OK", but having the opportunity to turn map runs into "1 shot at completion" like some Zana missions is not?

It's as simple as the current system IMHO, and it also solves some additional problems so it might be a win on multiple sides at least for the Softcore league.

I also wanted to illustrate that it would have been simple to set the bar a lot higher, if such a goal was supposed to be IMPOSSIBLE FROM THE START. Even so, they could have either apologized and adjusted the value accordingly after the first 100 was reached, and even say openly that each level 100 reached will be followed by an "up the ante" so the stakes would increase each time, or they could have always decreased the EXP gain as necessary until that "IMPOSSIBLE" target would have been achieved.

Regardless, as level 100 was reached, I think their reasoning regarding making it "IMPOSSIBLE" changed.

Reaching 100 versus reaching 0% on the EXP bar each level up on Softcore has 1 single difference - the number of passive points. Sorry to break this news to you.

That is why every player gets the mentality that "zerging" is encouraged, even on maps, as you still have 6 opportunities to "throw bodies at a problem" without a penalty.

It might be a basic rule, but said rule is lackluster to say the least, as it creates more problems than it resolves. It might have been justified when the technology wasn't "up to snuff", but these days they can find and hopefully implement a better solution.

Some games might be better served by providing incentives for they players to improve and adapt. I think that PoE could be one of those, but sadly, the current status discourages that. I think this situation should change.

And I thought I provided enough counter-arguments to those reasons to not go through that again. It seems we're both right or both wrong.

"

Delekhan wrote:

Am one of those guys that cant stand you loose xp on death, am quitting the game because of this frustration.

These is some choices when you make a new character, like untradable items, hardcore, incursions etc. Why not make a choice when you start a new game with no xp loss on death for the softcore players?

I think alot of people have quit the game because of this frustration, because of no progression.

No, but they could buff the XP gain again for higher levels, because it takes a lot of time from 92ish to 100.

"Don't die, Not a Cockroach."

"

sofocle10000 wrote:

not as intuitive as the current static % based penalty. I agree to that.

Thank you ( for the part before that I didn't quote, not it was not ).
But ...

"

sofocle10000 wrote:

It's as simple as the current system IMHO

............................................

"

sofocle10000 wrote:

but having the opportunity to turn map runs into "1 shot at completion" like some Zana missions is not?

Been through this already.

"

sofocle10000 wrote:

if such a goal was supposed to be IMPOSSIBLE FROM THE START

Literally ? no, nobody said that.
For 99.99% of the player base ? Yeah then, it pretty much was.

"

sofocle10000 wrote:

Even so, they could have either apologized and adjusted the value accordingly after the first 100 was reached, and even say openly that each level 100 reached will be followed by an "up the ante" so the stakes would increase each time

Let's remove some of the hard acquired credit for anybody who manage to reach such a level, in short ?
I think that youcan see how bad that could be.

"

sofocle10000 wrote:

Some games might be better served by providing incentives for they players to improve and adapt. I think that PoE could be one of those, but sadly, the current status discourages that. I think this situation should change.

It is.
Only it requires of players to use their brain, likely more than in most other games.


The rest is a lot of paraphrasing your previous post, I could copy paste exactly some things that I already answered, but I really can't be bothered honestly, really.

"

Stone__Cold wrote:

No, but they could buff the XP gain again for higher levels, because it takes a lot of time from 92ish to 100.

lvl 100 not being meant to be a realistic goal for most ( even still now ), it seems perfectly working as intended then.