for everyone who wants a challange

sorry for eliminating appx 200 lines of irrelevant text to showcase the point.

it's LITERALLY not misrepresenting. it's LITERALLY quoting.

he LITERALLY said the 2 quoted lines in the same post.

you act like i pulled a random sentence from a separate thread on a separate subject, or something that actually WOULD be out of context.

"

robmafia wrote:

it's funny that most of the criticism in this particular thread comes down to people literally complaining about having to think. having to decide risk:reward. it's only like... the basis of the game/genre.

Your assessment of risk to reward is not going to be the same as others, and that's why there's this discussion in the first place.

Some players are willing to take risks and even get enjoyment out of doing that. However, others are not so willing to risk their entire character in the case of hardcore. And even in softcore there's a divide where some people would find the game far more enjoyable if it didn't have the XP penalty.

For some, the XP penalty is more motivation to improve. Those players are the type who will try to rise above a challenge and even make large leaps.

But then there are those who find the XP penalty is demotivating because the risk versus reward that works for them is often very little risk for rather little reward. They'd probably be okay slowly acquiring currency through the chaos recipe and running magic maps and then maybe by the end of the league they'd hit 97ish even without XP loss though the occasional one who has more time could get to 100 with a cookie cutter meta build.

Or there are simply those who feel the loss of time and effort (but not XP) is enough to force them to improve.

Hm, I wonder if I could have just shortened this whole thing by talking about the three stereotypical types of players: Spike, Johnny, and Timmy.

I also wonder if there might be room for a third kind of 'core such that hardcore is preserved with character death into softcore, softcore's death penalty is preserved, but then the third one simply wouldn't have the death penalty.

But if that happened I suppose there would be droves of people going to the no-loss core.

Personally, I wouldn't mind that. Then again, I find the current incarnation of the grind to 100 to be rather meaningless and stupid compared to playing with the game in numerous different ways and setting my own challenges and goals.

"

Jackalope_Gaming wrote:

"

robmafia wrote:

it's funny that most of the criticism in this particular thread comes down to people literally complaining about having to think. having to decide risk:reward. it's only like... the basis of the game/genre.

Your assessment of risk to reward is not going to be the same as others

*facepalm*

obviously.

our assessments of it will all be on an individual basis. ie: whether to run/reroll/sell a map. whether to take a life node or damage.

and that's the point. a few posts in this thread indicated they want no such thought process in the game. they want to run difficult content always, with no downside (xp loss).

it's JUST like i said. this game is based on decisions and how to manage/mitigate risk.

"

MrTremere wrote:

I've suggested many times to base the penalty on the amount of experience gained in a certain amount of time, so as to be able to have a meaningful penalty for top racers, without it being a massive loss for someone playing a lot less, or at a less efficient rate.

I get where you are coming from there, but in a way it would be an incentive of not playing too much, would it not ?

"I've done 5% of my level 95 today, to be sure not be hit by the penalty ... I'm going to stop playing poe or stop playing on this char for a while"
Do you think that's a road GGG would be smart to take ?
I don't think so.

"

robmafia wrote:

this game is based on decisions and how to manage/mitigate risk.

Remove the penalty, and there is no more risk for people that are pushing for xp.

"

robmafia wrote:

"

Jackalope_Gaming wrote:

"

robmafia wrote:

it's funny that most of the criticism in this particular thread comes down to people literally complaining about having to think. having to decide risk:reward. it's only like... the basis of the game/genre.

Your assessment of risk to reward is not going to be the same as others

*facepalm*

obviously.

our assessments of it will all be on an individual basis. ie: whether to run/reroll/sell a map. whether to take a life node or damage.

and that's the point. a few posts in this thread indicated they want no such thought process in the game. they want to run difficult content always, with no downside (xp loss).

it's JUST like i said. this game is based on decisions and how to manage/mitigate risk.

XP loss isn't the only risk the game can throw at us though. Die enough times in a map and there go the portals after all. The risk there is losing the ability to continue making progress and then having to again scrounge up whatever fragments are needed for the content.

Probably the first time I actually felt a proper rush when I was running Olmec's on my crappy self-made Pillar build for the first time and made the mistake of rounding up rares and selling them only to leave myself with two portals to face the boss. And then I died and there was one portal left and I was frantically leaping about while my totem killed stuff to make sure I was still alive by the end of it.

But, considering how various cookie cutter build guides can trivialize the end game content even with cheap/crappy uniques or other items, plus how it can be easy to acquire various fragments or just join in on a kill for some currency, I suppose XP loss is probably the only way to universally make the player feel like they fucked up without actually losing the character or resorting to deleting/damaging items.

Though I did have a thread a while ago wondering if the XP loss might be tied to how much XP per hour they're getting or how much XP they've gotten in X amount of time as opposed to the 10% chunk for everyone.

"

Jackalope_Gaiming wrote:

Though I did have a thread a while ago wondering if the XP loss might be tied to how much XP per hour they're getting or how much XP they've gotten in X amount of time as opposed to the 10% chunk for everyone.

IF it somehow excludes time being idle/afk/trading .... then I guess something like this could work indeed.

Take how much xp has been gained in the last x hours where xp was gained, and calculate the "appropriate" penalty from that ?


(Don't get me wrong, I still believe that GGG would better spend their gime working on something else, but if such a system would get implemented properly, maybe that would not be bad for the game overall)

"

Jackalope_Gaming wrote:

XP loss isn't the only risk the game can throw at us though. Die enough times in a map and there go the portals after all.

...

you can't be serious if you think the game is or should be balanced around dying 5+ times per map.

"

[Removed by Support]

*ahem*

"

SisterBlister wrote:

...
Fuck off.

...
Please refrain from personal attacks or jabs and let's try to make this a productive discussion. Thanks!

you said blatantly hypocritical things in the same post, but if someone points it out, they're apparently trolling and in the wrong somehow.

"

vmt80 wrote:

They can stay on playing HC. But if there is a problem there, let me give out a suggestion: why not make it so HC death results in deleting the character outright. That way HC players stop meddling in game modes which they don't approve anyway.

Right?

Emm, wrong. We're "meddling" not because we go and play standard after character death - most of us never do that - but because except for the different death penalties and SSF/trade rules it's the same game for all of us. When a balance tweak happens, it happens everywhere. And since most PoE players play SC, GGG will always consider SC first when making balance changes. We'll benefit nothing from removal of death penalty in SC, but we'll suffer the same consequences, be it reduced drop from endgame content, even more rippy on-death effects, or skill nerfs.

And yes, 10% is not even a penalty.

"

Fruz wrote:

"

Jackalope_Gaiming wrote:

Though I did have a thread a while ago wondering if the XP loss might be tied to how much XP per hour they're getting or how much XP they've gotten in X amount of time as opposed to the 10% chunk for everyone.

IF it somehow excludes time being idle/afk/trading .... then I guess something like this could work indeed.

Take how much xp has been gained in the last x hours where xp was gained, and calculate the "appropriate" penalty from that ?


(Don't get me wrong, I still believe that GGG would better spend their gime working on something else, but if such a system would get implemented properly, maybe that would not be bad for the game overall)

Oh yeah, the entire premise is based on time spent in an instance where XP can be gained. Time spent in hideouts, towns, and so on does not factor in.

And as far as AFK in an XP instance goes, I'd say that time wasted might be punishment enough. On top of maybe dying to that one monster you didn't kill coming along and poking you enough times.

I'm unsure of how it might handle spending a lot of time away from XP only to come back to it. You mentioned a case where someone getting to a certain XP threshold would optimally stop for the day to avoid penalties, so there might arise a case where standing in one's hideout for whatever time is deemed "optimal" to ensuring XP isn't lost.

My guess on that would be it needs at least a day away to reset the XP tracker, but likely no more than a week. Or just don't have the XP reset thing and instead force the player to choose running safer areas to lower the penalty if they're really paranoid about something or prepping to go up against, say, Atziri for the first time.

There will always be some sort of abuse with a new system like that though.