for everyone who wants a challange

"

ACGIFT wrote:

Yeah, from a design perspective, the 10% EXP penalty really brings nothing to the game. As you mention, people who want a real penalty for dying... Play hardcore.

I mean, some casuals might think that it's meant to slow the race to 100, but... Again, two things:

• Few if any of these players ever die to begin with, thanks to the party they constantly have supporting them.
  
• In reality, the only ladder people really push competitiveness for is the HC SSF ladder, which... Again, has its own punishments. (1 death = you lose entirely)

Also weird that the 10% experience penalty still applies to HC deaths; it seems redundant. After all, >95% of all HC characters that die are just getting deleted in the following 30 seconds, so what's even the point?

So balance-wise, it largely seems to just act as a "wall" to SC players who aren't pro-streamers. (and hence have an army of fanboys/guildmates to back them up) This isn't exactly beneficial to the game at all.

The game is now (counting alpha) around 7 years old. Some existing mechanics that have remained unchanged, naturally, should be looked at.

(also, InB4 all the white knights who wanna rush to defend the "honour" of the status quo)

"

SpectralDrake wrote:

When dying, the slow player loses one fourth of his progress for the week, and the other loses 1/24th.

"

MrTremere wrote:

Especially when you are already disengaging from the game because the penalty is burning you out.
I think many players are fine with the route to 100 taking several years as casual players. What is not fine (at least in my case) is negative progress.

"

The_risen wrote:

Imho, reduce the xp of tier t11-14 maps, also reduce the xp gained from spamming the same map, while increasing the xp of doing different and challenging high tier maps.

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

1. Accusing someone of hypocrisy doesn't magically make your own argument more compelling. Quite the contrary: It merely demonstrates your own failure to understand why the person you quoted might make seemingly contradictory statements.

2. ...But the reason is quite simple in fact. You quoted each without context. And you (quite blatantly) did it in order to make the other person look bad. In journalism and other rhetorical circles, this is frowned upon for obvious reasons: It is intellectually dishonest. (Yes, you can "literally quote" someone and still do this, as you yourself have demonstrated.)

What you did is also known as "quote mining," and it is a kind of informal fallacy. Look it up and try to understand it if you are interested in not repeating your mistake. (Yes, I realize I sound like a dick when I reference logic jargon. Try to give me the benefit of the doubt here--I am genuinely trying to help you.)

3. Personal attacks in general (including accusations of hypocrisy) make the forum a far more unpleasant place. Knock it off, mate.

"

SpectralDrake wrote:

"

robmafia wrote:

10% is 10%. be it an hour, a week, or a year.

scaling it like suggested would essentially punish better players for being better and reward those who are worse. it doesn't really make sense.

.. according to you.
To me, it makes perfect sense.

Disclaimer: for the following, I'm just throwing numbers out, haven't measured/calculated this or asked anyone. You are welcome to supply more accurate numbers if you can.

Let's say a casual+slow player plays 3 hours per day.
With the current dp, if he dies at lvl 90, he loses 2? hours worth of xp - basically loses most of the progress for the day.

Let's say an intense+fast player plays 9 hours per day.
With the current dp, if he dies at lvl 90, he loses 0.5? hour worth of xp - barely noticeable, regained easily.

So, the current (static) dp actually encourages an intense+fast playstyle, and/or punishes a casual+slow playstyle, depending how you look at it.
No wonder Queen of the Forest is so popular.

With a death penalty dynamically scaled from the xp gained in the last 3 hours of play, both would lose a similar amount of time, measured in xp.

"

robmafia wrote:

so you think the better player should be punished more severely than the worse player?

"

robmafia wrote:

since they were essentially talking about xp/hour, 'better' seemed appropriate.