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)

"

Phaeded wrote:

Another concept that I think would be important in such a change is that what you're doing when you die should matter. I've I die fighting Chimera with rippy rolls I should be punished differently than someone who dies to complacency while chaining burial chambers, shouldn't I? Just another aspect I think is worth examining.

"

Aim_deep wrote:

I definitely adds. If no penalty you wouldn't have to pursue any balance at all - dont even take a life node but pure DPS and everyone would play the same. All DPS all the time. Talk about boring.

"

Fruz wrote:

"

Phaeded wrote:

Another concept that I think would be important in such a change is that what you're doing when you die should matter. I've I die fighting Chimera with rippy rolls I should be punished differently than someone who dies to complacency while chaining burial chambers, shouldn't I? Just another aspect I think is worth examining.

Risky fights are just risky.
If players don't get affected ( or significantly less ) by dangerous situations, then ... the risk is gone.
If there is no risk at all, I bet the game is going to get boring much faster for everyone.

Judging what is risky and what isn't, is also being a good player, it's not for the game to decide, and it all depends on the build / level / player, etc ...

"

Aim_deep wrote:

I definitely adds. If no penalty you wouldn't have to pursue any balance at all - dont even take a life node but pure DPS and everyone would play the same. All DPS all the time. Talk about boring.

It has been said several time on this thread, trust me ...
But we ended up at "it's all speculation, you don't know unless you try !

"

ffogell wrote:

Well I'm all in if you can prove otherwise ;)

"

robmafia wrote:

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

dying is dying. 10% is 10%. fair is fair.

penalizing better players for being better/faster/whatever is absurd.

i made participation trophy jokes through this thread. we've apparently found a way to go even lower. now we're trying to punish the better players. trigglypuffism has saturated gaming, i see.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

I definitely adds. If no penalty you wouldn't have to pursue any balance at all - dont even take a life node but pure DPS and everyone would play the same. All DPS all the time. Talk about boring.

Some of us have played this way but it's not condusive to leveling so we have to have balanced and diverse toons instead. Not exactly building for HC but somewhere between all DPS all the time and HC.

"

Jackalope_Gaming wrote:

2 hours is 2 hours, fair is fair.

"

Jackalope_Gaming wrote:

It's comparable to the way some countries handle traffic violation tickets in how the amount is based on the person's income. A person making, say, 50k a year might get a $500 fine or something and that would sting, but a person making 200k a year wouldn't give a damn and thus to at least make them recognize the issue the fine must be increased to at least $2000. 1% of income instead of a flat amount.

"

Jackalope_Gaming wrote:

"

robmafia wrote:

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

dying is dying. 10% is 10%. fair is fair.

penalizing better players for being better/faster/whatever is absurd.

i made participation trophy jokes through this thread. we've apparently found a way to go even lower. now we're trying to punish the better players. trigglypuffism has saturated gaming, i see.

I had to look up trigglypuff since I haven't heard of it, and I find the comparison... Puzzling. Mostly because the SJW protester types on college campuses can be boiled down to something like "Someone else criticizing my opinion invalidates my existence" which is not at all what's going on here.

So far there's no tantrum-throwing like that original woman was doing, just some people trying to work with an issue they see in the game and are tossing ideas back and forth.

But to use wording similar to your "10% is 10%":

2 hours is 2 hours, fair is fair. One possible goal with my suggestion would be to have the XP death penalty be roughly equivalent time lost because that seems more in line with something actually punishing but still reasonable to players.

It's comparable to the way some countries handle traffic violation tickets in how the amount is based on the person's income. A person making, say, 50k a year might get a $500 fine or something and that would sting, but a person making 200k a year wouldn't give a damn and thus to at least make them recognize the issue the fine must be increased to at least $2000. 1% of income instead of a flat amount.

In that scenario, a place that didn't take into account a person's income might give a $500 fine to someone in poverty just the same as if they were a millionaire. For the impoverished person, that fine could be devastating and would kill off a lot of time scraping by and pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, and potentially make them fall entirely off the deep end. For the millionaire it's a fart in the wind. That scenario is not fair, now is it? (And obviously governments usually do try to give other options to those who can't pay, but there aren't so many options in PoE.)

So when we're talking about casual players losing many hours of playtime because "10% is 10%", let's apply that to going from, say, level 93 to 94 just because the numbers are fairly tidy but it's still somewhat high. It takes 202,153,736 experience to level from 93 to 94, so 10% of that would be roughly 20 million experience.

The punishment of losing 20 million XP is far more significant to players getting 5 million XP an hour than it is to those getting 50 million an hour.

If we are going to make the punishment of losing XP on death actually meaningful but not a game-killer, which is presumably the entire point it exists, then in analyzing the current 10% of level system we find it's too hard on the less-skilled players (especially considering game hiccups) and comparatively too easy on the more-skilled.

And for some people, that is entirely acceptable. For others, particularly those who it directly affects the most, it kills their enthusiasm for the game. My stance on it is "I expect there is a better system and I'll help a bit here and there with it, but if it doesn't pan out then I'm not out much especially since I think having so much emphasis on levels is silly."