for everyone who wants a challange

"

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.

Not disagreeing but if the suggestion is to change the system based on playtime or some other factor like that then I would want to include something that rewards (or in this case “punishes less”) riskier play as well. I’m not onboard with such a change myself just yet. I’m skeptical that it can be done in a reasonable and fair way for the reasons I alluded to previously.

^
It's not the xp penalty on death's purpose to reward risk imho, it really isn't.
Risk is most of the time being rewarded already by increased loot / chance at getting a +2 maps / atlas completion / memory fragment / shaper's stronghold, etc ....
But at the end it (almost) all depends on RNG of course.

"

robmafia wrote:

[...]

C'mon man lol, chill out.

But it does punish higher risk, or at the very least discourages it (better ding before I try that 8 mod T16). Again, I’m not advocating for a change myself. I’m just trying to consider the alternatives with a more open mind than I had previously. It’s interesting to me at least.

That's what risk is about, it's the main (pretty much only) thing that makes risky content ... risky in the first place.

You could argue that some damage scaling from map mod is too brutal and therefore the probability of dying is too high for most builds, but then the discussion would be about map mods imho.

"

Fruz wrote:

"

robmafia wrote:

[...]

C'mon man lol, chill out.

yes, sir. i always take orders from strangers on the internet who constantly misinterpret my mood and pretend my fake mood is somehow relevant...

Hard to see a "mood" on the internet.

One's word and grammar choices do tend to convey a mood regardless of whether that's the intent. But reading a given person's mood is quite another matter.

"

Fruz wrote:

Hard to see a "mood" on the internet.

which works, since one's mood isn't relevant.

"

robmafia wrote:

"

Fruz wrote:

Hard to see a "mood" on the internet.

which works, since one's mood isn't relevant.

Knowing a person's mood can give some insight into why they're behaving a certain way though, and from there it becomes easier to address what's really going on. Talking with an angry person is different than talking with a passionate one.

"

robmafia wrote:

*FACEPALM*

doesn't understand why i mentioned trigglypuff.

advocates for some sort of socialism in a video game. i can't even make this crap up.

Then say it's more about seeing socialism in video games instead of pulling out a rather ill-defined and recent but still somewhat obscure meme?

To me, those SJW protesters who shut down debates have little to do with socialism and instead represent a significant failing in teaching people how to critically think as well as give and receive useful criticism and debate. Note that such failings are not linked with socialism or really any economic or political philosophy. The reason that's what it means to me is because I watched a fair bit of Jonathan Haidt talking about these students who can't bear to have their ideas even inquired about let alone criticized and will make a huge fuss and start name-calling when things don't go their way due in part because they seemingly lack the ability to coherently form and communicate useful and nuanced ideas to discuss.

So no, I don't understand why you mention trigglypuff because I don't see how you link socialism to that particular person or those she has come to represent.

As for actually seeing socialism in games... it seems you're linking socialism with the way the suggestion would, to you, lessen the efforts of the more capable to boost the efforts of those less capable, yes?