for everyone who wants a challange

"

Jackalope_Gaming wrote:

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?

*sigh*

it wasn't about socialism until you made it that. that's what made it ironic and worthy of being mentioned.

"

Jackalope_Gaming wrote:

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?

if you don't know the saga or trigglypuff or gamergate/SJWs inserting politics into media... i don't know why you'd try to debate it. but yes, trigglypuff is quite socialist. more importantly, the trend of trigglys infecting games/comics/tv/movies/etc are.

as for the end conclusion - it's close enough. you used financial examples and mentioned poverty/millionaires/etc in your argument. hence, what i said.

"

Jackalope_Gaming wrote:

"

robmafia wrote:

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?

I seriously think Americans -others do this too, but for reasons I won't go to in detail it is especially a fetish for Americans- should in most cases stop speaking of socialism given they have absolutely no clue on the meaning of word. Teenage brats from their right-wing families just show how shallow understanding they have of politics and history, thinking everything revolves around US and Soviet Union.

Moreover, it has nothing to do with the topic.

"

vmt80 wrote:

Moreover, it has nothing to do with the topic.

which is what made it so funny to read here.

"

Phaeded wrote:

"

robmafia wrote:

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

I can see that, but given two equally skilled players advancement is, as you have pointed out to me before quite vociferously, simply a matter of playtime.

So for the guys proposing this method, I'd like to suggest an example for my own clarification. Two characters, both level 95. One is chaining BC maps 16 hours a day every day. The other plays 2 hours a day 4 days a week and runs the highest tier maps he has, averaging T13, and does nothing but chisel+alch+go. The latter player will have a much higher XP/hour ratio while the former player is playing a lot more hours so may earn more total XP. I feel like this is a rational example but please let me know if you disagree. Who gets punished more in this scenario and why?

If I've been reading correctly, the 16 hour per day guy will get punished more. Unless rob is right, in which case the higher XP/hour guy will get punished more. So for my own understanding, which is it? Or have I misconstrued the entire premise?

The response you got to this question was lazy and sloppy, so I'll pitch in.

The gist is this:

XP/week and XP/hour are two very different things, because the hours spent per week on the game vary by player.

Thus, the latter player will have a greater penalty against the actual hours he has spent playing. The former player will have a lesser per-hour penalty, but because he plays far more hours per week than the former player, he will have a greater per-week penalty.

I actually don't think we should make things easier on those who play fewer hours per week, because that is counterintuitive: All things being equal, if you play the game more, you should gain more.

Instead a variable XP penalty should be based on the XP gained per hour (non-idle), not per arbitrary unit of time whether or not the player is playing. HOWEVER:

"

Jackalope_Gaming wrote:

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.

Your reasoning is correct, but you forgot one important detail. XP gained per hour in PoE is less about skill and more about exploiting the meta:

1. Focusing on OP skills, gems, and mechanics interactions (often unintended) wherever possible,

and

2. Avoiding risky content, because the way GGG has set things up, increased risk is not proportionate to increased exp gain (people skipping bosses is perhaps the most obvious evidence of that).

Therefore, the current setup does not merely punish less-skilled players. It punishes (quite heavily, at that) players who are not interested in #1 and/or #2 above.

If you believe #1 or #2 is the core of the game, or the ideal expectation of all players' behavior, then this fact is irrelevant. But most players (on this forum at least) do not seem to believe this.

"

robmafia wrote:

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

"

robmafia wrote:

"

Jackalope_Gaming wrote:

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?

*sigh*

it wasn't about socialism until you made it that. that's what made it ironic and worthy of being mentioned.

Weren't you the first one to mention socialism in this thread?

Oh I'm sorry, am I criticizing your hypocrisy? Or inability to reason? Or lack of self-awareness?

(According to your last response to me, you could not possibly have made a personal attack against another player because the word you used, "hypocrisy," is a noun. I have therefore limited myself to noun phrases, so that you will not feel personally attacked nor become triggered in the style of the SJWs you hate so much. You're welcome.)

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

2. Avoiding risky content, because the way GGG has set things up, increased risk is not proportionate to increased exp gain (people skipping bosses is perhaps the most obvious evidence of that).

About that, is this really a thing anymore ??
I really don't think that we're in a "skip-boss" meta much at the moment.

Especially since people using shaped strategy (which might just be the best way to level up efficiently), you can pick a layout that you like with a boss that isn't risky, and there are many of them.

Bosses now have also a bit more incentive to be run with the strongholds.


I think that your complain here is more about having more incentive to run bosses at higher level (and we've been getting more and more over the past leagues/years) honestly.

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

"

robmafia wrote:

"

Jackalope_Gaming wrote:

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?

*sigh*

it wasn't about socialism until you made it that. that's what made it ironic and worthy of being mentioned.

Weren't you the first one to mention socialism in this thread?

It seems a little sourcing is in order.

On page 21 (https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2227423/page/21#p15860518) I said:

"

Jackalope_Gaming 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.

Fruz and I had a little back and forth going over specifics and some possible issues. Still on page 21 at https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2227423/page/21#p15860708.

There's some other back and forth on page 22 and 23, then robmafia says this in the 9th post (https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2227423/page/23#p15862740):

"

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.

Up until this point no extra connotations or comparisons had been added to the discussion of changing how the XP death penalty is handled.

From there I made a little bit of an effort to learn what "trigglypuff" and "trigglypuffism" even mean. Obviously I needed to make more of an effort considering there seems to be a whole lot more going on, though I'm still confused as to why that particular name (meme?) came up in the first place because when one is having a discussion on the internet (and actually cares about ensuring everyone has reasonable topic understanding so the discussion can be fruitful) one usually doesn't bring in other stuff without some form of explanation.

Here is my effort to understand what the term means given my experiences and then I give a comparison to maybe add some more context to my thinking of the XP penalty changes: https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2227423/page/24#p15862985

I've added some extra stuff in making the comparison, but it's a specific comparison that tries not to assume a whole lot of other things.

Fruz then gives a rebuttal at https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2227423/page/24#p15863024 and I'd say it's an excellent rebuttal that actually addresses key points. I'll come back to it when I'm not doing citations and some other rebuttals.

Directly under Fruz's rebuttal is robmafia's reaction (https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2227423/page/24#p15863025):

"

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.

Now we see the first time the word "socialism" is brought up explicitly. And if one is to take "advocates for some sort of socialism in a video game" as a definition of "trigglypuff," which is what seems to be the most likely intent, then it has been implicitly brought up with this quote that I've already referenced:
https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2227423/page/23#p15862740

"

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.

So the times socialism has been originally brought up, both explicitly and implicitly, are by robmafia.

So let's go back to me saying "I've added some extra stuff in making the comparison, but it's a specific comparison that tries not to assume a whole lot of other things."

Discussing a single possible solution to a given (and admittedly small) problem in a video game, even if the possible solution does have traits of certain ways a socialist philosophy might handle that situation, does not imply the enormous entirety of the economic and political philosophy that is socialism. Likewise, making a comparison of that video game problem to a real world problem also does not imply the rest of socialism.

No, robmafia, I did not bring up socialism. I was entirely on the topic of the experience penalty then you implicitly brought up socialism when mentioning "trigglypuffism." From there I brought up a real world comparison to hopefully give some more context to the experience penalty topic and then you explicitly bring up socialism.

And as you seem to agree with vmt80 at https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2227423/page/26#p15863499:

"

robmafia wrote:

"

vmt80 wrote:

Moreover, it has nothing to do with the topic.

which is what made it so funny to read here.

So now that I've written an essay, how about sticking to the topic of the experience penalty instead of pulling trigglypuffs and socialism out of the void?

"

Fruz wrote:

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

2. Avoiding risky content, because the way GGG has set things up, increased risk is not proportionate to increased exp gain (people skipping bosses is perhaps the most obvious evidence of that).

About that, is this really a thing anymore ??
I really don't think that we're in a "skip-boss" meta much at the moment.

Especially since people using shaped strategy (which might just be the best way to level up efficiently), you can pick a layout that you like with a boss that isn't risky, and there are many of them.

Bosses now have also a bit more incentive to be run with the strongholds.


I think that your complain here is more about having more incentive to run bosses at higher level (and we've been getting more and more over the past leagues/years) honestly.

At the moment it does seem like bosses are being more run and planned around, overall. But I'm not sure that's due to experience so much as items.

Certain outliers like map Shakari or other multiphase regular bosses like Pier's Architect are of course avoided but the feeling I'm getting is bosses are worthwhile if you're not doing something very specific like superfast currency farming. And even then you'll want to try to be able to down the bosses of the maps you're most likely to run.

One of the examples where I do risk vs reward is magic maps versus rares. It's always worthwhile to roll magic maps a bit since transmutes, augments, and alterations are so cheap. Rares on the other hand haven't been so rewarding to me and the main reason I'll run them is to advance my atlas bonus completion.

But occasionally they've been more fun such as when I got a corrupted phys reflect map on my Pillar Sunder Juggernaut. At first I tried to turn my damage into elemental but then I decided CWDT IC was just plain better. And it was so much more satisfying doing that straightforward change because of Unbreakable's regen from mitigating physical damage. To the point where I might actually consider doing reflect maps because it oddly enough makes my build more survivable aside from spike damage.

But in terms of experience... I can say now that I've found that fun quirk I'm more likely to try things that have more mods if they've also got phys reflect. And that'll translate into more experience overall if I'm playing to my strengths.

In terms of doing bosses for experience what I'd most likely try to do is roll a whole bunch of maps that I can quickly do the bosses. If I can't quickly do the bosses then I'd have to weigh the other rewards from doing them and that'd likely narrow down my list of preferred maps.

I haven't actually been keeping track of experience from bosses though. And if boss experience doesn't change based on maps mods (particularly pack size) then taking more risks with more mods means the boss becomes less and less valuable in terms of XP.

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

"

Jackalope_Gaming wrote:

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.

Your reasoning is correct, but you forgot one important detail. XP gained per hour in PoE is less about skill and more about exploiting the meta:

1. Focusing on OP skills, gems, and mechanics interactions (often unintended) wherever possible,

and

2. Avoiding risky content, because the way GGG has set things up, increased risk is not proportionate to increased exp gain (people skipping bosses is perhaps the most obvious evidence of that).

Therefore, the current setup does not merely punish less-skilled players. It punishes (quite heavily, at that) players who are not interested in #1 and/or #2 above.

If you believe #1 or #2 is the core of the game, or the ideal expectation of all players' behavior, then this fact is irrelevant. But most players (on this forum at least) do not seem to believe this.

You're absolutely right, XP gain is entirely about those two points and I hadn't thought about those until considering more problems with how XP is gained in the first place.

I think it's safe to say #2 is not an ideal expectation of player behavior. If the player looks at something like a reflect mod and finds its 4% pack size increase is completely outweighed by its significant mortality increase for their build then that mod is not at all worth the risk. It's one example but it certainly illustrates how certain mods end up being so binary.

Is the ideal case for map mods when we look at the majority of rares we get and have to actually analyze if it's worthwhile? And not just a casual glance to notice one specific mod, but look at them all together and ask ourselves if it's something we can do and if it's worth it to do?

I can see an issue where greater knowledge and the ability to process information faster would end up pushing us towards more immediate and binary choice instead of allowing us wiggle room. Or is the sliding scale of build power meant to address that?

As far as #1 goes, I would hope the focus is not on OP effects so much as interesting effects. But one issue is splitting up what is OP compared to what is interesting. I expect it's always of interest to find an interaction that makes the toughest or most lucrative encounters easier.

But I also expect there are interesting things that wouldn't really be viable in end game encounters. In fact, I would hope there are interesting and fun things that aren't because boiling the game down to simply "what things are most optimal for doing endgame content" doesn't sit well with me since there is so much more potential.

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

Weren't you the first one to mention socialism in this thread?

Oh I'm sorry, am I criticizing your hypocrisy? Or inability to reason? Or lack of self-awareness?

(According to your last response to me, you could not possibly have made a personal attack against another player because the word you used, "hypocrisy," is a noun. I have therefore limited myself to noun phrases, so that you will not feel personally attacked nor become triggered in the style of the SJWs you hate so much. You're welcome.)

wow, so eager to throw stones that you didn't bother to actually read the posts.

i'm the first to mention socialism by name (i think, it may have come up in the fist 20ish pages) - while mocking a long post about poverty and wealth and punishing/taxing the wealthy more... you know, advocating socialism. in a video game.

just like i said.

how hypocritical of me - to paraphrase a post. oh, wait. no, that's not what hypocrisy means. think harder, do better.

"

Jackalope_Gaming wrote:

No, robmafia, I did not bring up socialism.

wrong

"

Jackalope_Gaming wrote:

So now that I've written an essay, how about sticking to the topic of the experience penalty instead of pulling trigglypuffs and socialism out of the void?

...from the void?

"

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.

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.)

"the void," ladies and gentlemen.