for everyone who wants a challange

"

SisterBlister wrote:

"

robmafia wrote:

upon death the char gains a level, gains 10 random currency orbs, and gains a random stash tab!

winning!

Oh, just give it a rest already! Taking an extreme position (maybe even pretending others defend this extreme) is not helping anybody.
Clearly a lot of people feel the xp penalty is too harsh, so there is a discussion to be had. You've made your point, you feel it's OK. That is fine. But if you feel this discussion should stop now, then you can just leave it and let those still interested continue. So that others can still make their arguments and have their voices heard.

Really, you are the least constructive poster I have ever encountered on this forum, and that is a low point, indeed.

'i don't like how this poster uses facts and evidence and linked other threads about the 15% xp penalty and havoc's first to 100 and etc, so this poster should be censored because my opinion and feelings'

also, you assume i prefer the status quo. you clearly didn't even read the posts you're complaining about and apparently wanting censored - as i made it pretty clear i'd prefer it to be changed. ...just not in the manner you'd like.

it's insulting to imply i'm silencing others and/or keeping anyone from posting in this public thread on this public forum and it's outright hypocritical to imply such while wanting me to be censored.

"

Fruz wrote:

"

vmt80 wrote:

For Fruz or you it might mean that my proposal removes incentives to play but I'd argue to a casual gamer it is quite the contrary current death XP penalty that does it. It is really puzzling if you don't see it -my guess is you don't want to see it.

No, it does not "removes incentives to play", it adds a very clear incentive to stop playing.

Which is very, very different.

It is really puzzling if you don't see it -my guess is you don't want to see it.

"

vmt80 wrote:

Of course, as I said, no one is forcing you to play SC in the first place. There is a HC league in the game already.

Of course, as many said, no once if forcing you to play a game where you have to use your brain to not fail at at it.
There are many more games that do all they can so that players can't really loose.

Ah, back to flaming. I really see no point in arguing with people, who in the end have no interest on topic other than showing their way of seeing the issue is the only legitimate one. After all, the people who got it right have decided it already, so there is nothing left to discuss about.

The issue itself won't go away. That is because there are a number of PoE players who see the same issue regarding SC modes that I've pointed out. Since you've already decided to know what is best for the game and for those people, you are of course free to describe their lowly motives of dumbing down the game and getting everything without any effort.

Sure, I admit it: playing video games for me is about having fun, not about having a punishment. You got me there.

"

Johny_Snow wrote:

We are walking in circles.

1. If you are playing slowly you have even less of an excuse to die because you are playing cautiously.

2. Why should a casual be able to reach level 100? What would be the meaning of 100 if anybody who dies 4 times per map can reach it easily?

Neither of those arguments hold any water at all, since

2. casuals don't give a f*ck about your prestige or ladder running, and we are not talking about 'dying 4 times per map' (as you very well should know) and because

1. you can go HC league to enjoy that slow-ass gameplay grinding level 9 maps over and over again if you like it.

But hey, don't take my word on it: ask real HC players, maybe they can help you get started in the right game mode.

...and it's ironic, since neither of those 2 examples are applicable.

- up to 6 deaths per map
- the topic is obviously about sc

"

vmt80 wrote:

"

Johny_Snow wrote:

We are walking in circles.

1. If you are playing slowly you have even less of an excuse to die because you are playing cautiously.

2. Why should a casual be able to reach level 100? What would be the meaning of 100 if anybody who dies 4 times per map can reach it easily?

Neither of those arguments hold any water at all, since

2. casuals don't give a f*ck about your prestige or ladder running, and we are not talking about 'dying 4 times per map' (as you very well should know) and because

1. you can go HC league to enjoy that slow-ass gameplay grinding level 9 maps over and over again if you like it.

But hey, don't take my word on it: ask real HC players, maybe they can help you get started in the right game mode.

Talking about completely missing the point, wow

Oh damn, I'll bite.

"

robmafia wrote:

'i don't like how this poster uses facts and evidence and linked other threads about the 15% xp penalty and havoc's first to 100 and etc, so this poster should be censored because my opinion and feelings'

No, I don't like how you keep calling everybody who argues for a less punishing penalty to be silly casuals who just want a no-brainer game. You're like one of those raving SJWs who comes to a discussion on a topic they don't like with a megaphone and shouts everybody down.
And no, I did not ask for you to be censored, I asked for you to either participate constructively or shut up. This is normal behaviour for an adult facing an annoying person. Censorship means that some authority with power actually stops you posting, and I have not asked for that.
Oh, and finally: You haven't posted a single relevant fact in this thread yet. You've just posted your opinion. Learn the difference between the two.

"

robmafia wrote:

also, you assume i prefer the status quo.

OK, I worded that badly. You would prefer a harsher penalty, and that is also a valid opinion. It doesn't change the fact that you've made it known really clearly that you dislike the opinion that the penalty should be less harsh. Nitpicker.

"

robmafia wrote:

it's insulting to imply i'm silencing others and/or keeping anyone from posting in this public thread on this public forum and it's outright hypocritical to imply such while wanting me to be censored.

No, you're not silencing anybody, you're just "shouting them down". And as stated above, no one called for censorship.

Oh, why did I answer? Arguing with you is so pointless. I'll stop until you post something sensible and on topic that one can reply to. hand

"

vmt80 wrote:

"

Fruz wrote:

"

vmt80 wrote:

For Fruz or you it might mean that my proposal removes incentives to play but I'd argue to a casual gamer it is quite the contrary current death XP penalty that does it. It is really puzzling if you don't see it -my guess is you don't want to see it.

No, it does not "removes incentives to play", it adds a very clear incentive to stop playing.

Which is very, very different.

It is really puzzling if you don't see it -my guess is you don't want to see it.

"

vmt80 wrote:

Of course, as I said, no one is forcing you to play SC in the first place. There is a HC league in the game already.

Of course, as many said, no once if forcing you to play a game where you have to use your brain to not fail at at it.
There are many more games that do all they can so that players can't really loose.

Ah, back to flaming.

I literally used the same expressions you did, with most of the same words, and applied them to you ... and this is flaming ?
/rofl, sweet irony.
And the rest was some pretty obvious empty BS because you have no actual arguments, so you can't debate anything without resorting to that kind of thing.

"

vmt80 wrote:

casuals don't give a f*ck about your prestige or ladder running

Why are you fixating on the ladder so much ?
Nobody gives a crap about the ladder but you here.

The game is obviously balanced around players playing at a certain speed as the norm, if can choose to go slower but safer if you want, that was precisely what was being mentioned, in case you actually didn't understand it.

Edit: Disregard. I wanted to try and get things back on track but I don't think it will be possible. The good will is gone.

"

SisterBlister wrote:

No, I don't like how you keep calling everybody who argues for a less punishing penalty to be silly casuals who just want a no-brainer game.

please cite where i called people "silly casuals."

you won't. you can't. it never happened. you're lying (again), already.

"

SisterBlister wrote:

You're like one of those raving SJWs who comes to a discussion on a topic they don't like with a megaphone and shouts everybody down.
And no, I did not ask for you to be censored, I asked for you to either participate constructively or shut up.

...sentence 1 is a denial, sentence 2 is an affirmation.

also, please explain how i 'shout everybody down' on a forum. again, you won't.

for added irony, you continue to insist that i'm not participating constructively.

you keep lying and providing zero examples and (obviously) zero facts.

in the post you're quoting, i mentioned just a couple things i contributed.

those lone contributions (and i gave much more in this thread) already are greater than everything you contributed to this entire thread.

facts > opinions. especially when the opinions are just baseless accusations and lies.

"

SisterBlister wrote:

This is normal behaviour for an adult facing an annoying person.

is a habitual liar "an annoying person?" just curious.

"

SisterBlister wrote:

Censorship means that some authority with power actually stops you posting, and I have not asked for that.

this is also a lie.

authority is not a requirement. also, you JUST told/asked me to "shut up." twice. so... another lie. a twofer. congrats, i guess?

"

SisterBlister wrote:

Oh, and finally: You haven't posted a single relevant fact in this thread yet. You've just posted your opinion. Learn the difference between the two.

woooooooooooooow.

right off the top of my head:

fact: the xp penalty was 15%
fact: the xp penalty was already nerfed
fact: this was already covered
fact: i posted links about this same subject in this thread
fact: if the xp penalty was removed, the only remaining variable is playtime/xp gain, resulting in max level being inevitable, given enough playtime
fact: your above claim is yet another lie.



you know, off the top of my head

"

SisterBlister wrote:

OK, I worded that badly. You would prefer a harsher penalty, and that is also a valid opinion. It doesn't change the fact that you've made it known really clearly that you dislike the opinion that the penalty should be less harsh. Nitpicker.

...you start off by admitting error, but then end the paragraph blaming me. and how is it nitpicky? your claim wasn't just COMPLETELY wrong, it wasn't even close.

"

SisterBlister wrote:

"

robmafia wrote:

it's insulting to imply i'm silencing others and/or keeping anyone from posting in this public thread on this public forum and it's outright hypocritical to imply such while wanting me to be censored.

No, you're not silencing anybody, you're just "shouting them down". And as stated above, no one called for censorship.

...you called for censorship.

"

SisterBlister wrote:

Oh, why did I answer? Arguing with you is so pointless. I'll stop until you post something sensible and on topic that one can reply to. hand

yes, arguing a bunch of lies in the face of logic/facts is generally pointless. no idea how you seem to think this is my fault, though...

"

robmafia wrote:

please cite where i called people "silly casuals."

you won't. you can't. it never happened. you're lying (again), already.

You didnt "literally" but a lot of your sarcastic answer implied that ;)