for everyone who wants a challange
|
Yes, this topic is primarily about SC. The entire premise of HC's death penalty is "don't die, at all" so of course talking about losing experience from dying in HC is a moot point other than noting how it's a bit odd the character has lost XP when transferred over to SC. That lost XP is still moot compared to losing the character in that league if the player exclusively plays HC.
But yes, making the SC XP penalty more lenient might mean the whole game gets rebalanced, presumably to be harder to counter how the XP penalty would make things easier. It makes no sense for the rest of the game to get easier from this change since the premise is usually if one part gets easier then another part must get harder, and getting easier would mean a philosophy shift in how difficult the whole game is supposed to be. And if no other changes happen then obviously that means there's no discussion to be had about the effects of other changes. So the discussion route is now "Making the SC XP penalty more lenient means the rest of the game must get harder to compensate." If deaths are less meaningful individually then they should be more likely to happen in order to ensure... I suppose the road to 100 is longer if you keep messing up. That would then impact HC as well because the game is harder and thus players are more likely to die and there are no compensations since HC is permanent removal of the character from the league on death. Note that I have not mentioned exactly how the SC XP penalty is made more lenient. It could simply be tuned down from 10% to 5%. It could factor in XP/hour. It could do both, or neither, that's not necessarily important for the following analysis because the penalty for dying in HC is your character is removed from the league so the actual change made to SC's XP penalty does not directly matter. The repercussions on HC from an SC XP penalty change are at least one step removed from the SC XP penalty change itself and thus a different part of the discussion. From an HC point of view, it seems the main argument (probably not the only argument, but the main one) against SC's penalty being more lenient is it would then make the game harder. Maybe the XP to reach 100 would again be inflated, maybe the game itself would be tuned up, maybe it's a combination or some other way of handling things, we can only guess. So maybe the first real position formed when seeing what might happen to HC is "I don't like this, I don't want to be nerfed because the game got harder." The opposite view along those lines is "I like this, I want the game to be harder." Okay, how would the game get harder in HC? It matters since simply inflating the XP needed to get to 100 doesn't much change the game itself, but if actual enemy and/or player numbers are tweaked then that will change the game. Then let's quickly get a simple road to level 100 XP change out of the way: Longer grind, HC player retention probably drops off if their goal is to get to 100 (or any 90+ level really) since it takes longer. Maybe the feeling of accomplishment is greater for some due to needing more time investment, but I admit I probably can't say much on this since I have never actually tried getting to 100 let alone do it in HC. Still, it seems the reactions to the simple change of a longer grind would also be pretty simple and straightforward. Could an HC player chime in on this please? If an XP change isn't the only way the HC road to 100 is made longer, then the analysis gets more interesting since that would mean player an/or monster numbers are tweaked to make the game itself more difficult. If the game itself becomes more difficult then builds and play must get better to overcome the extra difficulty. This can be achieved through gear, skill point choice, skill choices, and general playstyle. All of those are functions of player knowledge and skill in figuring out what works when, but much of that is fairly transferable through build guides and trading. About the only thing that isn't fully transferable is how one actually plays the character such as knowing how to position themselves and when to use what skills. A harder game usually ends up making the game slower because the build and play must be more defensive, but we must acknowledge "the best defense is a good offense" at times so it can also make the game faster due to a bigger need to kill before you get killed. And of course some builds just don't care because they're already slaughtering the game. But the end result is likely an overall reduction in build choices because overcoming the content requires better everything. Some new interactions are always found and circulated but the net effect is fewer builds and/or players can succeed to the needed standards. Let's split up the build choice discussion from the player skill discussion. Build choice: The reactions to having overall reduced build choice range from "That's bad, we should encourage more build diversity" to "That's good, we should weed out the bad stuff from the good stuff." And likely some other things, so if anyone has something they'd like to chime in on with that then please quote this part of the post and we can go through the different opinions and likely effects. But that part seems more like a philosophy choice than anything else. I'm more on the side of wanting more build diversity since that can make for a more interesting game for more people, but the extreme of that is if you can accomplish something by doing it any way you want then the way you did it doesn't really matter. And our build choices should matter. There is hopefully some middle ground where we can play a great variety of builds and succeed but they still take knowledge and effort to both build and play. Right now, I have no idea what the build diversity is truly like in HC. I only glance at it every now and then since I don't play HC. But the impression I get just looking around here and there is it's getting better as GGG boosts some low stuff here and there without killer changes to the high level stuff, plus players figure out more useful mechanics and interactions. Maybe on the very high end like Delve 1000+ or Uber Elder there are comparatively few viable build choices, but I think it's natural that the hardest content would have the fewest viable options to beating it. One way to go from there in terms of game philosophy is "should all players be able to see all content?" In PoE's case it seems like it's a "no," but one might have to figure out which things are core content and which things are just harder versions of that core. Clearly regular Atziri is core content while Uber Atziri is just a harder version with different rewards. Getting to and completing regular Atziri is fairly straightforward now whereas Uber Atziri is significantly harder even though it's the same fight. But Shaper and Elder... I'm unsure about. Elder is definitely easier to find and kill for early maps and he gets progressively harder if you're doing yellow and red maps. Shaper, however, requires doing T16 maps so the premise with him is there will be a number of people who can't get to him. By extension, Uber Elder is even harder to get and beat and thus even fewer people will see him. So that leads into "what stages should the difficulty go up and thus require better builds?" Along those lines, if the SC XP penalty were changed then one would expect the higher difficulty stuff to get the most changes. My opinion: I wouldn't mind if the 10 Act main story ended up being a bit easier so a good chunk of people could complete it. White maps could maybe be made easier or just kept the same,. Yellow maps and above? Sure, make them harder. That's where the biggest changes in HC would take place anyway to counter an SC XP penalty change. So in terms of HC builds, making the SC XP penalty more lenient means the highest levels of content most likely get more difficult numbers-wise to counter that XP leniency. Whether one likes the game more difficult or not is up to them. Now for player skill: Making the game more difficult in a way that requires players play better (and not just have better items) means those who have an aptitude for improving like that will still succeed but those who don't improve will obviously stall or fail. And here it becomes a question of when to add in new mechanics that challenge positioning and that sort of thing. Clearly the early game should be more lenient with some occasional bumps or spikes (the magnitude of which is debatable) and then progressively get harder from there. My thoughts about player skill: If it's a question of mechanics being the issue and not so much the build's numbers then I'd like to see more opportunities for us to try something, realize we need to improve, and then be able to get right back in with trying new strategies in order to overcome the fights. So for HC player skill, I don't really expect GGG to make current encounters mechanically harder since they've been out for a while. But new high level challenges will require more skill. Good or bad change? Depends on the person, and can vary from the person anyway depending on their mood and other factors like what they're playing when changes come through. And then just to kick all this in the balls: A player's build is not necessarily indicative of their actual skill and there are many ways one can play to negate or even capitalize on their play style so there might not even be much point in changing experience at all because the game is so fucked up that any semblance of competence or progress is quite easily undeserved. (previous paragraph is basically where I say fuck all of this, I'm done) |
|
|
^ well that was a good read but I wont quote it
Yes effectively reducing the death penalty might or will directly influence the difficulty but isnt also something people are asking for (killing boss vs reward) ? Also I'm not sure that it would reduce build diversity that much , I mean taking the difficulty road mean it will force them to be more proactive at balacing their game. But in the end that depends or their vision and goal in the long term. Last edited by ffogell#6809 on Oct 4, 2018, 6:29:07 PM
|
|
" The main thought which got lost in all of it is analyzing what the effects of an SC XP penalty change would be on HC and if those effects are something acceptable. One of the arguments against the SC XP change is it would impact HC. So regardless of how the XP change might be done, the main effect that didn't try to only compensate with a longer XP grind would likely be a harder game for everyone and that includes hardcore players. I'm unsure of the HC player proportion who would like that compared to would not, but my first thought is more might actually like that effect since there usually seems to be some complaint from that crowd of the game getting easier. Well, depending on how it's done of course. As for whether GGG would be forced to balance their game better... I'm feeling pessimistic about that right now. Last edited by Jackalope_Gaming#1826 on Oct 4, 2018, 7:46:41 PM
|
|
" You would think level 98 is good enough add some weight to my comment based on level. However, I never said getting to level 100 was easy. If it was, I'd have been level 100 already. And my position was already clear that I don't like endgame level progression. So, what exactly are you commenting on? That I'm not level 100? Sure, let me nolife the game for 3 weeks and I'll be there. Pfft. |
|
" " This is a problem on those forums and in this thread : people can't be bothered to show a bit of honesty sometimes. So you would say that something being "simply an investment of time" is difficult ? is not easy ? But with such ridiculously unrealistic claims, we are going absolutely nowhere, which is why it's very, very silly. " I thought that some were able to lvl 1->100 in about a week now. Long story short, leveling to 100 is not simply (realistically) an investment of time. And the unrealistic BS version (@you can get to lvl 100 running lvl 1 maps only) does not matter at all. It's a grind where you have to have a good enough build, be knowledgeable enough about the content and pay enough attention on the way to 100. SSF is not and will never be a standard for balance, it is not for people entitled to getting more without trading. Last edited by Fruz#6137 on Oct 4, 2018, 10:16:23 PM
| |
" That you can get to level 100 without doing difficult content is not unrealistic. But is it easy? No, you have to fight with your own boredom. The grind to level 100 is a boring unrewarding grind. That has nothing to do with the death penalty though. It has everything to do with not requiring a high level to be able to do content AND the fact that the grind gets progressively longer with each level. So it is actually easier to just play a different character instead if you wish to keep playing. " I've seen people do it in certain leagues within 24 hours of playtime. But I play standard (so I don't get the bonus mob density from league mechanics or whatever the league currently offers). I play a slow build and generally do not trade (although I have in the past). I also tend to pick up items and experiment with crafting. So there is very little way I'm going to be competitive with the latest gimmick for fast experience gains. It takes me about 4-5 hours to get 10% xp. So to go two levels at that pace will take me, at least 2 weeks. You throw in a death or two and it becomes 3. So yeah, I'm sticking by 3 weeks -- and thats not factoring in that level 99 will likely be significantly slower than 98 was. Although I still don't understand what this has to do with the death penalty. The only reason I made any mention of this whatsoever was that folks seem to think that the death penalty is what keeps people low level. It doesn't -- the ridiculous grind does. Well, maybe in hardcore where death is a full reroll it might keep people low level. |
|
" - There is no increased density in maps in Delves (, well there are delves, but you could be mapping instead, pretty sure you can sustain shaped t11/t12 without delves in standard, you can use the "new" Zana too ). - SSF top players also get to 100 very quickly now, sometimes quicker than trade league ? I haven't followed recently so not 100% sure. - I have no doubt those top players would reach lvl 100 in significantly less time that you with the same archetype if they wanted. - SSF players are also crafting ... when they need to ( or feel like it ) So really, you can try to justify the fact that you are not level 100 anyhow you want, but at the end, if you were a better player, you would be there and not throwing "it's only time investement and you have to fight the boredom, it's all that it is about", because that is very wrong. There is absolutely nothing wrong with not playing like a top player and being as efficient, but trying to find excuses and pretend that getting to level 100 is not difficult but only boring is a different thing. " a) You just pretend that the grind to lvl 100 is all about time b) You say that you can't be bothered to do it because it's all about time c) You clearly say that dying and suffering the xp penalty on death likely extends the time you need to reach lvl 100 by ~50% You just contradicted yourself with c). It's like saying "getting to level 80 is just too long for me really, It's not difficult at all but it's really about how much time I spend in this game. Sure I die 30 times per level, but at the end it's really all about time and I really don't have enough for that. SSF is not and will never be a standard for balance, it is not for people entitled to getting more without trading.
| |
" The fact that the grind to 100 is long and progressively harder is a fact. The fact that you can grind in whatever level content you want to get there is also a fact. The idea that I think that it is a long boring unrewarding grind is an opinion. So you are entitled to think otherwise and I won't judge you for it. Explaining how I play is not an excuse for not being level 100 nor was it ever intended to be. I argued that the trek to level 100 has little to do with the death penalty but with what I believe to be the long boring unrewarding grind. And the best counter-argument you could come up with is that I'm not level 100 yet so I must be full of shit. While I won't judge you for disagreeing with me, you didn't really give me an argument to fight against. " A. 5 hours for 10% xp = 50 hours of playtime for a level. That is a lot of time. In that same 50 hours I can make a new character and take them to level 95 and I'm not exaggerating. In that same 50 hours I can probably beat a full fledged RPG including all the side content as well. So get to level 99, or beat a new game. It's not an overly hard decision. B. I play at most a couple hours per session because after that I'm ready to do other things. So yeah, time. C. I don't play only the most trivial content, which is not something I claimed that I did. In fact to pull that projected 3 weeks I'd have to play in red tier maps. It'd probably take me twice as long to do it in white tier maps and I wouldn't have to worry about death there AT ALL. Oh, whats this, the sledgehammer of fallacy, the risk of death is actually LESS OF A PENALTY than playing lower level content. If you want to say I'm a bad player fine, whatever. I don't think that getting to 100 makes one a great player though. It just means you have a resilience to the tedium of an unrewarding grind. Either that or you enjoy the race to 100. Or maybe both. Personally I'd rather check off milestones for that type of thing though, and by that stretch I can do T16 maps just fine. Haven't had a shot at the Shaper yet though, and since I'm running through old maps, haven't had a shot at the Elder yet either so I can't really judge whether or not I'm capable of the encounters. You are free to make your own judgments. |
|
|
I never implied that leveling to level 100 was not requiring a certain time investment ( several tens of hours at least, if not hundreds ).
" I absolutely never said something like this, neither implied it. What I said, is that pretending that grinding to level 100 is (realistically) all about time and time only is very wrong, especially since you admitted that the xp penalty on death would significanlty lenghten the grind for you. " It depends on some variables, but yes, if you are playing well with a well-rounded character, playing high level content will be more rewarding than low level content of course. " I see absolutely no problem with the way you play, neither would I say that you are a bad player. Just don't say that grinding until level 100 is only a matter of time and that the xp penalty on death has no impact ( if you die of course ) there, because it is not true. The xp penalty on death is a limiting factor for people that do not play/build their character well. SSF is not and will never be a standard for balance, it is not for people entitled to getting more without trading. Last edited by Fruz#6137 on Oct 5, 2018, 2:19:17 AM
| |
" Your tone 100% said it, and I'm pretty sure you did too, maybe not in those exact words. " As a softcore player I consider the death penalty part of the grind. The deaths are expected because of unforeseen circumstances and making mistakes. The last death I remember was a doozy, I didn't realize I walked into the middle of exploding corpses care of revenants. You could make an argument that the death penalty stops poor players from reaching the upper echelons, but that still doesn't discount simply avoiding the more risky content. You could, feasibly, get to level 100 in act 1. I wouldn't recommend doing it though. " And that includes the death penalty. Kind of hard to say the roadblock is a roadblock when it's actually just part of the journey. " The death penalty has more of an impact on morale than it does on the leveling process in my opinion. Does it hurt? Yes. Can it be overcome? Yes. Do you have to play a good build? No, but it helps. But the fact that it takes away your progress, for me a couple sessions at least, is demoralizing. That isn't to say I like the idea of gain no xp either, that really feels like an incentive not to play. And often one of the first things I do when I die, is go kill whatever it was that killed me, assuming it wasn't some on death effect. |
|
