Can We Get Rid of Death XP Penalties Already? Games Are Supposed to be Fun

"

vmt80 wrote:

"

Spiritas wrote:

I think connecting the hardcore league to the softcore league in the sense that a hardcore death results in a softcore respawn would be great.

Sorry, what? Isn't this how the current system works already? Or is my reading comprehension in need of polishing.

English isn't my native tongue so I'm a little confused here right now.

You are currently moved to standard, even if you die in the temporary league. It's true that having characters moved to temp SC instead would allow people to start off in HC, but at the same time, it would make HC deaths far less meaningful, because people will be able to continue league content on the same characters.

Also, I was writing a long post about how removing the death penalty would make the game boring for literally everyone and how max level is meant to be an optional grind from the start, but there doesn't seem to be a point to bother here. Nobody would listen anyway.

Here's a short reference: A quick google result gave me the number of maps someone played in HC (so unaffected by exp penalty) purely from 99 to 100. It's 991. Assuming you have an average of 4 minutes per map with non-t1 clear, some time in the hideout and a bit of time afk, this takes 66 hours and 40 minutes.

Assuming you play two hours a day without taking a day off, you will go without a levelup over a month. And this is considerably more than the playtime of a casual.

And you still think that little progress will keep you going just because you never lose any of it? What accomplishment will you feel in the end? What will you do, when you realise you spent a month of your free time on a single skill point, that doesn't set you apart from others because literally anyone could get there eventually?

If the exp penalty frustrates you now and you don't see it as a challenge to overcome, you won't enjoy max level either way.

"

robmafia wrote:

...seriously, why are people so adamant about posting feedback when they clearly understand little to nothing?

Says the guy that seems not to understand the point of a feedback forum.

"

Fruz wrote:

I guess ...look at ...
your screen ?
the mods applied to the area ?
your character's stats ?
your empirical data ? (=your experience)

Did you seriously understand the words you just quoted ?

This infomation is available alive or dead, and hence is not particular to the when a death occurs. Which, if you look at my post again, is what I specified. You even quoted it, you just failed to internalise it.

"

Fruz wrote:

I don't know if you did not understand what I said, or if it was'nt actually obvious at all to you, or if you just don't know we what to say anymore, honestly.

When people do 'hard' encounters, they leave a portal right before it, there is pretty much no waste of time at all.
The portals are the only thing that makes the content not completely zergable, which is a different purpose than the xp penalty on death completely.

...Are you even aware that this agrees with what I said? Time and porals are the penalty of death, and the player and circumstances (such as how distant the last portal is, Sherlock) determine how detrimental a death is.

And you ignored the point that these make the xp penalty redundant.

"

Holmiester wrote:

"

Fruz wrote:

The portals are the only thing that makes the content not completely zergable, which is a different purpose than the xp penalty on death completely.

...Are you even aware that this agrees with what I said? Time and porals are the penalty of death, and the player and circumstances (such as how distant the last portal is, Sherlock) determine how detrimental a death is.

And you ignored the point that these make the xp penalty redundant.

He clearly stated that the exp penalty serves a different purpose, so how could it possibly be redundant?

The exp penalty doesn't keep you from zerging a boss, limited portals don't keep you from zerging exp, unless you die six times to trash mobs.

In that case, the exp penalty should really be the lesser of your problems.

"

vmt80 wrote:

It's a particular view of the game which is being forced to all the players.

It's not "a particular view of the game", it's the game that you chose to play in the first place, period.

"

vmt80 wrote:

After all, the only serious argument I heard for the harsh DP came from a HC player, who pointed out removing it would require balancing the game even further towards SC, which would mean playing HC would actually become more difficult from their point of view.

This has been said many times by many players, and thought by many other because it's actually kind of obvious, by the way.

"

grogzor wrote:

so what have I done to answer this question for myself? I switched up my passive tree a bit and I am using rather tanky stuff instead of dps stuff right now so I am close to 6k hp with lots of different defensive layers. I will continue to level up to 94, which shouldnt take me much more time. I didnt die since I hit lvl 93. then, when I reach level 94, I will stop giving a damn about xp and respec some of the life nodes back to dps and switch out some jewels and rings for their dps versions.

Thank you for this perfect example : if there was no xp penalty on death, you would play like a complete glass canon and would not give a damn about dying.
Which is exactly why it has to stay.
The game is not being balance around character that die often, that's all.

"

Orbaal wrote:

Thats fine by me. If you want to push for the final 5% - just for the purpose of min/maxing or bragging - then you should be grinding a lot and you should be punished for making stupid decisions.
I already know, that many players will jump on me now and tell me, that they are getting 1-shotted all the time and there is nothing they could do about it.

Thats wrong. 1shots barely exist in this game (ignoring bosses), if you build properly and whenever you die, its very likely to your own mistake. Id say like 90% or more of all deaths are due to player mistakes.
Which means: You could reduce the effect of the death penalty by 90%, if were playing flawless. Which you dont and me neither.
Still you have to accept the simple fact, that people beat every single aspect of the game in HC every single league.
And that means everything in this game can be done deathless, you and me are just not good enough players to pull it off.

Well said.
It's a lot about player's expectations and how many want to the game fit their expectation rather than adjusting their expectations to the game.
Because this is what the world is becoming, people feel more and more entitled to everything, especially on the internet.

"

vmt80 wrote:

The question is, are they, while minmaxing their characters, trying to compete with the best players?

Irrelevant, the penalty isn't just there regarding the ladder push at all ( of course it matters as the ladder push would become a freaking joke in SC if there would not be any penalty I guess ), it's the only incentive remaining for people to build characters than can survive in SC apart from a handful of encounters.

"

NemoJR wrote:

Here's what I consider acceptable, for a certain task in a certain game:
- The best player can do it in 1 hour.
- The average player can do it in 10 hours.
- The worst player can do it in 100 hours.

Let's take another game as an example ... like ... Super Meat Boy.
Should we accept even the worst players who have no reflex to be able to beat the game and finish all levels ?
I don't think so, bad players that don't want to get better should not necessarily get there unless they put the effort.

It's the same with PoE, it's not impossible, it requires thinking, planning, building a balanced char, who can dps but who can also survive the content.

A BALANCED CHARACTER.

"

NemoJR wrote:

Keep in mind that, for me, the discussion is about "the road to 100", not the difficulty of the content.

The death penalty is the only difficulty remaining to get to lvl 100 in SC.

"

NemoJR wrote:

That's not a mechanic that teaches you to "git gud" or play carefully. That's "no fun allowed".

I have been having fun so far, and am already farther than lvl 92 this league.
So your argument does not hold any water.

"

Orbaal wrote:

if were trying hard enough.

That's the problem, they don't want to put in the effort, but they still do want the bragging rights.

"

HaraldMKutscher wrote:

Literally everybody could spend a year running white tier 7 maps (boss skipping of course!)

Skipping a white t7 boss ???
And you are wondering why you can't progress ???? seriously ?
I can reliably do all map boss up to guardians without dying ( not never, mistakes happen, some guardians with 2 damage mods are also pretty rippy, so I'd avoid that usually ), and my build is anything but meta or using crazy expensive gear.

If you are skipping t7 unmoded boss because of the risk to die to them, there is seriously something wrong with either your character or the way you play the game, and since the game isn't balanced around failed characters, you need to do something about it, not GGG.

"

Holmiester wrote:

This infomation is available alive or dead, and hence is not particular to the when a death occurs. Which, if you look at my post again, is what I specified. You even quoted it, you just failed to internalise it.

No, stop throwing irrelevant things.
It does not matter, there is information, you were not capable to see it before dying ( as it can all happen very quickly ), you can make a freaking effort and try to analyze what's on your screen and what it means.
If you can't be bothered, have fun dying again.

"

Holmiester wrote:

...Are you even aware that this agrees with what I said? Time and porals are the penalty of death, and the player and circumstances (such as how distant the last portal is, Sherlock) determine how detrimental a death is.

lol!
The distance to the last portal ?
Are you playing without movement speed, without boots, and stopping every 20 units of distance or something ?
Or are you just not ashamed by how much bad faith you are putting in this ?
Apart from a handful of encounters, portals are absolutely IRRELEVANT and INSIGNIFICANT as a death penalty.

"

DER_PHSYCOPATH wrote:

The exp penalty doesn't keep you from zerging a boss, limited portals don't keep you from zerging exp, unless you die six times to trash mobs.

In that case, the exp penalty should really be the lesser of your problems.

Thank you, I guess you just put it in words better than I did.

"

Holmiester wrote:

"

robmafia wrote:

...seriously, why are people so adamant about posting feedback when they clearly understand little to nothing?

Says the guy that seems not to understand the point of a feedback forum.

knowledge is a pre-req for feedback, especially useful feedback.

"

Orbaal wrote:

Then how would you do it?
Remove xp penalty and nerf xp gain at the same time to make up for it?

I don't think we're on the same page in regards to who should be able to reach max level, and how.

Like I said, I don't consider it a privilege best saved for the top 0.01% (or whatever) of players; I consider it a natural goal in an ARPG that most players should be able to accomplish, if they put in a reasonable amount of time & effort. What's "reasonable" is up for debate, but considering my stance on the issue, it shouldn't surprise you that I would have made it much easier, instead of looking for other ways to stop players from reaching it.

"

HaraldMKutscher wrote:

There certainly are several things D2 did better than POE and I wish GGG would learn from it. But to me, XP penalty is not one of D2's good examples to learn from.

As a "legendary" milestone in the genre, Diablo 2 was (and maybe is) a great example to learn from. The problem, the way I see it, is that GGG took the "template" as-is and built on it, instead of first improving the foundation itself and making it their own. They were so afraid of breaking "the magic formula" that they decided to import it pretty much wholesale, and only add new stuff.

And here we are, discussing the "baggage" they brought over from D2, years after release (let alone early development).

"

Fruz wrote:

Let's take another game as an example ... like ... Super Meat Boy.

Apples and oranges. Or in this case, a stage-based platformer that straight-up advertises itself as a frustratingly difficult game, and a big ARPG that boasts build diversity and complex mechanics. Funny thing is, it doesn't even help your position in this discussion.

A mistake in SMB usually sets you back about 5-30 seconds in terms of progress, depending on the stage. Instant respawn, constant iteration. In the words of the Extra Credits folks: "That's the only way SMB gets away with being SMB."

Whereas a mistake in PoE can set you back hours (or even days, depending on the player). Tell me that's normal. Tell me that's to be expected in an ARPG.

"

NemoJr wrote:

"

Fruz wrote:

Let's take another game as an example ... like ... Super Meat Boy.

Apples and oranges. Or in this case, a stage-based platformer that straight-up advertises itself as a frustratingly difficult game, and a big ARPG that boasts build diversity and complex mechanics. Funny thing is, it doesn't even help your position in this discussion.

Apples an oranges ? Completely irrelevant here, the playstyle is in no way relevant to the point I was making.
( Hint : apples and oranges can be compared in some specific contexts, the same way I am comparing both game here ).

And no, SMB has never been advertised as a "frustratingly difficult game".
It's a game where failure is the basis to learn, which is still irrelevant here, but is relevant to the fact that your following comparison is pointless here.

Unless you can show me a video of somebody 'one shotting' SMB ?
If you have such a video to show, please by any means, I would be incredibly impressed by such a performance.

"

NemoJr wrote:

if they put in a reasonable amount of time & effort.

Not sure if you're actually willing to put in the effort tbh.
Neither the time.
But most people complaining about the xp penalty on death here don't want (imho) to put in the effort.

"

Fruz wrote:

"

HaraldMKutscher wrote:

Literally everybody could spend a year running white tier 7 maps (boss skipping of course!)

Skipping a white t7 boss ???
And you are wondering why you can't progress ???? seriously ?
I can reliably do all map boss up to guardians without dying ( not never, mistakes happen, some guardians with 2 damage mods are also pretty rippy, so I'd avoid that usually ), and my build is anything but meta or using crazy expensive gear.

If you are skipping t7 unmoded boss because of the risk to die to them, there is seriously something wrong with either your character or the way you play the game, and since the game isn't balanced around failed characters, you need to do something about it, not GGG.

Obviously I was sarcastic and exaggerated. The point remaains that you have to avoid content you likely could do - but not reliably deathless - for a looooong time to reach a level that enables you to play the whole game.

"

HaraldMKutscher wrote:

Obviously I was sarcastic and exaggerated. The point remaains that you have to avoid content you likely could do - but not reliably deathless - for a looooong time to reach a level that enables you to play the whole game.

lolwut? no. the above is a falsehood at best.

"

NemoJr wrote:

As a "legendary" milestone in the genre, Diablo 2 was (and maybe is) a great example to learn from. The problem, the way I see it, is that GGG took the "template" as-is and built on it, instead of first improving the foundation itself and making it their own. They were so afraid of breaking "the magic formula" that they decided to import it pretty much wholesale, and only add new stuff.

And here we are, discussing the "baggage" they brought over from D2, years after release (let alone early development).

As great as D2 doubtlessly is, I was actually slightly disappointed when D2 came out, comparing it to D1 and my expectations for a sequel. A magazine back then perfectly summarized it with something like: "a little bit better, a little bit prettier, and much, much larger".

On the other hand, if only GGG had taken the whole D2 template! To me, they did break the "magic formula" by making everything much faster, much trashier, chaotic and random. In D2 your skill was the primary thing that mattered in a boss fight. You had a fair chance to manually evade the monster attacks and you had the space to do it.

The monster fighting mechanics has massively changed, but the strict penalty has stayed! GGG seems to have chosen to keep the bad aspects but abandoned the good ones.

Duriel (tiny arena, slowing effects, fast and very strong attacks) was the only boss in D2 that massively sucked, and to me it seems he was the main inspiration for POE boss fight design.

Every now and then, when I'm really fed up with POE, I do an afternoon of D1 or D2, just to remind me and compare. It's really surprising how much you get used to POE's hectic one-shot-trash and start considering that normal. When you start D2 again, you first say: "Man, that's slow!" and after 3 minutes: "Yeah, that feels really good!". Not blowing up a whole screen of trash mobs with one click can really be an eye-opener. You probably should try "D1&2 comparison play" yourself, it's something you really have to literally experience as a player once in a while. The result surprises you, because your memory alone is too abstract to keep up a critical distance to POE.