Path of Exile, Gameplay Criticism

time is relative.

in terms of poe, the hours it takes to bring an additional char up to endgame content is short enough, in terms of clvl 90+ lifespan.

i wasn't calling poe a roguelike. i was laughing at the similarity between char deaths in roguelikes and poe.

"

GGG's death penalty just tells you to fuck off and go play the meta instead.

WAT

nm, i shouldn't even started with a serious response with that self-landmine in it.

i don't play the meta. i almost never play a meta build (i think it happened accidentally once). i have no problems with dying/the death penalty.

ironically, your claim is basically backwards. my nonmeta builds are wayyyyyyy tankier than meta builds. so if i die, i should... use a squishier build because it's meta? MAKES SENSE!


btw, afaik, the meta build for this league is complaining about the syndicate being too hard.

"

MrsDeath_ wrote:

If any of names you ve mentioned joined reddit I would never wanna talk to them anymore. and I am dead serious about this. F*ck reddit. That place is toxic waste of the internet.

i'm surprised that you haven't noticed that this forum IS reddit now.

those used to their echo chamber follow us around, call us trolls, and report seemingly every post they don't like.

the mods here are a joke and don't want to do anything, so when enough pile up, people with the reports get banned. dissent removed, echo chamber in effect.

hence, my sig.

"

robmafia wrote:

"

MrsDeath_ wrote:

If any of names you ve mentioned joined reddit I would never wanna talk to them anymore. and I am dead serious about this. F*ck reddit. That place is toxic waste of the internet.

i'm surprised that you haven't noticed that this forum IS reddit now.

those used to their echo chamber follow us around, call us trolls, and report seemingly every post they don't like.

the mods here are a joke and don't want to do anything, so when enough pile up, people with the reports get banned. dissent removed, echo chamber in effect.

hence, my sig.

Frankly from what I've seen you are a troll. So it doesn't surprise me at all people call you that.

So if you want people to stop calling you a troll, maybe you can start by not acting like one.

Maybe I didnt voice myself correctly.

ANY game that is unable to kill you no matter how good you are, is not a proper game.

Racing games = you dont die, but you lose a race. That is also basic function of the game.

Football games or any other sport games = you lose matches all time, this is also core value of the game.

Shooters = imagine FPS game where you never lose, whats the fun? Playing battlefield and wining every game?

Rogue-like = its all about death here, hardcore expriance and player skill

Touhou aka bullethell = also tons of deaths because it require player skill

MOBA games = the system is designed around 50/50 win/lose ratio for most players. The best of the best are also losing frequenty. Because thats the point of challange.

NES games like mario bros, tetris, name any = also load of deaths, though they are short most of the time, they teach you that losing is natural

RTS games = also lot of losing here as well

Pseudo RTS games like Heroes of might and magic = also lose not only games, but battles inside it

Old RPG games = also were harder and made you think. You could pass them without death but highly unlikly on your first playthrough.


And finaly... today games = "Death? I am to pro to die, to pro to take any challange."

Most of today games can be passed without deaths. Yet dying/losing should be natural part of game. Since that is what teach you, that is linked to the part that challange you. The RPG HC concept actualy is the culprit. It force developer to actualy tone down the difficulty and challange to make it possible to never die.

"

Xtorma wrote:

I feel the death penalty is fine. The more you wish to achieve, the more your mistakes cost you. It is balanced by the fact that, to achieve 100 does not raise your power level by enough to make a huge difference, yet the penalty is not so prohibitive at levels below say 93, that it stifles your ability to create a good build. I think it's balanced well, as lvl 100 is not a requirement to achieve success in game, but a goal for those who wish to challenge themselves.

Look at SSFHC. If even 1 person has achieved 100, then it is not insurmountable. If it is a goal that they can reach, but you cannot, then where does the fault lie? The highest I have ever achieved is 92. Whos fault is that.

But you don't reach 100 by "challenging yourself".

You are more likely to reach it by avoiding challenges and playing it safe by grinding safe content. That's my issue with it.

My brother is level 97 or 98 (I forget which). And he didn't get that way by "challenging" himself. He got that way by quickly and tediously dispatching easy maps and refused to join many of my maps because they had dangerous mods.

The death penalty just adds nothing of value to the game. All it does is cause players to avoid content. The game would be more fun without it.

"

Berylstone wrote:

"

robmafia wrote:

i'm surprised that you haven't noticed that this forum IS reddit now.

those used to their echo chamber follow us around, call us trolls, and report seemingly every post they don't like.

the mods here are a joke and don't want to do anything, so when enough pile up, people with the reports get banned. dissent removed, echo chamber in effect.

hence, my sig.

Frankly from what I've seen you are a troll. So it doesn't surprise me at all people call you that.

So if you want people to stop calling you a troll, maybe you can start by not acting like one.

^ precisely my point.

dollars to doughnuts, beryl's post won't be censored. despite being nothing more than an insult and antag/harass or whatever the crap everyone complains about.

"

Berylstone wrote:

The death penalty just adds nothing of value to the game. All it does is cause players to avoid content. The game would be more fun without it.

That's the balance problem, really.

If easy safe content is more rewarding, then the problem lies in gamage balance, not death penalty, for most part. Taking risk in PoE isnt rewarded properly, that's it. That's why players make builds to perform supersonic runs on low-level content - cause it's safer and more rewarding, than run higher-level content with slower & tankier build.

Another problem is that XP loss cant reduce your level, so it can be virtually non-existant at 0% XP. Yes, you stick to 95 level or so, but that doesnt make any major difference. You can use full glasscanon build and dont give a shit about deaths. That doesnt feel right.

"

Berylstone wrote:

"

Xtorma wrote:

I feel the death penalty is fine. The more you wish to achieve, the more your mistakes cost you. It is balanced by the fact that, to achieve 100 does not raise your power level by enough to make a huge difference, yet the penalty is not so prohibitive at levels below say 93, that it stifles your ability to create a good build. I think it's balanced well, as lvl 100 is not a requirement to achieve success in game, but a goal for those who wish to challenge themselves.

Look at SSFHC. If even 1 person has achieved 100, then it is not insurmountable. If it is a goal that they can reach, but you cannot, then where does the fault lie? The highest I have ever achieved is 92. Whos fault is that.

But you don't reach 100 by "challenging yourself".

You are more likely to reach it by avoiding challenges and playing it safe by grinding safe content. That's my issue with it.

My brother is level 97 or 98 (I forget which). And he didn't get that way by "challenging" himself. He got that way by quickly and tediously dispatching easy maps and refused to join many of my maps because they had dangerous mods.

The death penalty just adds nothing of value to the game. All it does is cause players to avoid content. The game would be more fun without it.

Your brother is not avoiding content by playing within the limits of his ability. The challenge is the grind, not how hard the maps are you use to get there. There is nothing wrong with running white maps forever if that's what you want. If you want to make the maps harder so you get more experience per map, then you can do that too if your build can handle it, but you are also taking on more risk.

Basically the challenge is to make X amount of exp. Everything else is just a choice you make to achieve it.

Even those who say "death penalty is fine", seem at least willing to consider that all the things that make it "fine" (like limiting progression, punishing mistakes, etc) could also be accomplished by other penalties. Is this incorrect? Is anyone really saying that a 10% penalty (with exceptions like ALT-F4 and zero level XP) hits the "bullseye" of of your standards?

Again, it's worth reiterating, I am not in favor of removing penalties for death. I am simply in favor of criticizing penalties the same as every other thing, especially if it could improve those other things.

"Don't fix what isn't broken", is where a lot of you are coming from. Okay, then:

What is an example of something that you do consider broken?

"

Berylstone wrote:

My brother is level 97 or 98 (I forget which). And he didn't get that way by "challenging" himself. He got that way by quickly and tediously dispatching easy maps and refused to join many of my maps because they had dangerous mods.

The death penalty just adds nothing of value to the game. All it does is cause players to avoid content. The game would be more fun without it.

You can get 100 in t11 or t16 - your choice. Someone doing t16 will get 100 faster and win if it was a race. Why would he even do it if it was tedious, what is the point in lvl 100 for him is it's not enjoyable? This just sounds like you have a pussy brother who you can't play with and now trying to get it nerfed so he can finally play with you lol All death penalty does is causes you brother to avoid playing with you