Exp Loss is freaking unbalanced

"

bredin wrote:

"

Undon3 wrote:

"

bredin wrote:

Agree with Op that the exp loss is totally unbalanced.

It should be much, much harsher.

B.

Feel free to offer some decent suggestions and argument for how they would be better, and for whom. Opinions alone have hardly any value.

Im not getting your point. This whole thread is opinion. Are you agreeing with me that this whole thread has "hardly any value?"

The penalty exists for a range of reasons (care of character, anti-death-zerging the content, consequence of choice, et al), lowering (or removing) it devalues or negates stated game design philosophies.

B.

And by the same token, making it too extreme also negates the stated game design philosophies

"

Scrynor wrote:

@thepmrc

Do you know what it means? Machiavellian means "of, like, or befitting Machiavelli". Seeing as he coined the phrase "the ends justify the means" and your whole definition of "well designed" (which you assert as absolute truth) is "mechanic accomplishes goal" then yes, I would say the word applies nicely.

That is not the definition of well designed. For instance, I could pseudo code your forum behavior as

Write post
pointA:
Wait for response
Read response
Insult poster
Bring up unrelated topics
Re-post previous statements
Goto pointA

While I have no doubt that accomplishes your goals nicely it does not mean it is a well designed bit of code (or behavior).

The word Machiavellian is typically referring to something cynical or duplicitous... you were going for quite a stretch there regardless of what phrases Niccolò Machiavelli coined. It was a good deflection though. Any actual arguments as to why it is badly designed? What makes it a bad design? Personal dislike is irrelevant.

I would do -1 level each death

I never said it was badly designed. I simply stated that your definition of well designed is inaccurate. I didn't actually weigh in on the topic of the thread. I only felt the need to do so because you called a guy an idiot based on your incorrect definition.

Words have more than one definition so on that count we are both right. In most dictionaries the one I listed would be the first definition and the one you listed the second. Most common uses of the word use the first definition.

"

Most common uses of the word use the first definition.

Oh? I used to have a Merriam Webster's dictionary that described the "order of the senses," (which means the order the words listed in the definitions) is by historical use, oldest first. No doubt dictionaries vary by this, but I think it would be a mistake to assume they are all the same.

Anyway, I have a trick for you that will make you (not so?) fun at parties. The next time you're at a party, on the off chance the host (hey, I did say not so, no?) declares that something is "not a word," boldly bet them $1 that whatever they said is not a word actually is, according to their own dictionary.

When they go get it, they'll start to look up the word. Stop them. Explain to them that it might be time to look up the word "word." The definition listed will certainly be quite tolerant to whatever objectionable utterance that was otherwise spoken by whomever.

Proving that while the host might be anal, you are analer.

So.

Is analer a word?

I think my dictionary thinks so, as does yours. ;-P

/ROFLSTOMP. ;-P

"

Any actual arguments as to why it is badly designed? What makes it a bad design? Personal dislike is irrelevant.

Oh to the contrary, personal dislike in many ways is the most honest and clear thing here. Logical arguments are often what we use to defend our subjective opinions; seldom is the vice-versa.

One could easily ask why exactly 7.5%? Why exactly 15%? To accomplish what objectives? And so on and so forth.

But one wouldn't be asking those questions if one liked the way things were. Probably not, no.

--C

"

bredin wrote:

"

Undon3 wrote:

"

bredin wrote:

Agree with Op that the exp loss is totally unbalanced.

It should be much, much harsher.

B.

Feel free to offer some decent suggestions and argument for how they would be better, and for whom. Opinions alone have hardly any value.

Im not getting your point. This whole thread is opinion. Are you agreeing with me that this whole thread has "hardly any value?"

The penalty exists for a range of reasons (care of character, anti-death-zerging the content, consequence of choice, et al), lowering (or removing) it devalues or negates stated game design philosophies.

B.

Yes, the topic has basically a singular value: to raise a flag. The arguments are based on opinions, and how the game could be "better", in personal perspective. So as a whole the topic is damn useless, but also necessary ;) (yes, it's a paradox).

- care of character: opinion based... in my view, I'd best take care of my character if I could respec it almost freely. I didn't know people in ARPGs actually care about their chars, hmm :\
- death-zerging - was debunked pages earlier. Take out the mechanisms that allow such crap, reset the encounters/mob HP/mob pack, problem solved
- consequences of choice? Here, in PoE? I only saw this stuff in Bioware games. Taking 10% crit or 10% evasion or whatever is shallow number stuff, the type you should undo/redo, nothing deep and story based... numbers.

"

Courageous wrote:

"

Any actual arguments as to why it is badly designed? What makes it a bad design? Personal dislike is irrelevant.

Oh to the contrary, personal dislike in many ways is the most honest and clear thing here. Logical arguments are often what we use to defend our subjective opinions; seldom is the vice-versa.

One could easily ask why exactly 7.5%? Why exactly 15%? To accomplish what objectives? And so on and so forth.

But one wouldn't be asking those questions if one liked the way things were. Probably not, no.

--C

The only reason the death penalty exists is to artificially pad the length of this game. Any other excuse you kids bring up is just that, an excuse to make yourselves feel better about having to Korean MMO grind your way to 'the end game'.

After reading the first post my conclusion is add a 1-2% death penalty to regular default. Problem solved.

"

thepmrc wrote:

It is not poor design. By definition it is good design. It is a mechanic that was put in place to serve a specific purpose. If it is properly achieving the design goals, which it is, then by definition it would be well designed. Quite simply, you don't agree with the design decision, but it is not bad design.

You are awesome in using/quoting single paragraph out of my post. Indeed it is my subjective opinion, however, I have played many games in my gamer life that did not have death penalty in form of experience loss or did not have death penalty at all, still those games were successful.

You also ignore the most apparent problem with current death penalty, its scaling that is off charts in late game.

I will reiterate again: I find death penalty in PoE in its current form to be poor design. It is poor design if death penalty is the way to prevent you from reaching lvl100 or score high in ladder races. It is poor design if a death penalty scaling get out of hand the more your progress. It is poor design when death penalty cause aggravation and frustration that eventually might lead to players leaving the game.