Remove xp penalty's from death

"

thedestroyerofkids wrote:

"

toyotatundra wrote:

If this gets implemented, I can see you in Sarn camp and instead of being extremely impressed, as I am now when I see level 100 players, I'll just look and think:

"No XP penalty anymore, this guy probably died 5 million times, has a shit build and still made it to 100 lol. Whatever happened to this game being for hardcore players? Guess it's time to look for something else.". Click on uninstall.

I would also like to know, since when is "Hardcore player" defined by being able to copy builds, stack multiple layers of defense while also piling on the HP nodes, to then play zero risk content until your eyes bleed? Because technically, and its actually been done too, you can farm library 17 hours a day for 2 months and hit lvl 100 if you want. Absolutely zero risk. Is that "Hardcore"? Does THAT impress you too?

This is actually a really good point. The influence death has on the game goes both ways, kiddos. An overly-harsh death penalty is one of the culprits behind this game's grossly overtuned "super-easy-then-randomly-dead" difficulty. I like doing difficult content. I don't like skipping difficult content over the risk I could lose a day's worth of work just because I sneezed at an inopportune time.

"

Moosifer wrote:

So you did just ignore my long post the other day. Maybe I should just copy it over here as it seems like it would answer this nicely.

"Ignore" isn't quite accurate. I probably didn't even see it in the first place. Been mostly off the forum the last couple days, except in a couple topics.

"

As I have virtually no idea who you are and I have only recently started being active again on the this board I don't think you can really group me in with you guys. I can say the...probably year? I was gone, I did stop in and it was exactly like I described in my other reply. A bunch of people with young accounts, few characters, giving radical changes then never to be seen again outside their thread.

None of that is even relevant though. You should be addressing what is said, not who said it.

"

But to answer your assumptions.

A) My view point isn't more valid, I just challenge everyone's because if something should be changed there should be a good reason behind it. Much of the feedback here is driven by personal agenda rather than it being best for the game and community. Like this thread. It's another person refusing to accept that desync is a problem they need to adjust to so they want special changes so they can avoid doing what the rest of us have.

Even if we disagree on certain points, we actually have a lot in common here, and I agree that most forum whine is personally driven. However, that can't be grounds for the automatic assumption that it is incorrect. The argument they put forward should determine that.

"

B) I don't claim to be the majority, but at the same time if the status quo is really pissing off the majority, you'll for sure know. Desync is a good example of this. People hate it, and talk about it so much it gets wrapped up in threads it probably shouldn't have been in at all. Whenever desync comes up you'll see a bunch of people come out of the woodworks, and a well put together post on it will have hundreds of people involved. That's a majority concern. Half of this thread is people disagreeing and the only reason it keeps going is because I'm a long winded asshole who doesn't shut up.

Desync is tied to a lot of things, and that's why this thread exists. It isn't that he wants "special" treatment as much as he's just tired of unfair penalties for something he can't control.

Btw, I tend to be long-winded in these threads as well, and I usually like to explore an argument as fully as possible, even--or sometimes especially--when they disagree.

"

Lastly, like I said in that reply you seemed to ignore, I spend most of my time here playing devil's advocate just to test the OP's argument.

Edit: It's in this thread FFS http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1190229/page/19#p10075903

(Having gone back and read it.)
As stated, we disagree on many of those points. And I still think you disrespect your fellow players by calling them a "vocal minority," however you try to justify it. I don't fully trust GGG the way you do, but I do consider them to be rational, intelligent, and assume they care for the game they've made. That doesn't mean I think they make all the best decisions, and have said on multiple occasion that their core philosophies are flawed. I can easily live with all that, but many of these topics that we see debate over either need to be addressed collectively (as they did with the desync manifesto), or individually as appropriate. I don't trust them because they aren't transparent enough. I also find the importance of someone trying to reject my ideas near meaningless unless they can give extremely good reasons, or the devs come in and offer their perspective.

On a more personal level...

While Goetzjam and I have had our beef, we also try to minimize the personal attacks going on here, but we fundamentally disagree on several aspects of the game--perhaps we always will. Most people who try to argue against my posts don't give good reasons, but at least he has (mostly) thus far. Our disagreements usually fall into our core views about what the game should be.

It's not that you (Moosifer) don't give good arguments. It's that we have a similar fundamental difference in views. I doubt any amount of argument will change that, because we disagree on the very reasons we want things to be certain ways.

That said, I think this topic has been pretty thoroughly explored, and I don't think we can continue the discussion without reverting to restating previous points or falling into circular logic (or other fallacies)...

Unless there's something nobody has thought to bring up yet.

^

Or a dev coming into one of the biggest/longest threads in feedback (at least in recent history) and make a post saying they've seen the thread, they've noted the posts that had the suggestions/idea's to fix the issue, and it's being discussed among the company, and they'd get back to us on it.

While that alone would'nt restore enough of my faith in the game or it's direction to get me playing again (until A4 comes out) that would at least prove to me that they do pay attention from time to time.

And still non of the whit knights have addressed my questions, in fact they blew right past them as if they didnt even exist. Its simple, the death penalty does nothing good for the game. Who cares if someone got to 100? Did it hurt you? No. Also, it doesnt create longevity either. I have actually quit playing for entire days and weeks because of the stupid xp penalty. Players that get frustrated and stop playing dont purchase MTX. Just take a look at battlefield, there is a leveling system with unlocks and al that stuff, but they dont punish you for dying, and its still a grind to max level. I actually dont think Ive even seen more than 1 max lvl player in battlefield in my games. Point is it can still be a grind without removing progress.

"

thedestroyerofkids wrote:

And still non of the whit knights have addressed my questions, in fact they blew right past them as if they didnt even exist. Its simple, the death penalty does nothing good for the game. Who cares if someone got to 100? Did it hurt you? No. Also, it doesnt create longevity either. I have actually quit playing for entire days and weeks because of the stupid xp penalty. Players that get frustrated and stop playing dont purchase MTX. Just take a look at battlefield, there is a leveling system with unlocks and al that stuff, but they dont punish you for dying, and its still a grind to max level. I actually dont think Ive even seen more than 1 max lvl player in battlefield in my games. Point is it can still be a grind without removing progress.

Tis happens from time to time. Spoiler'd the original message text as it was a couple of pages ago. As for comparing this game to battlefield, I just don't know how you can even try and use that as a point. We aren't anywhere near what battlefield does in terms of gameplay, mechanics, ect.



The XP penalty is necessary to prevent players from making "shit" builds. Without a penalty in softcore players will push the limits even further for damage vs surviability and removing the penalty for deing would not be a good thing.

No someone reaching level 100 has no affect on me playing, however if no death penalty exists it does remove the prestige from the accomplishment.

"

I personally would love to be able to play the craziest modded maps with my funnest characters without the added stress of having to pussyfoot around every potential threat.

You can do this, just realize that if you die your not getting anymore XP. This is a choice in the game you make, you mention your character is level 93, grats, now if you want those additional 7 points, your going to have to work for it.

Your "problem" isn't related to the threads creation, which is deaths out of your control, your problem is that it exists in the first place, which has been explained MANY times before as to why it does.

You and you alone are setting that artificial point where it isn't worth playing anymore, because you feel like you don't gain anything if your not gaining XP, that isn't true, you gain drops, you gain currency and if you don't play like a "retard" you gain XP. I have some sympathy for players that have desync issues, but you don't seem to be one of them.

As stated before, us "white knights" are aligned with GGG here and insists a penalty must exists for deaths.

Getting to level 100 is optional, it should be a journey not a freebie, removing the penalty removes the journey.

"

thedestroyerofkids wrote:

I just dont see why those people who absolutely must have a penalty cant just impose one upon themselves such as not placing their points for a level if they died. I mean its kinda the same concept as the argument of self-found versus trading, why should we be taking fun from people who would rather not incur a penalty on death when those who want to be penalized can do it to themselves. Its not as though somebody else reaching 100 has any effect on your ability to play the game, does it?

I personally would love to be able to play the craziest modded maps with my funnest characters without the added stress of having to pussyfoot around every potential threat. You see, I have a lvl 93 melee ranger, she got about 65% to lvl 94 before i accidentally hit a phys reflect mob because it was under a puddle. Lost the 10% and havent played that character since. Its too bad too, i had the most fun with that toon, hence why it made it to lvl 93, but now i cant even play it because if i lose any more of that xp it would infuriate me so I would rather avoid that feeling all together, even if it means not enjoying the game to its fullest potential. Because of this I havent even played much PoE lately. Tried torment in the beginning, even participating in economy (holy shit game is easy as fuck when trading, had 6l chest within my first day of torment), but that is becoming un-fun because i realize that no matter what i do, if i make a build that i really enjoy playing, there will become a point where its no longer worth it to play it because i would rather not progress than lose progress.

Very Good Post. Great Point in the first paragraph

"

toyotatundra wrote:

"

thedestroyerofkids wrote:

But tell us how this affects YOUR ability to play the game.

Because I no longer even have to try to make a good build, and I'll be able to hit 100 with any character I want. Same as you, lol.

1k LIFE. LEVEL 100!
CI EB. LEVEL 100!
ONLY WHITE ITEMS. LEVEL 100!

lol

You know what? If you get to level 100 In all white items, thats an achievement.

Level 100 Requires Time. Thats it. Yes you can choose to not die, and stay in the back of the group for 1000 maps. Would be boring as hell, but you will get there eventually.

What Im saying it, since this guy is getting the XP anyway, just let him play and enjoy himself. Its sad that you can play 78 maps and just stay in the back, but if you want to give it the good ol' try to see how stong you are, you are then penalized 10%...

"

thedestroyerofkids wrote:

"

toyotatundra wrote:

If this gets implemented, I can see you in Sarn camp and instead of being extremely impressed, as I am now when I see level 100 players, I'll just look and think:

"No XP penalty anymore, this guy probably died 5 million times, has a shit build and still made it to 100 lol. Whatever happened to this game being for hardcore players? Guess it's time to look for something else.". Click on uninstall.

I would also like to know, since when is "Hardcore player" defined by being able to copy builds, stack multiple layers of defense while also piling on the HP nodes, to then play zero risk content until your eyes bleed? Because technically, and its actually been done too, you can farm library 17 hours a day for 2 months and hit lvl 100 if you want. Absolutely zero risk. Is that "Hardcore"? Does THAT impress you too?

+1 +1 +1 +1

"

Moosifer wrote:

"

Then you're telling me the game needs to teach me some behavior... You still realise that you're playing a game right? Which is usually supposed to be fun and entertaining, and not so much frustrating.

A game without rules is a game no one plays. The game is fun and entertaining and having a death penalty adds an extra layer of complexity as players need to design a character that can clear and survive the content or have their progression halted. Figuring out your defenses are as important as your offense, which is what GGG wanted to achieve with the death penalty.

Let me rearange a couple of words in that paragraph for you so it makes more sense.

... having a death penalty adds an extra layer of complexity as players need to [Search on the forums, find a tried and true build and then] design a character that can clear and survive the content or have their progression halted. [Or just do low level maps for 1.5x the same amount of time and hit 100 without risking death] Figuring out your defenses are as important as your offense, which is what GGG wanted to achieve with the death penalty.

The problem here, is the goal to get to level 100 can be achieved 2 different ways. 1) Pro mode, get a lot of friends to do 78 rots until all hit level 100. 2) non-pro mode, solo plateas, underground river and gorge for hours and hours on end until you hit level 100.

Really, ANYONE can hit 100 with ANY build. It just depends on the amount of time you want to put into it and the amount of pussyfooting around the mobs you do. Which equals less fun IMO.

Since anyone can hit 100 with any build, I'm saying stop this Non-Pro way of hitting 100. Let those people tread into deeper waters without the risk they they are so obviously afraid of to just be mindlessly doing 74-75 maps without risk of dying.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Moosifer wrote:

So let's get this straight. You did a haku mission which you knew you'd struggle with (as you don't get to 88 without learning this) and died. Was the dc random game problem or on your end? Also why would you go back in? You know there is stability issues and if there was a hint of struggling in that area you know reentering puts yourself at risk of repeating the same problem.

...

All you gave me was exact reasons there should be a penalty. You made a mistake and then didn't learn from it. You charged back into the same situation hoping for different results. This is a habit the game should be teaching you to change.

Well, yes. This is actually exactly why there should be a softcore death penalty.

HOWEVER...

The softest-core option in a game like this should be tuned, rather carefully, to properly penalize the mistake and nothing more. Death should mean going back to the point where one decides to do something stupid, plus just a little more as idiot tax, and that should be it. As long as the player is worse off for trying the stupid, the penalty is sufficient.

In SC, if you are averaging 1 death per 2 maps, you should be treading water. Die less often, progress; die more often, regress.

So I'd say 2 maps of both XP and loot is about right. (1 map of reset, 1 additional as idiot tax.)

That said, given the loot component, defining what precisely "1 map" is... I have no good idea on how to implement. But the current penalty does seem excessive in terms of XP.