Remove xp penalty's from death

Well except in D2 things could spiral out of control as you have to get your body, from a spot where you just died, with no equipment. At least in D2 you had skills (if a caster) to use to get it back, here our skills are tied to our equipment. Also if you die while trying to get your corpse back it could spiral out of control.

I hated D2's death penalty way more than here. D2 only gave you exp back in situations you were an idiot to die in, most of the time you had to relog to have lose all the exp you have the level.

"

goetzjam wrote:

Are you suggesting that at level 85 or 90 you can't do a simple 75-78 map with packsize + 1 mod?

No. I stipulated a 77+ pool.
At level 95, you incur a 93% XP penalty from monsters in a 75 map (91% in 76, 88% in 77, 84% in 78, 79% in 79). That means at level 95 you gain 2.28*(base monster XP) more in a 78 map than a 75 (and base monster XP is higher in the 78). For 95-100 you need to sustain a 77+ pool if you don't want to waste a lot of time, and that's more expensive. You can run 5 75 maps and your bar may not even go up 1%.

This is why the -10% penalty breaks down at high level. It has nothing to do with having a bad character build, bad gear, or playing poorly. To gain 10% at level 95 requires a very large number of maps.

For 10% at level 95, you require 23,516,340 XP.
At a 93% penalty, that's equivalent to requiring 335,947,712 XP before penalty (based on the difference between player level and monster level). That's an amount of XP equivalent to leveling from 1 to 69 without dieing once.

At level 99 in the same zone as the above example, to gain 10% requires 1,058,386,380 XP before penalty. That's equivalent to leveling from 1 to 84.5 without dieing once.

Except to get from 1 to 69 or 1 to 84.5 without dieing once is easier, because the content is easier. You can do that in Sarn or Docks, in low level maps, and in maps with easy mods.

For these high levels, all the death penalty does is encourage the use of build and gear combinations that make it impossible to die, even if you fall asleep at the keyboard. Because with any other build you are bound to die to something uncontrollable (i.e. latency spike or desync) that will inevitably occur at least once during the course of gaining 10% (which requires 50-60 level 75 maps at level 95). For many players, that's simply not a fun way to play.

"

goetzjam wrote:

That 10% penalty is as true at level 60 as it is at level 90

No, it's not the same at 60 and 90 because the penalty scales exponentially. At 60 it functions as a death penalty. At very high levels it either (a) functions as a progression barrier that, in most cases, encourages players to cease XP progression and stop caring about the added death penalty entirely, or (b) encourages builds that eliminate the risk of death entirely (so you can afk/latency spike/desync in safety while the room beats on you), which, subsequently, makes the game boring because there is no risk/excitement and no relevance for skillful maneuvering.

"

goetzjam wrote:

Removing the penality creates a freebie for anyone and everyone.

1. I never argued to remove the added penalty, only to improve it (by limiting the exponential scaling) or replace it with something else.
2. Death is never free, due to the intrinsic penalty of lost time, buffs, portals, loot (if SA or pugging), and opportunity (if no portals are left or if a timed quest is active).
3. The current added penalty is already a freebie for anyone who is not currently trying to level, which, actually, represents the majority of players once they reach a target level in the 80-90 range. This is especially bad given that the intrinsic penalty is wholly minimized for IIR/IIQ boss farmers who leave a portal at the boss , and maximized for players seeking XP progression in maps.

Side comment (directed at collective groups based on level ranges):
You know what's telling? When you have generally higher level players (95 to 100 range, who are actively experiencing or have actively experienced the uneven death penalty) arguing that the blanket -10%XP penalty is bad, while generally lower level players (90-) who may be presently avoiding the death penalty by focusing on farming (or who may simply be unaware of how bad it gets) arguing it's good. It is possible to make both groups happy via an effective cap on the maximum XP lost (i.e. -10% XP or -a fixed amount of XP, whichever is less; fixed value kicks in at high levels in the painful exponential part of the XP curve). While this enables IIR/IIQ farmers to continue to enjoy their play style without a death penalty, unfortunately it still doesn't penalize farm bots.

"

Vhlad wrote:

1. I never argued to remove the added penalty, only to improve it (by limiting the exponential scaling) or replace it with something else.

It honestly is the best option. It's not as harsh as taking currency which is more important to almost everyone who isn't in the top 10 of the ladder. It's more graceful than adding this time limits which just courage anyone not racing again, to play another character until the limit is up. So it's harsh enough to force people to work around it while at the same time not being so harsh that they give up playing their character altogether. I mean there's no real reason to go beyond 90 anyways, the benefits are so small.

"

2. Death is never free, due to the intrinsic penalty of lost time, buffs, vaal charges, portals, loot (if SA or pugging), and opportunity (if no portals are left or if a timed quest is active).

These are all minor.

Lost time: The only time this matters is during a race. The only time a race and 90+ mix are week+ races. Which there's no way there's 2 or more people so efficient with their time that 1-2 mins of downtime in that type of race would matter. In all other situations this is annoying, not a drawback.

Buffs: Most you can get back quickly. If killed during the middle of one you start fresh when killed. Again, not a big deal, annoyance more than deterrent.

Vaal Charges: You keep them after death in that instance. Not sure why you keep bringing this one up, there's no drawback at all here.

Portals: Only matters in party situations, solo it doesn't. Same with loot. And opportunity. Which all evens out as groups get the benefits that come with it so having all those benefits should carry additional punishments for death, as it's much harder to die.

"

3. The current added penalty is already a freebie for anyone who is not currently trying to level, which, actually, represents the majority of players once they reach a target level in the 80-90 range. This is especially bad given that the intrinsic penalty is wholly minimized for IIR/IIQ boss farmers who leave a portal at the boss and maximized for players seeking XP progression in maps.

Which GGG has obviously considered and are fine with. Otherwise they wouldn't release another MF unique that lowers EHP.

"

You know what's telling? When you have level 100's and 95+'s arguing that the -10%XP penalty is bad, while a couple 90- argue it's good. Don't want anything to impact your item/currency farm bots? That's fine - many of my prior suggestions already won't impact you (i.e. -10% XP or a numerical value, whichever is less; numerical value kicks in at high levels in the painful exponential part of the XP curve).

You know what's telling? I have a 99 and I'm arguing for it. Because like I've said multiple times now, the death penalty is the reason my build became better.

Also you had a good argument going, productive back and forth then suddenly you're accusing people of botting just because they disagree with you? The entire last paragraph was unnecessary and discredits all the crap before it. It's childish.

Why is a blanket 10% penalty a better option (given the required XP and level difference penalty curves) than a 10% penalty with a specific value cap?

"

Moosifer wrote:

you're accusing people of botting just because they disagree with you?

No. I didn't accuse anyone specifically (it was a general remark, separated from the paragraph responding to the quote by a line break/new paragraph), and agreement or disagreement is irrelevant to the remark. The fact is, the current death penalty doesn't do anything to IIQ/IIR farmers or farm bots. I expect suggestions that alter the added death penalty to receive resistance from categories of players who currently experience no downside to death.

If your 99 reaches 100, what incentive do you have to keep that build, vs. respecing to prioritize mobility and DPS?

"

Moosifer wrote:

Vaal Charges: You keep them after death in that instance.

Noted and corrected.

"

Moosifer wrote:

Not sure why you keep bringing this one up, there's no drawback at all here.

Deductive logic should suggest that the lack of preceding corrective comments stimulated an incorrect statement to be repeated.

"

Vhlad wrote:

Why is a blanket 10% penalty a better option (given the required XP and level difference penalty curves) than a 10% penalty with a specific value cap?

"

Moosifer wrote:

you're accusing people of botting just because they disagree with you?

No. I didn't accuse anyone specifically (it was a general remark, separated from the paragraph responding to the quote by a line break/new paragraph), and agreement or disagreement is irrelevant to the remark. The fact is, the current death penalty doesn't do anything to IIQ/IIR farmers or farm bots. I expect suggestions that alter the added death penalty to receive resistance from categories of players who currently experience no downside to death.

If your 99 reaches 100, what incentive do you have to keep that build, vs. respeccing to prioritize mobility and DPS?

Because death should matter. Losing 2 hours (or whatever the duration) is nothing when it takes you days or over a week to level. Oh no, I lost a few maps in the hundreds I have to do. Who cares. If it's a random situation I died in I'll think nothing of it. If it cost me a day's worth of work, you better believe I'm sitting down and figuring out how it never happens again, which is what I did at 95 and guess what, it never happened again.

You're quoting one person directly, how is that not specific? You're backtracking now to make it sound like you were saying botters don't get punished when your remark reads exactly like you're saying HE doesn't want it changed because it will affect HIS bots. Especially as you brought it personal, pointing out the level of his character. Stop acting stupid because you got called out for a childish attack.

My 99 probably will never hit 100. 1. My favorite game series is FF and I play this because it reminds me of D2, 99 is the end, not 100. 2. I went to 99 as SWT with pretty much the totem and 6k life as my only defensives, but the build I changed it to trivilized the end game, to the point where I did atziri runs w/o having to move and didn't take any damage from most of uber atziri's attacks. The game just got boring because I was playing with almost zero risk beyond user error.

Also, why play a lvl 100? I hate MFing and I only play to experiment with builds. I'm not going to keep respecing a lvl 100 to see what's possible as it's completely unrealistic, 10-20 points extra can be pretty forgiving on some shitty build. If I was ever to break my 99 out again it would be for atziri farming or PVP, both of which I would be avoiding death. For atziri I wouldn't care about the portals or experience lost, more about the pride of saying I'm doing deathless runs.

I fail to see any reason to play a lvl 100 in maps though. I've never liked a build that much that I'll play it just because.

"

levy42088 wrote:

Um leave me out of your argument. I didn't say I lost fun by trading it for level 100. I said I started to have so much fun at level 100 that I wish every hard-core end-gamer who either "Doesn't have the time" or "Doesn't Have 10 Friends leveling at the same time to always get a 78 Rot" can have a chance to experience.

By hitting level 100, I don't have to worry about being anal opening boxes. I giggle if I stood too long in Creamatorium Boss Rain of Fire. My heart gets racing when I use Vaal Cyclone and spawn Insane amounts of beyond mobs. I wish people can get the same mapping freedom as a level 100, without having to put the time to getting 100. Which is perfectly fine with me, as long as the path to level 100 doesn't change.

By putting the xp penalty, and a max level cap, GGG created the goal to Hit Level 100 so you don't have to worry about dying and the XP.

yes you did say it, indirectly

again, you couldve enjoyed the same things on lower level

NO ONE SET THE GOAL of 100 but YOU.

just because its in the game doesnt mean it shoud be reachable

there are cars out there that cost dozens of millions of dollars. so did the car makers make anyone set their goal to buy those cars ? of course they didnt

GGG shouldve made it 10 years to reach level 100 just to show how ridiculous your viewpoint is

"

The_Great_Alex wrote:

"

grepman wrote:

100 is a goal set by you and you only

100 is a goal set by GGG

You know why? Because rpg is about leveling a character, it is fun leveling a character, if its a game without leveling a character - its not rpg, people who play rpg having fun when they kill monsters and thier xp bar raises.

GGG made 100 to be farming for months just because to have their players playing, not because its an exra levels for nolifers to farm. People like to get xp for monsters they kill, so GGG made that process to 100 very big to keep their players, to make them farming to 100 for months.

Not many people are aiming to 100 not because they dont want to but because they cant for some reasons

"So many people leveled to 100 in hardcore bla bla bla"... I cant even imagine how horrible was that process. Not run there, dont run that mod, run away from that mob, keep your finger at log out key...

Sure for some its fun, but for me its so stupid, so unfun, so stressful.

Of course you can level to 100. But with what cost? Totally not worth it for me.

no its not a goal set by GGG

level 100 is not made for leveling. one passive point makes zero difference

its not made for fun- you can have a ton of fun at level 92 doing all content there is
its not made for completion of main game- it doesnt require level 100 to beat the entire game, or any endgame content.

decision to hit the cap is entirely UP TO FUCKING YOU

if GGG made the level cap achievable in 10 years, would a decision to play for 10 years be NOT
your goal ?

I agree leveling to 100 is not fun. thats why I never did it nor am I planning to
the OP though, himself said he can have fun at 100, fun that he didnt have mid-99

he could have the same fun at 99. but because he HIMSELF set a goal that he MUST reach a cap, he traded his fun for a sense of achievement. he couldve had the same fun in early 90s.

just because there is a cap on something does not by definition mean you should have to reach it.
saying anything otherwise is a sign of sense of entitlement.

there are countless multimillionaires in the world

if you arent a millionaire then a goal is set by multimillionaires to get multi millions, yeah ?

so if you dont get multi millions and arent a millionaire does that give you a right to whine about other people setting goals for you? or maybe you shouldnt have set the fucking goal to slave all your life to become one and instead focused on having fun and less money, yeah ?


so please lets stop being hypocritical if you dont cry about not being a millionaire (does not apply to charan)
companies are free to set level caps as high as they can see fit and no one obliges them to make them reachable.

the sense of entitlement that you HAVE to reach level cap and have to reach reasonably fast without any punishment is a sign of dumb carebear games. and Im glad poe is not one of them (yet)

If lvl 100 was the goal of GGG it would be one of the achievements, instead it's only lvl 90

"

Moosifer wrote:

If lvl 100 was the goal of GGG it would be one of the achievements, instead it's only lvl 90

exactly, man

there is literally nothing that differentiates having fun at 99 and having fun at 100, besides one measly passive point. even if youre the worst munchkin in RPG history, one point will have zero impact on your ability to have fun or clear difficult content

the only thing that anyone gains from hitting the cap is 1)treating it as a personal sense of completeness/achievement or 2) treating the said achievement as a status symbol (pretty much epeen growth)