Remove xp penalty's from death

hell Ive never sniffed 99 in d2 and I never felt it was the 'goal' in d2
and I had so much in d2 it was almost too much.

shit, kripp was one of the better players in poe and he never pushed past like 95 iirc

"

Moosifer wrote:

Because death should matter. Losing 2 hours (or whatever the duration) is nothing when it takes you days or over a week to level

If you don't think losing 2 hours matters, we'll never agree on a suitable death penalty. That's a pretty HC/extreme mindset, to want, what, a day? of progression lost per death.

"

Moosifer wrote:

You're quoting one person directly, how is that not specific?

Because it was a new paragraph, separated by a line break, unrelated to the quote, and intended as a general comment. The sentences in question remain unaltered from the initial post, and I've already mentioned in prior posts that the current added death penalty does nothing to penalize farm bots. Your fixation on trying to find something malicious in my posts or interpreting my post as malicious is detracting from the discussion.

"

Moosifer wrote:

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.

A shockwave totem build somewhat protects you from deaths due to latency spikes and desync because it undirected aoe, auto targets, and the AI tends to prioritize it. The mitigation of latency and desync risk makes the road to 99 easier, but many builds that players enjoy are very susceptible to desync/latency death. I suspect you would have gotten bored of that character sooner if you used the difficulty trivializing spec at an earlier level.

This is why the 10% penalty does not work at levels 95+, because it encourages builds that render the game unfun. A death penalty in a casual league should never be so harsh that it promotes builds that are so safe that the game becomes boring.

"

Moosifer wrote:

Also, why play a lvl 100?

The vast majority of players currently set a level goal and cease XP progression once that goal is reached (of course, this means the added death penalty disappears once this goal is reached, which I'm not convinced is a good thing for the game or game economy). Stopping XP progression at a set level is akin to playing a level 100. While you may hate MFing and only play to experiment with builds, wealth acquisition is a priority goal for most (I also think it's fair to say that the majority of players copy a build rather than experiment).

"

Moosifer wrote:

I fail to see any reason to play a lvl 100 in maps though.

For a build seeking wealth acquisition, mapping is still worthwhile due to map only uniques, quantity bonuses, and the opportunity to sell 78 maps for exalts.

"

Vhlad wrote:

If you don't think losing 2 hours matters, we'll never agree on a suitable death penalty. That's a pretty HC/extreme mindset, to want, what, a day? of progression lost per death.

Yes, in a gave designed by people who played HC D2, wanting to recreate a HC experience, copying a game that has a much harsher death penalty IMO. Also, you're job isn't to convince me of shit, I don't make changes, GGG does. I have to assume they've considered most if not all of the complaints in this thread and decided that they prefer the blow back over this compromise.

"

Because it was a new paragraph, separated by a line break, unrelated to the quote, and intended as a general comment. The sentences in question remain unaltered from the initial post, and I've already mentioned in prior posts that the current added death penalty does nothing to penalize farm bots. Your fixation on trying to find something malicious in my posts or interpreting my post as malicious is detracting from the discussion.

Fuck that, again backpedaling and trying to sidestep your way out of this horseshit.

"

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. an effective cap on the maximum XP lost via -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).

First, this is the entire paragraph, no breaks, no editing on my part, feel free to double check if you think I'm altering it to make a point.

*You directly talk about him and his character.
**After talking about his characters directly you say "YOUR bots"

So what about this is general? What about this is vague? You press forward with this as is it's ok and it's not. Either drop it or apologize because it's uncalled for and it's YOU turning this from a discussion into personal attacks. It's YOU detracting from the discussion. I'm sick of people accusing others of cheating just because they don't like what they're saying. It's stupid and childish.

"

A shockwave totem build somewhat protects you from deaths due to latency spikes and desync because it undirected aoe, auto targets, and the AI tends to prioritize it. The mitigation of latency and desync risk makes the road to 99 easier, but many builds that players enjoy are very susceptible to desync/latency death. I suspect you would have gotten bored of that character sooner if you used the difficulty trivializing spec at an earlier level.

This is why the 10% penalty does not work at levels 95+, because it encourages builds that render the game unfun. A death penalty in a casual league should never be so harsh that it promotes builds that are so safe that the game becomes boring.

What's this nonsense? I played a build that was invincible? If this was the case wouldn't everyone at high levels in HC be playing it? The build's EHP was shit, the only thing keeping it alive was me. I play many builds that are susceptible to desync and lag deaths, until recently I had a shit video card and dealt with 5 fps in certain areas, shit got to 99 with this holding me back. Forgot, SWT prevents lag deaths. But the death penalty has taught me that I can't complain my way to a higher level, I need to learn how to avoid these deaths. So I know how to play around desync, how to stay out of situations that desync is common or that if I desynced I would die. Also I know how to play in lag situations and not to overextend. All lessons from trying to avoid death, something I wouldn't care about if the penalty wasn't what it was.

The 10% penalty works perfectly for 95+. It's optional levels pushing for personal achievement which can't be undertaken lightly. A build that truly goes from 1-100 is incredibly good, both DPS and EHP wise.

Also what do you think everyone does in those higher levels? It's known you can't die there so it's a dull grindfest, we only do it because we want to be level 100. I mean the only time it matters is being the first to it, after that it's just for personal achievement. Most of the time these lofty goals fall into the unfun side of things. Because for someone like me playing the same build for over a month is fucking brutal. But I wanted it so I went for it.

"

The vast majority of players currently set a level goal and cease XP progression once that goal is reached (I also think it's fair to say that the majority of players copy a build rather than experiment). Stopping XP progression at a set level is akin to playing a level 100. While you may hate MFing and only play to experiment with builds, wealth acquisition is a priority goal for most.

For a build seeking wealth acquisition, mapping is still worthwhile due to map only uniques, quantity bonuses, and the opportunity to sell 78 maps for exalts.

You know how you said I removed context from what you said, that it wasn't your intentions. Well if you actually read where you're cherry picking these quotes from you'll see I'm talking from my perspective. I, personally, me, myself and I, probably will never touch my 99 again without specific cause. I, personally, me, myself and I, cannot find any reason to map on a lvl 100, as I'm someone who personally (again, just me, like the guy typing right now) dislikes MFing.

Goal #1:
Convey the message that I expect players who currently experience no added death penalty (i.e. IIR/IIQ farmers and farm bots, as well as players who reach a target level goal (typically level 80-90) and cease XP progression) to provide resistance to suggestions that attempt to alter the added death penalty.

Goal #2:
Attempt to provide a suggestion that isn't instantly attacked by players who currently experience no added death penalty.

Execution of Goals:
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. an effective cap on the maximum XP lost via -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).

Analysis:
Paragraph is not directed at a specific individual. The use of the word 'you' refers to collective groups. Collective group A = level 100's and 95+'s who are pro death penalty changes. Collective group B = a couple 90- who want no changes. Alternative interpretations might be possible if ESL/EFL. Suggesting collective group B was fearful of impacts to farm bots may not have been fair to entire collective.

Request:
Rephrase 'execution of goal' paragraph to convey goals #1 and #2 without angering anyone.

Rephrase Attempt #1:
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.

If we look at the exact context. It's you (a guy with 1 lvl 95) and levy42088 (a guy with a lvl 100) in a back and forth with goetzjam (who has a few characters around lvl 90) so that first sentence has SPECIFIC people referred to each of the levels, but because you didn't say everyone by proper name you're going to claim that it's a generalization. Keep trying to explain your way out of it. It just furthers my point that it was childish and undeserved.

EVEN IF it was a generalization, EVEN IF it mattered to your point, then the context of that paragraph doesn't make much sense in that post, it wasn't needed. None of that post is talking about how to make a death penalty that strikes both MFers and high lvl players equally. It's randomly attached at the end.

Again, apologize or drop it. You pulled a horseshit attack, got called on it and I'm not letting you just sidestep the point. If you won't drop it I'll keep driving it home. Because the idea that you aren't just saying "learn how to read" vs these long posts as rebuttals even shows that you know you fucked up and these are your attempts to talk your way out of it. You know it was stupid but maybe if you can spin enough circles everyone will just forget.

Nope, what you said was unnecessary and childish.

"

Moosifer wrote:

If we look at the exact context. It's you (a guy with 1 lvl 95) and levy42088 (a guy with a lvl 100) in a back and forth with goetzjam (who has a few characters around lvl 90) so that first sentence has SPECIFIC people referred to each of the levels, but because you didn't say everyone by proper name you're going to claim that it's a generalization. Keep trying to explain your way out of it. It just furthers my point that it was childish and undeserved.

EVEN IF it was a generalization, EVEN IF it mattered to your point, then the context of that paragraph doesn't make much sense in that post, it wasn't needed. None of that post is talking about how to make a death penalty that strikes both MFers and high lvl players equally. It's randomly attached at the end.

Again, apologize or drop it. You pulled a horseshit attack, got called on it and I'm not letting you just sidestep the point. If you won't drop it I'll keep driving it home. Because the idea that you aren't just saying "learn how to read" vs these long posts as rebuttals even shows that you know you fucked up and these are your attempts to talk your way out of it. You know it was stupid but maybe if you can spin enough circles everyone will just forget.

Nope, what you said was unnecessary and childish.

Your interpretation of my post is entirely incorrect and this is bordering on harassment. I was not referring to anyone specifically and I will not apologize for something I did not do.

Level 95+ is singled out because this is the level (due to monster vs player level difference penalty and required XP scaling) where I feel the -10% penalty becomes overly burdensome.

Level 100 is singled out because it is a special case, where the player has experienced the uneven XP penalty but is currently at a point where there is no penalty whatsoever.

Levels 90 and below are singled out because these levels are too low to experience the harshness of a blanket 10% penalty.

There is logic behind the levels and level brackets listed. I don't know why you're trying to apply this to individuals and attack people in specific or believe that people in specific are being attacked. Browse through my post history and you'll see that this is something I never do.

I've asked you to drop it because you're wrong, and I've offered to rephrase the paragraph once already. From this point on I'll let the forum mods clean it up.

So....pointing out the exact 3 levels of the people discussing just worked out to be coincident right? Sounds totally reasonable.

One thing I know very well about these forums is when I'm wrong people love to tell me so. Hours without it leaves me pretty confident that the only person who sees this your way is you. So keep telling yourself whatever you want, summon the mods, whatever. Accusing someone of cheating just because you disagree with their view is childish. I'll repeat it every time you continue this until I'm put on probation. I find what you did unacceptable and refuse to just let it go unchecked.

"

Moosifer wrote:

So....pointing out the exact 3 levels of the people discussing just worked out to be coincident right? Sounds totally reasonable.

One thing I know very well about these forums is when I'm wrong people love to tell me so. Hours without it leaves me pretty confident that the only person who sees this your way is you. So keep telling yourself whatever you want, summon the mods, whatever. Accusing someone of cheating just because you disagree with their view is childish. I'll repeat it every time you continue this until I'm put on probation. I find what you did unacceptable and refuse to just let it go unchecked.

Well then I hope someone else does say you are wrong, because you are.

I wasn't even having a discussion with anyone level 100. I have been responding to you, ScrotieMcB, goetzjam, and wtfico within goetzjam.

This is less of a coincidence and more of something you specifically looked for to fit an erroneous interpretation of malice. It's like saying global temperature increases over the last 200 years are due to the declining number of pirates. You can make the data fit but it's meaningless.

There's absolutely no valid interpretation of the original paragraph in question that matches your accusation. In other words, your interpretation is not valid. Both logically and grammatically, it should be clear that I was referring to collective groups. But I've taken an extra step and replaced the paragraph with the rephrased version I presented earlier.

Why am I not simply saying learn to read? Why am I trying to walk you through this? Because I hold myself to a higher standard. And I'm trying not to think you're deliberately attempting to derail the thread.

Edit: I walked you through the logic in a prior post. Now I shall attempt to walk you through the grammar:

When you have level 100's and 95+'s arguing that the -10%XP penalty is bad
100's and 95+'s = refers to a collective of players with characters level 100 or 95 and up. The grammatically appropriate version for reference to two individuals would be When you have a level 100 and a level 95 arguing that the -10%XP penalty is bad.

while a couple 90- argue it's good
Again, refers to a collective of players with characters of level 90 or below. The grammatically appropriate version for reference to an individual player with a couple of level 90 or below characters would be different, perhaps: while someone with a couple 90- argues it's good. Note the required s at the end of argue when referring to a single entity (other than yourself). People argue. They argue. We argue. One person argues. She argues.

may I interrupt this dialogue ?

and address this quote

"

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?

besides the very slick (NOT) attempt at a personal attack (mind you because some people might play differently than you)...I find it hilarious that the fact quoted in this quote (heh) is 'telling'

there is nothing telling about that, its so tautologically logical, its painful

people who like the penalty recognize it and are not trying to reach instant gratification. they in generally dont interpret the ability to reach level cap or level 99 as a 'goal'. they reroll their toon when they feel like its not fun anymore. they are enjoying the game in the process and are having fun with the death penalty being a check and balance for their build's viability.

of course people who only are trying to reach lvl 100 ARE going to be the one hating the penalty.

not only they have to grind hard and long to reach the goal they themselves set, as evidenced by the op, many of them have the OPPOSITE of fun. all to have that triple digit glory that has no practical use whatsoever and only tickles their epeen.

so its 100% logical. people who quit their toons in 90s or late 85s dont care two shits for 'goal' provided by level cap. there is no such 'goal' even. they dont quit because of death penalty.

people who consider any cap in the game to be reachable, and that it SHOULD be reachable care more about the goal than they do about fun. otherwise they wouldnt even try to level to 100
of course a death penalty check hurts their self-esteem.

why would someone continue to proverbially eat cacti, cry and keep on eating them, all for having satisfaction of reaching level cap, Ill NEVER understand. but suggesting that anything other than that reaction is logically equivalent to running bots, is quite hilarious.


anyway, carry on bros

"

Vhlad wrote:

Edit: I walked you through the logic in a prior post. Now I shall attempt to walk you through the grammar:

When you have level 100's and 95+'s arguing that the -10%XP penalty is bad
100's and 95+'s = refers to a collective of players with characters level 100 or 95 and up. The grammatically appropriate version for reference to two individuals would be When you have a level 100 and a level 95 arguing that the -10%XP penalty is bad.

while a couple 90- argue it's good
Again, refers to a collective of players with characters of level 90 or below. The grammatically appropriate version for reference to an individual player with a couple of level 90 or below characters would be different, perhaps: while someone with a couple 90- argues it's good. Note the required s at the end of argue when referring to a single entity (other than yourself). People argue. They argue. We argue. One person argues. She argues.

Really dude? Ok then. I'll start with the usually, it's a childish attack and you should DROP IT or apologize. But you continue so here we go.

When you have level 100's and 95+'s arguing that the -10%XP penalty is bad

Why say 100 and 95+'s? This isn't a generalization as you would have just said 95+'s because 1. you don't have a lvl 100, so you aren't referring to yourself, 2. it's redundant, if you're refering to the general population of people over 95 that dislike the death penalty you don't need to refer to them as the 95+ and 100 crowd. It's pointless, UNLESS referring to exact individuals. As I pointed out by name the lvl 100 and yourself at 95 which fits the context of the discussion going on at that point.

Then there's the use of "couple". Which again, if referring to a group of people you're implying this is limited when I'd probably say the majority of players are under 90 and I'd go even farther to say they aren't arguing shit, nevermind if it's good or bad. You're talking about someone engaged in the argument, they are doing something, right now. I'm not positive who the other person is, as couple isn't a normal term for a collective but rather 2 people specifically. It wouldn't make sense for it to be me as it seems you did research on character levels before making the post, I have a toon over 90 (maybe you missed it in the brief look?) nor I was engaged in the conversation at the time. So I guess I could go back and check the context and character levels of those in disagreement but seems like too much work.

So keep on keeping on. You're using specific language and attempting to make it sound general in hindsight as you've been called out. It's fine, I told you there's 2 ways out, shit if you just go back to the topic I'll leave it alone. But as long as you continue I'm going to keep saying it's childish and unnecessary. I get the skirting the line thing though, I just see through the weak attempt.