Remove xp penalty's from death

"

Vhlad wrote:

"

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

Spoiler

(minimal travel time since target location is known and portal is predictably placed adjacent to goal, no opportunity lost because portals aren't limited to 6, no loot lost because IIR/IIQ boss farmers either run those builds with players they trust or solo (i.e. the cost to run bosses is zero so there's no incentive to seek groups to distribute entry fee)

, 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.

"

Moosifer wrote:

"

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.