Remove xp penalty's from death

"

Moosifer wrote:

"

Vhlad wrote:

"

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.

Nonsense? You played a build that was invinciple, where all you had to do was stand still and do nothing, that sounds like a blast! I can only imagine why others wouldn't want to be bored watching that for 100 levels.

Yes you need to learn how to avoid these deaths, you really should have pressed alt F4 when you hit 40% life, hope you remember for next time. And thats the issue here. This is a game that anyone can hit 100 if you take it slow, mob by mob, takinkg hours to complete 1 map just so your safe and not dying. But thats not fun, you play the game to play at normal speed. Just cause I want to play normal means I get penalized? should have walked on my tippy toes that time huh...

"

Moosifer wrote:

"

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.
--

"

goetzjam wrote:

"

Moosifer wrote:

Bleh


This method leaves the harshest punishments on early play and MFer. Which I really dislike the idea of losing items for deaths, to the point where I'd just move to HC and make it so I never died. Or ofc quitting altogether is the other option.

People keep trying to come up with complicated suggestions to try and "fix" the death penalty for lost XP. The issue is no one is going to be on board with any penalty that exists and one should always exists, so the argument still stand as to why the XP penalty needs removed, still hasn't been a strong point to prove why it shouldn't.

I've suggested a meet you part way back by allowing some XP recovery from a body, this is something GGG could probably do and help ease the burden of the loss, but we aren't looking at more then 1/2 if that recovered. A penalty must exists and force players to evaluate builds, characters, items, map mods, surrounding mobs, ect. Remove the penalty and you have m1+m2 game where who gives a fuck what you do.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Well nevermind then. Silly hideouts.

Although a practical implementation is . not currently possible, that gives you an idea of about what I'd like to see in reruns of hitting both items and xp.

"

levy42088 wrote:

Nonsense? You played a build that was invinciple, where all you had to do was stand still and do nothing, that sounds like a blast! I can only imagine why others wouldn't want to be bored watching that for 100 levels.

Yes you need to learn how to avoid these deaths, you really should have pressed alt F4 when you hit 40% life, hope you remember for next time. And thats the issue here. This is a game that anyone can hit 100 if you take it slow, mob by mob, takinkg hours to complete 1 map just so your safe and not dying. But thats not fun, you play the game to play at normal speed. Just cause I want to play normal means I get penalized? should have walked on my tippy toes that time huh...