Remove xp penalty's from death

OPs original comment was based on the 'penalty' given by an XP loss when you die to desync and if desync cannot be fixed/removed then he suggests the XP loss from death be removed due to the fact a desync death is 'not your fault'. Others will/have argued that there are ways to combat desync by creating a desync proof build, is that really the way you want to make your character?

I play to get a character to 100, I don't magic farm, I'm not bothered about the economy however I do trade from time to time. Sometimes I die because I did something stupid and I live with that XP loss, I would have to say that probably eight out of ten deaths are desync related, this is when I'm down on the XP loss.

I wish there was a way to fix desync, then if I died at a higher level I would know it was my fault and I'd live with the 10% loss.

Having said that, if I had the opportunity to make a change I'd choose a sliding scale of loss at higher levels. As others have pointed out, the time to recover lost XP at higher levels can be arduous and I'd suggest be deemed 'unfair' compared to 10% lost at lower levels versus time to recover that lost 10% XP.

That would be alright, I think.

-10% on Merc until level 70. Then reduce penalty by 1% every 3 levels.

Still punishes deaths, but not too unfairly for people in the very high levels.

"

AlbinosaurusRex wrote:

That would be alright, I think.

-10% on Merc until level 70. Then reduce penalty by 1% every 3 levels.

Still punishes deaths, but not too unfairly for people in the very high levels.

People wanting the change STILL haven't identified why it needs changed. Yes its more punishing as you gain levels, but your character is getting stronger and your game knowledge is getting better as well.

ROFL at level 70, the penalty literally doesn't matter until 85+ and your advocating it gets reduced starting at 73. LOL.

"

goetzjam wrote:

"

AlbinosaurusRex wrote:

That would be alright, I think.

-10% on Merc until level 70. Then reduce penalty by 1% every 3 levels.

Still punishes deaths, but not too unfairly for people in the very high levels.

People wanting the change STILL haven't identified why it needs changed. Yes its more punishing as you gain levels, but your character is getting stronger and your game knowledge is getting better as well.

ROFL at level 70, the penalty literally doesn't matter until 85+ and your advocating it gets reduced starting at 73. LOL.

I dont know what the last 1 page of posts was about, but i am going to start commenting at where i believe the thread got back on track.

@Albino, Great suggestion. penalty gets reduced by 1% per level at some point.

And goetz, I think we all DID Identify why it needs to be changed. Yes its more punishing as you gain levels, but after that you say "but your character is getting stronger and your game knowlege is getting better as well"

As many have pointed out in this thread, a build is usually completed at 85-92ish, so the strength the build continues to gain isn't make or break.

This argument isn't the same as players asking for an increase to the drop rate of exalts. This argument is due to a flaw in the leveling progression that GGG did not think of at conception.

Since the xp required to level increased EXPONENTIALLY after 85-90, the 10% that was sufficient thoughout mercilous before, becomes incredibly disproportunate.

This is the view i am bringing to this thread, and I hope GGG takes into consideration.

On top of that, we already established the primary reason why it should be addressed: Death by desync is an unfair penalty to the player. At lower and mid levels, this is easy enough to recover from. At high levels, you can lose days of play to it, and that isn't good for the game.

Also, who are you to decide what level counts and what is trivial? I gave a suggestion, and most people here understand that GGG can determine the exact details. It's the concept that counts. Sorry if you don't like it or agree; but as you LOVE to tell people all the time, desync doesn't effect you, so this entire thread really has nothing to do with you anyway.

There's the door.

I think the real point should be if you guys can't convince two people who would benefit from the removal of the penalty that it's good. How are you really convincing people to turn their back on their design philosophy.

So if your closing arguments are really "we did everything you asked, feel free to leave" I see that just as good as you conceding because it's not changing anyone's mind.

"

Moosifer wrote:

I think the real point should be if you guys can't convince two people who would benefit from the removal of the penalty that it's good. How are you really convincing people to turn their back on their design philosophy.

So if your closing arguments are really "we did everything you asked, feel free to leave" I see that just as good as you conceding because it's not changing anyone's mind.

Making the case for a GGG dev is far different than trying to change Goetzjam's mind, because he's closed to the option that it might be a good change. There are sufficient arguments and points made here for them to consider it--assuming they even read it. Since they don't respond to many threads, it's kind of hard to get a read on what they see or don't.

"

AlbinosaurusRex wrote:

Making the case for a GGG dev is far different than trying to change Goetzjam's mind, because he's closed to the option that it might be a good change. There are sufficient arguments and points made here for them to consider it--assuming they even read it. Since they don't respond to many threads, it's kind of hard to get a read on what they see or don't.

I like how you left me out of that. The only good argument I've heard was to lighten the load on desync deaths but that's GGG basically creating a game around desync, which then they should just remove the shit that causes it in the first place.

All the other arguments are purely for self gain. Easier time to 100 is not a valid reason to give a company that wants that to be a difficult venture.

And don't rehash that shit about everyone being for self gain as I spend most of time time on these forums arguing against my best interest. The amount of times I've asked for my build to be nerfed is embarrassing. Sometimes even PMing devs to get it done because it's so OP.

I'm probably going to get hate for this post:

Because of the sheer magnitude of time and effort required to level to 100 at the moment, making the process somewhat easier probably would not open the floodgates too wide for players to get there - I think most "casuals" are turned off by leveling in the 80s already, and dedicated players who level in the 90s would still need to invest many, many hours to progress.

Reducing the exp death penalty 90+ is one way to change things, but so is reducing the amount of exp required to level past 90, reducing the exp penalty for running maps a significantly lower level than one's toon, increasing the amount of experience monsters give at high levels, etc.

A better idea IMO would be for GGG to release 80+ maps, and rebalance difficulty/drop rates so that 90+ characters use these new maps to level (and perhaps can actually get a full 1% exp per map. I don't feel that 100 potentially expensive maps without dying per level is "too easy"). I hope they do so along with Act IV, or at some point in the future. But that's obviously a much bigger ask than the others I listed above.

As to a compelling reason WHY leveling to 100 ought to be easier? I can't provide one other than the same psychological factors any developer takes into account when designing any game: providing players with a sense of satisfaction and a proper balance of rewards in exchange for time/effort/skill invested. I suppose I simply disagree with those who are defending the status quo in this thread on how those particular psychological factors are working right now. I'd personally like to level to 100, and currently feel that I need to be rich, lucky, and using a cookie-cutter build to do so (yes I KNOW there are examples of players who buck those trends, but they are very few and far between). I'm doing OK on currency, but I'm definitely not lucky or using a popular build - I often feel punished for not choosing to play how everyone else does.

It all comes down to how "hardcore" we want PoE to be, and how exclusive the game's greatest rewards should be as well. It's a legitimate point of disagreement. Rational folks on both sides.

Moosifer,

I left you out because you like to simply argue for the sake of exploring the issue. I specifically named Goetzjam because he refuses to change his mind on anything. I'm stubborn, but given a strong enough case will concede the issue in favor of the facts (as I did in that crit thread).

I don't see how the arguments being for "self gain" or not has any bearing on the relevance of the points, nor do I agree that all of these arguments are for that purpose alone. I know GGG wants it to be a journey to reach 100, but that journey needs to be a fair one, and I don't believe they fully appreciated the consequences of desync when they imposed that penalty. Furthermore, I would really like to know what their real reasoning for its existence is beyond "to be like D2." Not even you can provide that, as much as you enjoy presuming upon their motives (and everyone else here).

There are plenty of good justifications provided for GGG to examine the exp penalty again, and we would all appreciate their opinion on the matter after they have considered all reasonable possibilities.

Lastly, your own reasons for arguing these things--whether for self gain or just to argue--has no bearing on the legitimacy of points made, nor does it change the fact that self-gain is a valid motivation for anyone to post anything here.

In case it isn't clear: The motives don't matter--only the arguments.