Remove xp penalty's from death

"

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.

"LOL I'm going to be as condescending as possible to any suggestion that changes the way things are because I'M AWESOME AND BEING ABLE TO HANDLE THINGS THAT PEOPLE WANT CHANGED MAKES ME BETTER THAN THEM".


Seriously goetzjam, the only thing that I've been impressed by you this whole thread (and your stupid arguments against changing Surgeon's Flasks in the other thread) is your restraint in crossing the line to where I can justifiably report your posts.

"

AlbinosaurusRex wrote:

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

Your speaking out agsinst the ad hominem fallacy is commendable.

However...

Once upon a time, there was a vision of Path of Exile as a hardcore ARPG. By hardcore here I do not mean one-death-done, but the more general concept of a game which errects barriers which the player overcomes by skill - not just raw time, not just luck - and which block progress until the character does so.

For such a vision to apply to getting level 100 (even if it was softcore 100), there would have to be some mechanic which penalized players for attacking the problem through simple attrition. The death penalty was born to ensure the player had to avoid death for significant periods of time in order to achieve the distinction.

Therefore, if skill game, then death penalty.

I believed in a vision of PoE as a skill game; in some way, I still do, even if I know in my heart that shit ain't happening. Because of this (completely arbitrary) view, I support some form of death penalty for softcore, although I believe it should be tuned carefully to ensure it is a fair penalty to a variety of player pschographics (in other words, blocking level 100 is not the only objective, we want to block "100 Ex in stash" mentality as well).

However, this is because my logic is essentially this (idealist logic):
If skill game, then death penalty
PoE should be skill game
Therefore PoE should death penalty

I can understand the position that it shouldn't, because it isn't (aka the pragmatist logic). If PoE isn't skill game, and likely will never be skill game, the why treat as skill game? (Desync is a killer of skill-based gaming and thus often is used in this logic, often with the "once desync fixed then revert" caveat to appease anticipated idealist objections).

Here's what I honestly believe: eventually, the no penalty folks will get another victory. Penalties have already been reduced once, and it will probably happen again. GGG will maintain the pretense by keeping some mechanically boring, overly simple penalty in place - like the current one - but the penalty will decrease over time as GGG attempts to broaden the endgame audience.

If I'm still here, I'll still be rooting for the losing team.

Even if POE is a skill-based game, is the limitter to 100 primarily skill based? Accumulation of exp is not, by itself, a demonstration of skill. This isn't like winning Starcraft matches, exp can be gained by anybody.

It seems to me that the way to measure skill is not to look at someone's level. I'm not saying exp penalty is bad, I'm just saying I don't buy the skill-based argument for its purpose.

"

goetzjam wrote:

People wanting the change STILL haven't identified why it needs changed.

This is simply not true. Many posters have identified and articulated a plethora of reasons why they consider the current added death penalty to be suboptimal or in need of change. If you don't agree with those reasons that's fair for you to say, but it's entirely unfair to assert that none have been provided.

"

goetzjam wrote:

Yes its more punishing as you gain levels, but your character is getting stronger and your game knowledge is getting better as well.

I've addressed this argument already. If this forum UI numbered posts in threads I'd be able to direct you to post #X. But it doesn't, so I'll try to, once again, walk you through why desync and latency deaths invalidate this argument. (Note: as an aside, since gear and gems cap in the 60's (or 75 for atziri items), it should be clear that the punishment does not scale evenly with character strength increases from 75-100 (which become marginal after build and gear completion). If you want to ignore or dismiss the desync/latency argument, even on a punishment vs. character strength basis you cannot accurately claim that the current added death penalty is appropriately balanced at high levels. For me to consider this argument valid would require the existence of items, gems, or builds that require level 95, 96, 97, 98, or 99).

Why desync and latency discredit a -10% XP death penalty at high level:

The first question to reflect on is: how often a death due to desync or latency might occur for the majority of players? (which must be explicitly verified by a spike in the latency graph or persistently high latency via F1 or by typing /oos and observing the location of your corpse or the things around it move significantly).

My own experiences would place this at 1 in 65 solo map clears (level 75-79 maps, rare, all mods accepted, no bosses skipped; note that this is using a flame totem build that is highly resistant to desync and latency death with careful play - other builds that are much more desync prone (such as cyclone, flicker strike, lightning tendrils, etc.) are likely to experience a desync/latency death in fewer runs, but we'll use 65 to be conservative). To convert this to time: assuming I'm picking up loot, fooling around with vendor recipes, rolling & activating boxes, and playing carefully to avoid desync/latency death as much as possible, causing each map run to take at least 10 mins, I would expect a death related to desync or latency every 10.833 hours of continuous play (10*65/60 = 10.833).

The second question to reflect on is: can a player reach level 100 if they will inevitably die every 65 maps or 10.833 hours?

The answer is no. I'll try to demonstrate this mathematically below because many people may not realize how insane the XP requirements get (either they haven't done the math or they haven't leveled high enough to experience the scaling).

To gain 10% at level 95, you require 23,516,340 XP. However, at level 95, you incur a 93% XP penalty from monsters in a 75 map (based on the difference between player level and monster level; the penalty decreases to 91% in a 76 map, 88% in 77, 84% in 78, and 79% in 79). At a 93% penalty, that's equivalent to requiring 335,947,712 XP before penalty. That's an amount of XP equivalent to leveling from 1 to 69 without dieing once.

The XP penalty gets worse as you level. For level 99, the penalty is 97% in a 75 map, 96% in 76, 94% in 77, 93% in 78, and 91% in 79. To gain 10% at level 99 at a 97% penalty would require 1,058,386,380 XP before penalty. That's an amount of XP equivalent to leveling from 1 to 84.5 without dieing once.

[Note, however, to get from 1 to 69 or 1 to 84.5 without dieing once is easier (provided it isn't a fresh start, i.e. that good items are available to hand down), because the content is easier. You can do that in Sarn or Docks or in lower level maps].

Given that at level 95 I can clear 5 level 75 maps without my XP even going up 1%, we're looking at 50-60 level 75 maps required for 10%. At level 99, this is multiplied by 3.15 (1,058,386,380 /335,947,712 = 3.15), yielding a requirement of 157-189 level 75 map runs to gain 10%. If you want to know how many level 78 map runs it takes to gain 10% at level 99, it's somewhere around 74 (31751591.4/.07/335947712*55), with some variation (a little less) due to the difference in XP gained from monsters 3 levels higher. What we observe here is a number of map runs required for 10%XP that is greater than the expected number of map runs before a death due to desync or latency, rendering the ability to reach 100 an impossibility for most builds and players, irrespective of how much time is spent grinding.

Ramifications

Therefore, at the highest of 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. This is not an issue of punishing a bad build, bad gear, or poor play. Rather, it's punishing any character that isn't immune to desync or instances of poor latency, i.e. the character must be able to survive any situation without player input. It's the antithesis of rewarding or incentivizing skilled gameplay.

Since many players find the 'invincible' builds boring to play (or can't afford to create them with sufficient DPS), what happens instead is players choose a level goal and cease active XP progression beyond that goal. Subsequently, the death penalty becomes irrelevant to these players and does absolutely nothing anymore (they're able to IIR/IIQ boss run or speed map run with no real fear of death and no added punishment due to death).

The game has been out for years, with supposedly hundreds of thousands of unique players, and yet there are under 210 characters to achieve level 100 across all leagues. This really seems like a failure of GGG to motivate higher leveling goals or enable the attainment of top levels for a sufficiently diverse set of builds (both of which are actually good things, from a player retention standpoint).

You did a ton of math all to back up faulty assumptions.

1. When did we just accept deaths from desync or lag as consistent and unavoidable? HC leagues could not exist if this assumption was true.

2. The build doesn't have to be invincible. As I said the build I went to 99 with had no defensive mechanics beyond 5.5k life, shockwave totem placement and my placement/movement. I don't feel I'm special and that much of a better player than the rest of the community. I played with an average of 20-30 FPS, routinely had lag spikes putting me under 10. Played off a wifi connection so sometimes internet problems were a factor, especially because my roommate's 1 year old would turn the router off time to time.

3. Getting to 100 isn't something everyone should be allowed to get. From personal experience, I didn't die after 95. Those 4 levels took me the better part of a month. Doing only maps over 76 and playing 8-16 hours a day, probably 10 on average. People aren't avoiding this trip just because of the death penalty, they just realize in those low 90s that they're putting in a shit load of time and see very little in return for their efforts. There's no reason to go into these levels where dying is brutal beyond personal accomplishment. If it's just a personal goal, why does it need to be easy? I argue the death penalty should be higher after 90 even.

So do all the math you want. As long as your argument is based on these 3 things then we won't see eye to eye. We fundamentally disagree. I also get the feeling that GGG leans more towards my stance. As if they didn't they would build a game that was less desync prone or put in systems that helped to work around it, not make the game much faster and add more mobs that desync often. Also if they wanted 100 to be something most people got, first Chris would claim it would take years to get to 100 (in the context of CB but clearly they wanted it to be a long term investment) also they would just remove the exp penalty, fuck the death one.

So you're holding to the wrong beliefs when it comes to this game. I'm sure there's many out there that fit your vision and it's unfair to expect this one to bend to them.

"

Moosifer wrote:

You did a ton of math all to back up faulty assumptions.

1. When did we just accept deaths from desync or lag as consistent and unavoidable? HC leagues could not exist if this assumption was true.

2. The build doesn't have to be invincible. As I said the build I went to 99 with had no defensive mechanics beyond 5.5k life, shockwave totem placement and my placement/movement. I don't feel I'm special and that much of a better player than the rest of the community. I played with an average of 20-30 FPS, routinely had lag spikes putting me under 10. Played off a wifi connection so sometimes internet problems were a factor, especially because my roommate's 1 year old would turn the router off time to time.

3. Getting to 100 isn't something everyone should be allowed to get. From personal experience, I didn't die after 95. Those 4 levels took me the better part of a month. Doing only maps over 76 and playing 8-16 hours a day, probably 10 on average. People aren't avoiding this trip just because of the death penalty, they just realize in those low 90s that they're putting in a shit load of time and see very little in return for their efforts. There's no reason to go into these levels where dying is brutal beyond personal accomplishment. If it's just a personal goal, why does it need to be easy? I argue the death penalty should be higher after 90 even.

So do all the math you want. As long as your argument is based on these 3 things then we won't see eye to eye. We fundamentally disagree. I also get the feeling that GGG leans more towards my stance. As if they didn't they would build a game that was less desync prone or put in systems that helped to work around it, not make the game much faster and add more mobs that desync often. Also if they wanted 100 to be something most people got, first Chris would claim it would take years to get to 100 (in the context of CB but clearly they wanted it to be a long term investment) also they would just remove the exp penalty, fuck the death one.

So you're holding to the wrong beliefs when it comes to this game. I'm sure there's many out there that fit your vision and it's unfair to expect this one to bend to them.

+1

Agree with all your points.

As for people naming me, well by name you can PM me if you have a problem with something I said (such as a comment that might seem too harsh).

In regards to convincing me no one should have to do that challenge, however I am willing to hear arguments for purposed changes.

The assumptions that you attribute to me are highly flawed and intellectually obnoxious/antagonistic. To claim that I have made these assumptions and then attempt to base a rebuttal on that claim makes me question whether it's even possible for us to have a meaningful discourse where both sides comprehend what the other is, and is not, articulating or implying.

"

Moosifer wrote:

1. When did we just accept deaths from desync or lag as consistent and unavoidable? HC leagues could not exist if this assumption was true.

If deaths from desync or latency were consistent we could predict them. To say I expect a death due to desync or poor latency to occur 1 in 65 maps does not imply that I assume it is going to occur every 65 maps consistently. I'm using the number 65 as a measure of central tendency.

Additionally, I did not claim that deaths from desync or lag were universally unavoidable. Quite the opposite actually, I explicitly argued that deaths from desync or from instances of poor latency were avoidable via the utilization of build and gear combinations that make it impossible to die. The current added death penalty promotes the creation of characters that are able to survive without player input. Clearly avoidable, but antithetical to skilled gameplay.

One issue is that many builds are highly susceptible to deaths by desync or poor latency. Certain skills are known to exacerbate desync, and builds that require directional targeting or precise positioning are more vulnerable to desync as well as to occurrences of poor latency. A blanket 10% XP penalty is less of a death penalty and more of a hard progression barrier for such builds. It is fair to say that I believe deaths from desync are unavoidable for many of the builds and play styles that people enjoy playing in non-HC leagues.

In HC leagues, the builds that dominate are the ones that best lower or eliminate the risk of desync or latency death. For example: GreggZaun's flame totem build that he used to get to level 100 in the 1 Month HC League. Totem builds are intrinsically resistant to desync/latency issues because 1. you can place totems at the edge of the screen and inch forward while remaining in safety, 2. you don't need to specifically target or click on any monsters (totem AI targets for you), and 3. the enemies tend to prioritize hitting the totem over hitting you.

Another issue is that many players are more susceptible to deaths by poor latency based on their location (distance from the nearest PoE server) and connection quality. For players living in regions where 400+ latency is the norm (or where there's packet loss), HC might as well not exist.

"

Moosifer wrote:

2. The build doesn't have to be invincible. As I said the build I went to 99 with had no defensive mechanics beyond 5.5k life, shockwave totem placement and my placement/movement. I don't feel I'm special and that much of a better player than the rest of the community. I played with an average of 20-30 FPS, routinely had lag spikes putting me under 10. Played off a wifi connection so sometimes internet problems were a factor, especially because my roommate's 1 year old would turn the router off time to time.

It's a significant achievement to, as you claim, go from 95 to 99 without a single death. I don't want to take anything away from that. However, I already mentioned in both the original post and in the preceding section that totem builds are highly resistant to desync and latency death with careful play.

There are a number of builds (not just totem based) that, when played carefully, slowly, and with the right gear, will mitigate susceptibility to desync/latency death without necessarily being invincible. I did not base my analysis on the assumption that invincibility was required. I merely claimed that the current added death penalty encourages the use of build and gear combinations that make it impossible to die, even if you fall asleep at the keyboard. This is not the same as claiming that invincibility is required - it's simply the most efficient way to go. In fact, it should be clearly evident from my analysis that any character able to persistently complete ~74 level 78 maps before a death caused by desync or latency will be able to reach level 100. A major issue is, again, the poor diversity of builds that are able to accomplish this.

"

Moosifer wrote:

3. Getting to 100 isn't something everyone should be allowed to get. From personal experience, I didn't die after 95. Those 4 levels took me the better part of a month. Doing only maps over 76 and playing 8-16 hours a day, probably 10 on average. People aren't avoiding this trip just because of the death penalty, they just realize in those low 90s that they're putting in a shit load of time and see very little in return for their efforts. There's no reason to go into these levels where dying is brutal beyond personal accomplishment. If it's just a personal goal, why does it need to be easy? I argue the death penalty should be higher after 90 even.

First, I've never once argued or based an argument on the assumption that everyone should be allowed to reach level 100, no strings attached. This implies that I want level 100 to be attainable by everyone irrespective of time, knowledge, or gaming capability. I never stated that, nor does a desire to adjust the death penalty imply it. A -5%XP death penalty at level 99 would require the completion of ~37 level 78 maps before any death (due to desync/latency or otherwise) to make level 100 obtainable. This opens up more build options that are viable to reach 100 with, and helps shift the added death penalty back toward actually being a death penalty rather than a progression barrier for certain builds (and even 5% may be too high at level 99).

Second, you've countered your own argument. If 95-99 took you ~300 hours with 0 deaths, then, clearly, adjusting the death penalty will not make level 100 accessible to everyone. As you've demonstrated, even with no death penalty at all the journey takes too long and is too unrewarding for most players.

Third, I would assume that GGG is trying to design the game such that anyone could get to level 100, provided they have the time, knowledge, and gaming capability. This is indeed the case now, presuming players accept being pigeonholed into a build that eliminates or adequately mitigates desync/latency risk. However, with under 210 level 100's across all leagues, despite it being possible to reach 100 in just a month, it appears that GGG is either failing to motivate players to target level 100 as a goal, or failing to provide viable progression to 100 using builds/playstyles that players would enjoy for 300+ hours.

There are a few ways to go about improving this, such as adjusting the current added death penalty, reducing the XP penalty based on level difference, or increasing the maximum available monster level. Ultimately I believe adjusting the death penalty has great potential, especially if we seek to target several categories of players who currently experience no added death penalty at all (I don't believe it's good for the game or for the economy to continue to allow IIR/IIQ farmers, bots, and map speed runners who've reached their target level to max mf/dps and zerg loot with no fear of death and no penalty from death).

@vhlad, finally someone that can present an argument for adjusting the penalty based on reason and not just personal gain.

"

If 95-99 took you ~300 hours with 0 deaths, then, clearly, adjusting the death penalty will not make level 100 accessible to everyone. As you've demonstrated, even with no death penalty at all the journey takes too long and is too unrewarding for most players.

Part of the point of getting to level 100 is the achievement of it, if you remove or assure that every build, every character will ever get level 100 they simply have to just play enough, then you not only remove that achievement, but you also nullify those extra ~10-15 passive points that most players don't get. So if you are suggesting GGG make no penality or make it so forgiving that everyone can get to level 100, then I suggest they make content harder at higher levels, why you ask, well because people will have a better overall character as they will have more passives then what they would previously of had.

See you can't just make getting to the top easier, you have to balance the system so challenge increases with it.

"

Third, I would assume that GGG is trying to design the game such that anyone could get to level 100, provided they have the time, knowledge, and gaming capability. This is indeed the case now, presuming players accept being pigeonholed into a build that eliminates or adequately mitigates desync/latency risk. However, with under 210 level 100's across all leagues, despite it being possible to reach 100 in just a month, it appears that GGG is either failing to motivate players to target level 100 as a goal, or failing to provide viable progression to 100 using builds/playstyles that players would enjoy for 300+ hours.

See I don't agree with this statement that GGG wants all players to reach level 100. In addition I don't think players are "pigeonholed" into a build if they want to reach it. GGG should provide NO motivation to reach level 100, nor should they make it easier to obtain, level 100 in PoE is not like level 70 in D3, there literally is nothing you gain after level 100, endgame is not level 100, but rather level 80 or so, from there you choose how much further to level. Not everyone leveled in D2 to 99 and those that did exploited boss farming for XP.



Does that statement (taken from the FAQ) hint towards or anyway describe that getting level 100 would be easy?

"

There are a few ways to go about improving this, such as adjusting the current added death penalty, reducing the XP penalty based on level difference, or increasing the maximum available monster level. Ultimately I believe adjusting the death penalty has great potential, especially if we seek to target several categories of players who currently experience no added death penalty at all (I don't believe it's good for the game or for the economy to continue to allow IIR/IIQ farmers, bots, and map speed runners who've reached their target level to max mf/dps and zerg loot with no fear of death and no penalty from death).

See your points before were to suggesting opening up more options for endgame builds, yet here you suggest to remove certain builds players run, kinda see how you might have some ulterior motive here? If I had to bet you don't play those types of builds, therefore you don't care if they get changed or nerfed in such a way they can't enjoy the game with their playstyle.

"

The_Great_Alex wrote:

Agreed. Game is designed that way to kill players on desync.

If you loose 10% of xp, hours of grinding due to desync - thats only your fault, because desync is a part of gameplay, and If your build cant survive on desyncs that means your build is a crap. No matter how hard you trying to avoid desync - it will find you anyway, so if you are not building your character to be able survive any desync - you are doing it wrong!!

PoE is not like other games, you cant play here how do you want, you cant play just any build you want, because you will be punished for that. We dont need your playing skills in this game, your ability to outsmart monsters or avoiding all the crap they shoot. You will be punished for doing this. Desync is watching you. If your build isnt a tank that took all hp and defensive nodes - you are doing it wrong dammit!

So stop crying about unfair loosing xp, its all your fault. This is a hardcore game. If you can play boring build in a dumb gameplay - we dont need you here. Go away

LOL nice one Alex..
so sad, but so true..

"

Moosifer wrote:

You did a ton of math all to back up faulty assumptions.

1. When did we just accept deaths from desync or lag as consistent and unavoidable? HC leagues could not exist if this assumption was true.

2. The build doesn't have to be invincible. As I said the build I went to 99 with had no defensive mechanics beyond 5.5k life, shockwave totem placement and my placement/movement. I don't feel I'm special and that much of a better player than the rest of the community. I played with an average of 20-30 FPS, routinely had lag spikes putting me under 10. Played off a wifi connection so sometimes internet problems were a factor, especially because my roommate's 1 year old would turn the router off time to time.

3. Getting to 100 isn't something everyone should be allowed to get. From personal experience, I didn't die after 95. Those 4 levels took me the better part of a month. Doing only maps over 76 and playing 8-16 hours a day, probably 10 on average. People aren't avoiding this trip just because of the death penalty, they just realize in those low 90s that they're putting in a shit load of time and see very little in return for their efforts. There's no reason to go into these levels where dying is brutal beyond personal accomplishment. If it's just a personal goal, why does it need to be easy? I argue the death penalty should be higher after 90 even.

So do all the math you want. As long as your argument is based on these 3 things then we won't see eye to eye. We fundamentally disagree. I also get the feeling that GGG leans more towards my stance. As if they didn't they would build a game that was less desync prone or put in systems that helped to work around it, not make the game much faster and add more mobs that desync often. Also if they wanted 100 to be something most people got, first Chris would claim it would take years to get to 100 (in the context of CB but clearly they wanted it to be a long term investment) also they would just remove the exp penalty, fuck the death one.

So you're holding to the wrong beliefs when it comes to this game. I'm sure there's many out there that fit your vision and it's unfair to expect this one to bend to them.

Moos you keep saying the same thing over and over, no matter what the people before you brought up.

If you want to do some math, lets do some math.

GGG should take the average amount of time for all players to play death to daeth. (Average xp or time alive before death becomes inevitable)

Now, if the xp you get over time, doesn't come out to be higher then the xp lost with the 10%, then how can you expect anyone to be able to get xp?

This is the problem here, you can't just tell people don't die, because no matter how hard you try, something stupid is going to happen, it always does. Now the game becomes "try to get as much xp as possible before that stupid something happens, so I come out ahead" The problem is at level 90+ that is impossible to come out ahead, unless you just dont play and follow other people kill stuff.