Remove xp penalty's from death

@ Goetz.. Vlad has been bringing up really good points and suggestions this whole time. I don't think maybe people here just want change for personal gain, they just want a better game for everyone.

Nice suggestion, idk if the trolls on here would like if you took they're iiq away for a couple minutes. Welcome to the thread. It doesn't matter how hard or soft your suggestions are, we still are here because we agree that something has to change with the xp penalty at higher levels.

Any duration-expiration penalty is out the window, as it is no penalty at all. It merely encourages players to switch to an alt character until the timer expires, or if account wide, then an alt account. This causes more problems than it solves, and fails to reinforce the purpose of a penalty in the first place. In other words, it is arbitrary.

(I had more constructive things to say but my mobile is laggy shit.. So maybe later >.>)

I for 1 don't have another character, so I would have to tough out the timer penalty.

Because that means it's not a penalty. That's what's wrong.

Levy - Stop the cheerleading, let the big boys talk. You clearly aren't adding to this discussion. Also I find your last comment hilarious as you're playing on a lvl 100, ofc you aren't going to switch to another character/account to avoid an experience penalty, you don't receive one in the first place.

"

Vhlad wrote:

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.

I can be aggressive if you want. I don't feel my last reply was at all. But you didn't even correct my assumptions in your last statement. That entire post boiled down to 1. deaths are from desync/lag are unavoidable 2. w/o an invincible build 3. lvl 100 should be achievable for all. I disagree on all three points. If these weren't the points, please enlighten me.

"

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.

You did math with the assumption that this was something we all agreed on. I get that you aren't saying every 65th map there's automatic death, but I refuse to accept you can give any number to this situation. If I feel the need to I can go any period of time, with any build without dying to desync/lag I'll avoid all spots where it's possible.

Give me the most desyncy build (I went to 84 at the beginning of torment w/ a facebreaker shield charge build, name something that desyncs more often) and I promise I can avoid death by desync/lag. You guys over estimate how often this happens and remove all player responsibility from the equation. Realistically I would say it's 1:6500 of a truly out of control, you were no where near a pack and desynced into one which killed you instantly. As most are, went wildly into dangerous room, attempted to use movement skill to escape, desynced back into room and died.

Also we can't make game adjustments because GGG hasn't purchased servers in certain areas. The game doesn't need to be accessible for everywhere in the world, nor does it need to be adjust to them either.

"

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.

1. Is this bad? The idea is we go from a naked nobody to a god. Are there many gods known for dying often? Or are they known for being invincible?

2. Shouldn't the game encourage careful play which involves having the right gear for the goal you wish to achieve?

3. Should literally every build be allowed to get to 100? I'm not exactly keeping track of every build that possibly makes it but pretty sure every archetype can go the distance and I can think of like 10 different builds that have pulled it off, even more that could if the person just wanted to put the grind in.

4. I wanted to cover this here rather than on the last point, as you either have no experience with SWT or you're just purposely putting down my play, which as I stated I'm not that advance of a player, I think many people can compete or best me. Was Greggzaun's flametotem using knockback? Have you ever used KB? You know why items with cannot be KB usually make the item more valuable, it's because KB causes a ton of desync. I had to learn how to perfectly place my totems to PREDICT where things would desync to. As I learned in my 80s that poor placement and my positioning lead to resyncs where shit was right on top of me. Because I had no eva/armor/coil/acro/anydefensiveoptionsatall death came very quickly if I didn't have an immediate response. I dealt with desync CONSTANTLY. You're mistaking SWT as any other totem build. When even though it's totems, the fact holds true that whenever your skill moves an enemy there's a high chance the server doesn't pick it up and it results in a desync. It's why heavy strike is so annoying to use.

So please stop making assumptions about a build you apparently have never seen in action and are just guessing works like every other. Two of my friends copied my build because of how much I praised it, but ignored the part where I said that I was the only thing keeping it alive, when they got to mid 80s they told me the build sucked because they died all the time. Totems didn't keep me alive without me knowing how to use them to keep me alive.

"

Moosifer wrote:

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).

I feel you want to open up build options to people who don't desire to get to 100 in the first place. There's only 210 lvl 100s because those people were psychotic enough to make the trip. I mean shit, check out these numbers from rampage. I'm one of 3 (!) people to stop at 99, seems to be the clear "why stop here ffs" level. But you can see people fall off at 98 and much more at 97. These are the levels that don't matter except if you plan to get to 100. Are you saying these are a result of only death? Because I'll tell you I watched the ladder often because for a while I thought I could actually make top 10, these guys aren't dying, maybe few deaths the entire top 20 over a week-month period. They're giving up because they run out of maps, they get burnt, or maybe they remember real life exists.

What's telling is almost everyone stops between 86 (I also assume the chart starts somewhere in the 85s as only 56 85s doesn't make sense) to 92. These are the levels of "my build is done, but I have no intention of going to 100." Most people aren't stopping because the death penalty prevents them. I mean shit, did you stop ONLY because you died? I highly doubt it. You might have died but that death just gave you reason to abandon a trip that you probably didn't want to complete in the first place. 95 is when it starts to be clear it's a daunting task. I think 95 is the beginning of the one week per level, levels. I want to say 95-96 took me 4-5 days.

"

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.

My real point is no one is avoiding the trip because of deaths like you're saying. It's not gated behind this. While it is impossible for someone to do if they are dying at all, anyone who is considering making the trip is trying to avoid death at all cost because they understand the penalty is extremely harsh up there.

You seem to make the point that the death penalty is preventing people and certain builds from making the trip. My point is the trip is preventing most people from going and it's not a bad thing that all builds can't go.

"

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.

Where could you possibly pull this assumption from? Chris said in CB it should take someone years to get to 100, this isn't said by someone who wants people to get to 100. They make up the rules for ffs, he could make it take a week if they wanted to. If you look at the game design now, there's no quests over lvl 70, the experience penalty doesn't start to really kick in until the 80s and death penalty doesn't hurt until then either. Then you have non-map areas going to 67 which in CB maps only went to 69 and the crazy ones among us got into their mid-80s, which the exp penalty will be a nice 50% doing library at lvl 80. All things point to GGG making it easy for us to get to mid-80s. Anything beyond is made unnecessarily difficult by things that aren't much of a factor at all before such time.

Like I said in response to your last post. If this is really your argument you should be fighting to remove experience penalty much more than the death one as it does way more to prevent people from obtaining 100 than any other factor in the game.

"

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.

This is a perfect example of your philosophy being counter to GGGs. When they added act 3x, they tacked on gardens and beyond to what we already had in act 3. They didn't increase the level at all. IIRC, at that time specter was actually lvl 65 and a little while later they bumped the levels of a bunch of places up to make non-map leveling easier. If they wanted 100 to be easier why wouldn't they just add 2-3 levels to everything, make maps start at 69-70 and end at 82ish? Well, because they don't want 100 to be easy, nothing about their design choices have given the impression they want it to be easy either. So you making this claim is based completely on your personal hopes, rather than GGG's design philosophies.

Also I have to assume they have considered every one of your points and not only have no issue with it, INTEND for things to work that way.

"

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).

This is the only valid argument I don't have a good rebuttal for because MFers aren't punished by this current model. But I have to assume GGG knows and accepts this as they just released another MF item which lowers EHP.

"

Moosifer wrote:

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).

interesting numbers. Never made it to 100 myself.

Given those numbers, I would be willing to remove 90% of the XP death penalty if it allowed for some kind of item-based penalty to be added.

Questions: say you start with thirty 78 maps. How much currency do you'd estimate you'd spend on rolling them? How much market value in loot would you get on average from running that many?

In rampage w/ cartos being more frequent.

78 = 15-20c a piece
4 chisels + trans and augs = 1.5c
10-50 alts per - 1-5c (right? forget what the alt:c was)
1 regal = 1.5c (or if bad regal add scour and everything again)

So ballpark 5c to roll back then. Now I think people are spending more because cartos aren't as forgiving.

Return is all over the place. Are you selling 78-80 white bases? Are you alching items? Are you checking blue items for top tier rolls (tyrannical ambushers/harbingers for examples). So you could be pulling a killing if you want to go through the hassle of getting bases and then selling them in chat, because xyz doesn't give ilvl so can't sell there. I was turning out 24 regals a day from recipe and probably 20-50c a day from selling jewelry I alched. Sometimes I'd find decent uniques or rares to sell too. I didn't really turn a profit from the regals because I pretty much used every regal I made, I was doing 20-30 maps a day.

Also, I'd accept 15-20% exp penalty instead of an item penalty. Like I said, an item penalty would drive me to HC, I just would never want to deal with it.