Remove xp penalty's from death

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

@Moosifer: what I'm trying to figure out is map sustainably. Of the 20-30 78s you were running per day, about how many bought, how many found?

Because 78s were 15c (which sold quickly) to 20c, I just didn't want to be spending that much buying maps. I also didn't want to go below 76 (ended the league with almost a page of 75s and sold probably a full page or more) so I'd buy 76s for 5c and 77s for 7-10c. I'd say I had to have bought in the ballpark of 50-100, maybe 20 total 78s. It's hard to recall exactly but I remember 2-3 times buying 20+ 77s and one guy who was doing ubers sold me at least 40-50 76s.

Also I'd say around 96 or so, I was only regaling 77/78s and I was only chiseling 78s. The time it took me to replenish my 78 pile was usually enough time to find enough hammers to qual them up. Also had some friends doing lower maps feeding me chisels for free/deep discount.

My usual grind was the first 10-30% was 76s, totally solo (10-60 of them) then whatever I had for 77s, usually around 30-50 then the 78s, smallest group was 15, largest was 75 (2 cartos). The 77s and 78s I'd try to find someone to group with, sometimes I probably got 10-20 free 77/78s a level until 98 when all my friends had quit and I went totally solo.

So do we all agree that the curent penalty system based on a % of xp required does not work well at higher levels. It goes crazy imbalanced.

also, doing 78 map rotations very rarely nets you anything except xp. If your lucky, in the map you create, a 78 map drops, you semi break even. But this doesn't always happen, especially not 6 times in a row for the party.

So now people run 78 + pack size + domination

So in standard, each map now requires:
78 map - 25-35c
4 chis+ trans - 2c
Alt and aug until pack size - 2-5c
Regal - 2c
Domination mod - 10c

So the least amount you could spend would be 41 chaos per map.
There is no way unless you get 2 lvl 78 map drops that you can consider "breaking even"

This means that if 10% was equal to 24 maps. 24 maps = 4 rots, so then you would have to pay (41x4=164c)

So u pay 42c, if u die, u need to pay 164c AND still have to play for 2 hours to get where I was.

Right now, end game players get double the punishment because not only do you lose time, you lose money to run maps to make up that time

"

MrTremere wrote:

"

CanHasPants wrote:

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

You mean something like "you can't play this character for X amount of time" isn't a penalty?
Because if players will systematically choose not to play their character over the normal penalty, then these are equivalent, even though in the second case it would be much less frustrating.

Yes he means any time based penality isn't acceptable.

Being forced to choose between a loss of X for a certain time (and continue to play is not the same as just waiting out whatever the time frame is. Hence why that penalty wouldn't work.

People honestly need to stop trying to further their own personal gains in this thread, its very clear certain people are targeting certain builds, playstles, ect rather then their own in order to try and solve this issue.

Honestly this thread is MUCH longer then I ever expected it to get. Lots of repeating, lots of interesting ideas, but at this point we don't have a clear and concise set of ideas that the majority could even agree upon.

I made a point about the fact GGG mentioned in its FAQ that a player can advance a single character for years if they so choose. I understand if a player invest a significant amount of time and energy they can reduce this task to weeks instead of years for the most part. I tend to think getting to level 100 is much easier then GGG ever intended, if you would read this excerpt from the FAQ:

"

What is the level cap?
A level cap of 100 is currently planned, but players will find that they level up more slowly as they gain experience. You'll need to be very high level and be very well-geared to contend with the end game content on the hardest difficulty level. These diminishing returns mean that the game doesn't suddenly end when the player hits some arbitrary point. If a player wanted, they could improve a single character for years on end.

It very well states that you need to be high level (lets assume 85-90) to do end game content on the hardest difficulty level (lets assume hard mods, maybe not -max) Isn't that what the game is providing to you, a challenge if you want to do the highest level content without deing? Removing a penalty or increasing map level just makes the WHOLE system much cheaper to get to the top.

This thread was created because of unfair deaths (out of your control), now its turned into everyone jumping on the bandwagon because if this was implemented it would mean they could progress further then they have tried before, have a much stronger character, ect, but overall take much less effort. Now people bring cost factors into it (that should have no effect on the discussion), saying if you die it cost you XX when you only gain X from each run, isn't that part of the risk\reward system that most ARPG games are focused on?

Lots of players these days just want everything handed to them, this isn't the way of GGG or the design of PoE. This is a core principle, I know of another popular ARPG that literally rains uniques and set items, essentially handing you everything, but you have no trades, no different skill builds, no passive tree, nothing to make your character unique. Overall that game is much better for casual players, but it suffers after little (compared to poe) investment into a character.

Let me rephrase-- it's not a penalty GGG wants to use, according to GGG, circa this same discussion ~3 years ago. It causes a whole slew of other problems that they've already enumerated in their replies to this topic.

And no, I'm not going to dig up old posts; you'll just have to take my word for it. I'm not just being a "no" man either, just pointing out this one suggestion offers nothing constructive to the discussion because it's never going to happen.

"

Moosifer wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

@Moosifer: what I'm trying to figure out is map sustainably. Of the 20-30 78s you were running per day, about how many bought, how many found?

Because 78s were 15c (which sold quickly) to 20c, I just didn't want to be spending that much buying maps. I also didn't want to go below 76 (ended the league with almost a page of 75s and sold probably a full page or more) so I'd buy 76s for 5c and 77s for 7-10c. I'd say I had to have bought in the ballpark of 50-100, maybe 20 total 78s. It's hard to recall exactly but I remember 2-3 times buying 20+ 77s and one guy who was doing ubers sold me at least 40-50 76s.

Also I'd say around 96 or so, I was only regaling 77/78s and I was only chiseling 78s. The time it took me to replenish my 78 pile was usually enough time to find enough hammers to qual them up. Also had some friends doing lower maps feeding me chisels for free/deep discount.

So I think it is safe to say that 95-100 mapping is a net loss endeavour as far as stash wealth goes; you invest more than you get out, ignoring nontradeables such as XP and time. This is what I expected.

However, as long as players are still trying for level 100, the untradeable quantity XP must have value - specifically, enough to satisfy the inequality

trade value (map + rolling currency) + time < trade value (map loots) + XP

which approximately simplifies to

trade (map + rolling - loots) + time < XP

Thus, if mapping is ran at a defecit, then there exists some monetization of XP, some number where even if time is worth nothing, some amount of currency is worth some amount of XP.

Based on Moosifer's numbers, that amount seems to be about 5-10c per 1% lvl99 XP.

So if there were some way I could lower the XP component for death penalty to 2%, then add a penalty which hits lvl99 players for somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 chaos, that's what I'd do. For high mappers, the main difference would be time - it would have cost at least 10c to earn back 3% XP, so I just took the chaos & fast-forwarded to now.

I honestly think GGG should have gone with the genre standard and included some form of durability system. Whether the durability is repairable (talk to some NPC when you die) or not (die too often, replace your gear), it sets a small economic cost on death which a player who doesn't die often could potentially just ignore.

@ScrotieMcB

I like how you neglecting to reply to my post.

At level 99 the difference between running a low 70 map and a 78 map is very small. If you have the time watch HvC's video on min-mapping:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1yUzXoPvdE

Again what it cost in game shouldn't have any weight on the matter of how "unfair" the penalty is.

What is the level cap?

Lets break down GGG's statement from YEARS ago.. (Remember this is even before they decided permanent allocation will be implimented)

"A level cap of 100 is currently planned, but players will find that they level up more slowly as they gain experience. "

This means, we are making the level cap 100. But players will find that they level up exponentially slower as they gain futher levels. This is because of the XP curve. At a certain point, the XP becomes exponentially higher.

"You'll need to be very high level and be very well-geared to contend with the end game content on the hardest difficulty level."

Says nothing about builds hehe. So apparently GGG wants level 100 to be accesable to anyone that is high enough level, well geared, and whoever puts in the time.

"These diminishing returns mean that the game doesn't suddenly end when the player hits some arbitrary point. "

By diminishing returns, GGG is talking about the rediculious amount of xp required for the next level is going to be nothing like the xp required for the level before. Basically, they are saying that as you gain levels, the xp required to level will increase and never go back down.

"If a player wanted, they could improve a single character for years on end."

This is what every massive online rpg has. Even when you hit 100, you can still improve a single character for years on end. It's NOT saying that it will take years on end with the same character to hit the max.

Just like any game, the level cap doesn't mean the end of the game...
It means the end of leveling..

So goetz.. You keep posting this GGG quote from years ago, but it doesn't hold any water in this conversation. Your constrewing the text so badly. This quote has nothing to do with the death penalty. It simply explaining that to hit level 100, one must be geared, and put in the time and effort.

Please bring this train back onto the Rails. As we previously said, this thread was started by someone upset with Desync deaths, but from that discussion, we found that the reason people are so upset at desync deaths is because of the extreme penalizing for something out of your control. This now evolved to the greater issue of the % Xp death penalty at high levels.

We need to find a balance for the XP penalty at later levels, because percentages don't work if the last 1/4 of the levels dont follow the other 3/4 pattern of xp needed.

"

So goetz.. You keep posting this GGG quote from years ago, but it doesn't hold any water in this conversation. Your constrewing the text so badly. This quote has nothing to do with the death penalty. It simply explaining that to hit level 100, one must be geared, and put in the time and effort.

I posted that quote twice in this thread, first time it was ignored, it has everything to do with reaching level 100. If people want to use the argument of reaching level 100 in an xp penalty from death thread, that quote is as relevant as ever.

"

Please bring this train back onto the Rails. As we previously said, this thread was started by someone upset with Desync deaths, but from that discussion, we found that the reason people are so upset at desync deaths is because of the extreme penalizing for something out of your control. This now evolved to the greater issue of the % Xp death penalty at high levels.

The issue is you need to make a better character to progress at higher levels, I suspect GGG already dislikes the fact players are reaching level 100, they don't want this to be an easy task, removing or changing the penalty to its more "fair" at the top is complete bullshit, you of all people should know that this isn't about the fun aspect it is about the challenge. HC players get to level 100 or high 90's without ever deing once. SC is more forgiving, it has decreased the penalty as well as increased the map level as well, but no players can't stop complaining here they want more. They always want more.

Level 100 does not equal the same as level 90 or whatever bullshit level WoW is up to, level 100 is equal to paragon 1000 or more, but in D3 you don't lose anything when you die (gold is so negligible now) Level 85 in poe = endgame for most builds, everything after that is literally bonus and should be seen as such, not this "entitled" mentality that it should somehow be profitable and possible for every single player to get to level 100.

There is no reason to reduce, remove or adjust the XP penalty any further. People bring a whole bunch of points into a thread that don't matter, cost, time, desync, unfairness, ect all have no true bearing on true factor of the penalty.

"

goetzjam wrote:

@ScrotieMcB

I like how you neglecting to reply to my post.

At level 99 the difference between running a low 70 map and a 78 map is very small. If you have the time watch HvC's video on min-mapping:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1yUzXoPvdE

1. This is part of why I included time as a variable. 5-8M XP/hr is faster than 2-4M XP/hr. HvC is basically saying his time isn't worth that much currency. Also consider his death penalty (HC) - he risks losing a lot less currency and time with low maps.

2. Does it strike you as fair that low maps have comprable performance to high maps? Things like this are part of an overall endgame balance, and should be setting off alarm bells at GGG that, especially in HC, highlevel players aren't sufficiently incentivized to attempt the appropriate content.