Remove xp penalty's from death

Do you have a problem believing HvC ran 500-1000 maps without dying? And if so, does it even matter if Moos did?

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Do you have a problem believing HvC ran 500-1000 maps without dying? And if so, does it even matter if Moos did?

Obviously HvC is just lucky, I mean he has what 3 level 100 characters now, 2 of which are in HC\HC leagues?

Yes. Lucky. Like Scott Seiver and Phil Ivey lucky.

HvC is one lucky bastard like all ppl with 90+hc chars.Pure luck,nothing else.
Skill,build,game knowledge?Meh,just luck.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Do you have a problem believing HvC ran 500-1000 maps without dying? And if so, does it even matter if Moos did?

1. Some players do not live in a region with server quality, distance to server, and net infrastructure quality equal to HvC's.
2. Some players aren't as skilled or consistently attentive as HvC.
3. Some players either enjoy different builds, skills, tools, and/or playstyles than those historically utilized by HvC, or specifically do not enjoy the builds, skills, tools, and/or playstyles utilized by HvC.

I don't believe every league in PoE should be balanced to only enable the HvC's out there to hit 100. I have yet to see a convincing argument for why the death penalty should be as harsh as it is for level 95+ characters in a standard/casual league.

Reducing the XP penalty for levels 95-100 does not prevent GGG from satisfying their publicly stated goals for the death penalty, namely to (a) prevent players from attritioning their way through every fight, (b) encourage the importance of building characters correctly and playing carefully, and (c) strongly discourage dying. If the death penalty is satisfying these goals at levels 70-90, they would remain satisfied if, for example, the XP penalty at level 99 was capped at the amount of XP you'd lose if you died at 90.

Regarding the argument of justifying a harsher penalty at levels 95-100 because your character is getting stronger and your game knowledge is getting better, my counter is:

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, i.e. the strength increases become marginal after build and gear completion. Therefore, 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.

"

Vhlad wrote:

Pointless math

70+ ex is the mapping cost of 10% XP at level 99 based on the following observation and calculation:

Observation: Completion of 5 level 75 maps at level 95 without gaining 1% XP. This can vary based on map mods, map type, monster density, number of strongboxes, types of monsters, and presence of other players. Baseline extrapolation is 50-60 level 75 maps required for 10% at level 95.

10% at level 95 requires 23,516,340 XP.
10% at level 99 requires 31,751,591 XP.
Source: http://pathofexile.gamepedia.com/Experience

A level 95 character in a 75 zone incurs a 93% XP penalty.
A level 99 character in a 78 zone incurs a 93% XP penalty
Source: http://pathofexilebuilds.com/exppenaltycalc.php

23,516,340 /.07 = 335,947,714 XP required from 75 maps to gain 10% XP at level 95.
As per my observation, 335,947,714 XP = approx. 50-60 level 75 maps.

31,751,591 /.07 = 453,594,157 XP required from 78 maps to gain 10% XP at level 99.
Since the XP penalty for this comparison is the same, we can estimate the number of 78 maps required to gain 10% at level 99 via:
453,594,157 / 335,947,714 = 1.35
Using a mean value of maps, 55*1.35 = 74.

Hence somewhere around 74*level 78 maps are required to gain 10% XP at level 99 (a little less due to the difference in base XP gained from monsters 3 levels higher).

Level 78 maps used to sell quite easily for 1ex, which is where the 70+ ex cost came from (and that doesn't even include the additional currency cost to chisel/alch/chaos them). Currently I can sell 3*78maps for 2ex on standard. If you want to use that valuation instead, the cost is 74*2/3 = 49.33 ex for white 78 maps (then add the rolling cost), for 10% XP at level 99.

Note also that this shows that high lvl maps HAVE become easier to come by and cheaper. Some specific reasons for this: strongboxes, exiles, zana mods and intrinsic bonus, map affix additions such as beyond, chisel recipes and master conversion, vaal fragment addition, removal of maze/massive and increase of baseline map size. Based on your comment this would imply that GGG is balancing around "optional" content.

orrrr you could have just asked someone who has done 78s at 99 and I could have said it takes about 3-4 78s for 1% depending on their roll (pack size gives more exp for example) and told you it takes 30-40 for 10%. Also in torment 78s sell for 15-20c a piece, was similar in rampage, which there the c:ex rate is 45:1 conservatively, making it about 10 ex in maps. While not cheap, it's not 6l shavs terrority. As someone who tried to sell his 60 78s in standard once they came over, even though they were all 20% I couldn't sell any for 1 ex and ended up selling them to my roommate at 20c a piece. So even standard prices no one is PAYING 1 ex per 78, people could ask 100 ex per, doesn't mean shit.

With that last point you tacked on, you'll also notice with all these changes it still very difficult to sustain higher level maps, but much easier to sustain midlvl maps, especially with zana selling them from her shop. Seems they are making it so people can easily get to 70-73s which is the wall most people claim to end up stuck at.

"

No. But I stopped trying to level that character at 95 because of the death penalty. The build itself, in combination with my geographic location, gearing budget, and skill level cannot progress beyond 95 explicitly because of the death penalty. Even beyond how inept as a player I may or may not be, I die to latency or desync often enough to terminate my goals for further XP progression. So now that character is a speed runner, repurposed to farm 76 and 77 maps rapidly in order to sell 78's, with no regard for the death penalty whatsoever.

Like I said already. I played to 99 w/ under 30 fps normally and on a laptop that averaged probably 15. Getting to 95 means it's just as likely you could get to 100, anything after 85 is when the death penalty starts costing hours. If you really have 6 months to a year on that same toon to get to 95, well I guess I'm wrong but after that much time why would you just give up suddenly anyways?

"

Yes, I got to level 95 precisely because I cannot avoid things that might kill me. Obviously, all of the players at level 95 can get there by dieing constantly. :rolleyes:

You know, there's a league for people who never die, or aim to never die. It's called hardcore (or bloodlines). I do play with that goal in small amounts (namely, season races). But my preference is standard, because I recognize that I will die every now and then. In fact I would find the game incredibly boring if I couldn't die or built my character in a way to completely avoid any possibility of death.

This is the weakest and more rehashed response in this thread. The game is HC in general, made by people who enjoyed playing HC leagues. They want death to matter and it could very well be that they designed it perfectly in their eyes that even SC leagues end up being HC at a certain point. Transitioning once SC players into a HC player mindset. Standard isn't casual mode, it means you don't move to another league on death, not that death shouldn't matter.

"

What's wrong with a sliding scale based on level? It's not complicated at all to use a formula that incorporates character level instead of blanket 10%. Alternatively they could cap the 10% penalty at a fixed amount of XP loss, which isn't complicated to do either.

If the XP penalty is less prohibitive to 90+ leveling, it will indirectly mitigate the dominant strategy of players with IIR/IIQ/maxDPS throwing themselves at content without regard for death, because reaching higher levels may become more viable for enough builds, geographic regions, and player skill levels, such that it impacts goal setting on a broad scale.

Because a death at 90 should be punished more than one at 60. You've had 30 skill points, access to all end game gear and 30 levels of grinding to acquire wealth to get said gear. If it was equaled out purely on a time thing, so deaths always resulted in you losing 20 mins of play time, it becomes meaningless. If it scales up exponentially then we end up in this same spot every time. As eventually there will come a point where someone in your spot cannot level, instead of it being 95, it's 99 and we're back in this same discussion. So explain to me actual methods where it's painful enough to stop people from leveling but not enough that it doesn't stop people from leveling. I fail to see what system suggested possible fulfils this design goal.

"

If GGG hasn't considered or focused on the fairness of the death penalty for players in their 90s, it just reinforces the importance of this feedback thread. As the game becomes easier (more DPS/mitigation in the skill tree, stronger gear, crafting, greater access to high level content (easier map return, 76 zones from daily masters and zana), and time (year+ of leveling), more players are reaching the levels now where a blanket 10% XP penalty negatively affects goal setting and player satisfaction.

You guys keep talking as if you're the majority. It's you and levy vs goetz and me, sometimes a couple people drop in to give a quick opinion but this isn't the community outraged. It's a few people in a few situations that are unhappy. The majority of the community goes to 70-85 then starts a new character. I have MANY friends like this and see it across a few guilds I interact with normally. Shit, I'm an outsider to most of these people because I get to high 80s usually. I played the first week of torment then took a month off, upon returned I found out I had the 2nd highest toon in torment from my guild still, a guild with like 60 people in it. The majority of people don't give a shit about the death penalty at 90+ as they'll almost never get there. When they do they just understand they shouldn't die. I watched my roommate go through this very thing and my other friend. They don't blame the penalty for their lack of progression, they blame their play, and they know it. Even when I give tips I'm halted with repeating "I know."

"

Moosifer wrote:

90+ is optional and should always be looked upon as such. You guys blatantly ignore this argument and push forward as if a mid-90's play experience should be as balanced as someone in their 70s. Unless GGG plans to forego their philosophy that 100 should be a grind, this will not happen. I also suspect at that point is when they start catering to casuals rather than HC players and will be the beginning of the end.

First, the whole game is optional. Second, getting to 100 is a significant grind with or without a death penalty (which is not to say that I want it removed, but I do want a lower cap on the penalty at higher levels). Third, HC players have HC leagues.

First, if you don't like the death penalty then don't play. (See how annoying that response is?)
Second, that's my exact point which is why I've said multiple times you guys should be more frustrated with the exp penalty rather than the death one.
Third, HC game with HC principles doesn't need permadeath to be HC. As said multiple times as well, SC league doesn't mean casual mode. Casual mode would have much looser item drops, crafting rolls, maps would be easier, exp penalty much lighter, grind to 100 much easier and be called D3. Go play that if you want a casual game.

"

Finally, and once again, stop trying to refute/dismiss feedback/suggestions based on what you perceive GGG's position to be. It's not relevant, useful, or constructive. Argue the viability of a suggestion based on its own merits, how it affects you or how you think it will affect the player base. If we all based arguments on whether or not we thought GGG would approve we would be failing to provide course-changing feedback when it's due.

I always take GGG's position in mind because it's their vision that put this together. They are very firm on their philosophies and what they want this game to become. The reason I do this is because I love that they are doing it. Too often people bend at the will of any unruly mob for a payday and we end up with a shitty product because people don't know what the fuck they want. Look at the original D3, that's what people claimed they wanted. A hard game with easy trade but also a grind, it was a fucking mess. The famous "we double it" line was praised by some, finally a hard game built for HC players.

"

Really, that's your argument? That, essentially, I'm a filthy casual who should go away or go back to d3?

If PoE was exclusively built for guys like you we probably wouldn't have HC leagues or race seasons (based on you having 0 characters in HC leagues and 11 lifetime season points, despite a join date of 2012). To compare, I have a 95, 92, 90, 83, and 81, at one point I had two characters in the top 10 ladder for US-STD open pvp, and I have participated at least to some degree in 8/11 race seasons. But who cares? Ultimately, this line of discussion is quite silly. PoE has multiple leagues and is more than capable of attracting and satisfying players on different ends of the HC/casual spectrum.

No, you're saying exclusively for ME, not people like me. I'm a degree on the HC spectrum. I'm on the end of people who experiment with builds constantly and I hate being pigeonholed into OP defensive mechanics to make them work, which is why I don't play HC. I don't play races because my least favorite part of making a new toon is leveling them up to maps, which races are this. I actually have a demigod from a CB week race (which I sold but there's many people who can confirm as it's the same time I got active on the forums), also had a 3 week races in which I was top 10 until dying in the last 2-3 days. I get through normal in 2-3 hours normally, if I practiced for racing I'm confident I could do well, maybe not be top of the ladder good but for sure could be in the mix of things. It's just extremely boring to me and I don't give a shit about alt art. Also I've tried to get into PVP but I'm just not skilled enough to stand with people who spend all their time in that realm, I hate doing cookie cutter build so I'm tried to compete against better players using the best builds when I'm trying to use off brand shit, I just end up stomping on newer players playing powerful builds, not fun for anyone involved.

So, glad I have to deal with this shit, love when someone tries to call me out for not being HC enough for not playing HC.

Also my point wasn't on general hardcoreness. My point was if you want to play a game which revolves around getting to capped lvl and isn't punishing in these situations then play the plethora of games out there designed for that crowd, stop trying to make this one into them. This game has it's niche and doesn't have the resources to compete with those. It's why most MMOs suck, because they're all compared to WoW. Right now POE is in a stand alone spot where it can't be directly compared to any other game, this is excellent, but the majority of this forum wants that to change and wants it to be like the rest of the crowd, just to be lost and forgotten. It doesn't make any sense to me.

Finally, I love how you devoted a large chunk of your reply to my 1 sentence saying 10% doesn't cost 70 ex but ignored the main reason of my reply on your wild claims on ways GGG has radically changed their design philosophies.

"

Vhlad wrote:

2. Some players aren't as skilled or consistently attentive as HvC.

Some players are not as deserving of level 100 as HvC.

Jesus I didn't even get the "removed by support" post, they just took the entire fucker down didn't they? Glad that didn't take 20 minutes to write out or anything... =/

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Vhlad wrote:

2. Some players aren't as skilled or consistently attentive as HvC.

Some players are not as deserving of level 100 as HvC.

Yeah, the filthy casuals who should go play d3, right?

I guess as long as some players keep giving GGG 1000's of dollars, GGG won't need to utilize a league or two to attract/retain/satisfy a broad/casual audience.

"

Vhlad wrote:

Yeah, the filthy casuals who should go play d3, right?

I guess as long as some players keep giving GGG 1000's of dollars, GGG won't need to utilize a league or two to attract/retain/satisfy a broad/casual audience.

...because there's a big banner on the front page promising everyone can get to 100 except those few who are undeserving.