Remove xp penalty's from death

"

Desync exists, do not deny it or try to minimize the negative effect it has on gameplay.

Check out my signature, check out top streamers by all means try to prove that the vast majority of deaths in PoE have everything to do with desync and have nothing to do with the player, build, defenses, ect. How can so many people achieve what you cannot? We are all playing the same game right?

"

The penalty for death isnt that bad until you hit level 80+ (allot of people argue it really dosnt get bad until 85-90+, but i dont have the hours and hours each day to endlessly grind. So i would imagine for the more casual gamer, they really start to see xp become precious around level 80). After that, each death really sets you back/frustrates you, especially when it's a desync death. Obviously the higher in level you manage to get past that, the more painful and irritating death will become.

This game does not and has not ever catered to casuals, the moment that GGG changes the design, penalties, or mechanics in order to do such is the moment GGG fails as a company.

"

Because dying to desync isnt something the players have -any- control over, i suggested they turn off the xp penalty altogether until (or if ever) they manage to fix it. If that's an option they refuse to choose, then there have been several alternatives presented:

This statement is both false and complete bullshit, you are going to try and "sum" up this thread with this statement just shows how truly ignorant you are to the situation. If you think desync happens all the time and every single instance is uncontrollable how do we have ANY characters at level 100 in softcore leagues, let alone level 100 characters in HC leagues.

You are inline with the OP's original intention for the thread, however after that argument of desync deaths was abandoned and switched to getting to level 100 and how harsh the penality is to get there.

"

1. Give us the choice to pay the death fee as xp (as it stands now) or in alt/trans orbs (this would enable the more casual gamer to get more from the game, give another sink for said currencies, and give the current map system more longevity)

The cost for death at higher levels would need to scale and scale hard, it should almost cost MORE in terms of currency to die and pay rather then pay the XP penalty because of the time factor not counted for.

"

2. Instead of outright loosing 10% of gained xp, a death puts you on a 1-hour timer where further xp gain is reduced by 50%. Dying again before the hour is up simply resets the timer. Ideally this timer would still be in effect even if that particular character is logged out, giving the player the motivation they might need to start making another character-build, or taking a break from the game and get stuff done offline, ect.

So free pass on death just don't play for XX:XX amount of time, this is a very poor suggestions, among the worst already mentioned in the thread before.

"

3. Vastly improve the map system. This means a much wider variety of higher-level maps (levels 75-85 for starters) and a significant (say..oh at least 25%) increase in map drops across the board. So not only would players have a greater amount of those higher-level maps drop on their own, they'd have greater amounts of lower-level maps dropping, which they could turn into the higher level maps.

Act 4 is coming with an alternative endgame, we don't know what it will be only that it was mentioned. The map system is fine, it takes high investment and some luck in order to gain high level maps. It won't ever be as easy as it was in ambush to get high level maps.

"

4. Move player and monster positioning-trust from the server to the client (though i'm not sure they could do this "partial" trust move w/o leaving the rest of the game vulnerable to the hacking and exploitation that made them have everything server side to begin with)

Won't happen, please check out the desync thread in the dev manifesto on why. Of everything suggested this is the least likely thing to happen.

as for rex:

"

Yep, Wolf. That's basically the "tl;dr" of this whole thread. The opposition are basically either trolls or masochists, and either way don't represent the health of the game. Watch them try to argue against this too... pathetic and hilarious in one tidy bundle.

Yeah I mean disagree with wanting a change that isn't necessary makes us "trolls" You of all people have no right to talk about the health of the game, so please stop acting like you are PoE's savoir and everything you fight for has anymore ground to stand on then those that fight opposite of you.

"

Wolfarus wrote:

While it's nice to see the thread as prob one of the biggest in feedback, i'll agree it's been hijacked from it's intent a tad too much.

To the trolls or the "elites" that basically say "get gud noob, you die cuz you/your build is teh suckorz" grow up. Seriously.

I'll condense 50 pages into the basic point and idea's to solve this, again.

Desync exists, do not deny it or try to minimize the negative effect it has on gameplay.

Because the above exists, it can (and quite often will, especially if a part of your skillset is dependent on one of GGG's -own- fast move/attack skills) kill you. Dying because of something entirely out of your (the players) control is unacceptable and quite frankly a black spot on the game and the company that makes it.

+1

I hope nobody is foolish enough to take that kind of reply seriously. You see that combative tone in his arguments? He's not interested in the health of the game, and he thinks himself more "hardcore" than anyone else. The only thing I ever see him argue from--the only ground he tries to stand upon--is "I said what you said isn't true; therefore, what I said must be true." It's basically just a "no u" statement. I've seen it in many threads now across countless posts. Pure emotional drivel sprung from an undeserved superiority complex. And with no logical or quantitative backing whatsoever. Any quality of life change is seen as "casualization" of the game, and threatens his epeen because "exclusivity" should somehow be more important. He repeatedly speaks of the game being competitive, but that's only true in the two places where accessibility has no hold: Races and PvP. Everywhere else, it's bullshit.

The idea that more of the game could be accessible to more players is somehow bad for the game is ludicrous. Nobody is asking for a free pass to the top--merely to stop getting kicked in the testicles during the climb.

"This game doesn't cater to casuals." Yeah, that's a healthy outlook for an online game--the kind of game that depends more on casuals than any other type. It's also false, highly disrespectful, and precludes any assumed credibility. Appealing to a larger crowd is not how you define failure in a company--keeping that crowd out is. More people means more customers means more revenue. Simple not-so-secret to success.

And Goetz, disagreeing with me isn't why you're a troll. The way you present yourself is.

You know, a lot more could be gained from this thread if folks on either side started accurately representing the arguments of their opponents, or at least making the slightest effort to understand them. I'll do my best to summarize (briefly, because laziness):

Defenders of status quo:

Death should have a steep penalty in PoE, not only to keep the game in line with its original vision of difficulty and time commitment, but also to incentivize build optimization. The 10% level is painful, but can be dealt with through proper build design, map management, and playstyle. It's OK that only a few people will ever get to the highest levels - the game was designed that way.

Advocates for change:

While death should have a meaningful penalty, the current penalty for death is overly harsh at high levels (generally 90+). This not only represents a poor balance of risk/reward or effort/reward gameplay mechanics, it also punishes players who don't fit into a small number of highly defensive builds and disincentives build variety. The time and currency cost of death demands a level of time commitment from players who would otherwise want to devote themselves to leveling that is unrealistic - only so-called "no-lifers" can overcome this barrier. Additionally, freak deaths (especially, but not solely, from desync and connection problems) are common and skew the ability of players to craft (or even assess) viable builds that can avoid death - the current penalty exacerbates this problem.

Idiots on both sides:

I want to be level 100 yesterday.
I should be able to play with my eyes closed while simultaneously watching Dr. Who reruns. While we're at it, add "moonwalking" MTX.
If another player dies, it is because he/she is stupid. Similarly, if they have lives outside of PoE, they are inferior human beings.
I am more hardcore than you.
Change bad. Same good.
*Insert elementary school insult here*

As an advocate for altering the death penalty myself, my major purpose in this post is to illustrate that there is a reasoned argument for change besides simply whining that the game is too hard. While the OP gave this thread an extreme title that I do not agree with, there are intelligent changes that can be made to the current exp penalty system; some have been listed, and I encourage future posters to offer more ideas. You don't have to want or like them, but they exist as meaningful feedback - the purpose of this forum.

If the pro status quo crowd could argue why desync deaths should be acceptable without saying something equivalently stupid to "gid gud" or "use a cookie-cutter build," or "you can prevent any death," or even that desync isn't a problem in the first place, maybe there would be a reason to assume some validity in their stance.

So far, the closest they have come is that lvl 100 shouldn't be free. To that, those of us wanting changes have answered in two ways (sometimes both):

1. If you removed the penalty entirely, it's still a long way to 100. It takes A LOT of exp to get there even if you never die. It is still earned.

2. There are acceptable alternate penalties that would take the bite out of desync/unavoidable deaths. This means that death can still be punishing, but having the fair choice of which penalty to take is a compromise in dealing with unfair deaths. If this choice happens to also apply to fair deaths (those that are directly the player's fault), they are still paying a penalty, and it's better to err in favor of the player than against them (helps with player retention).

"

If the pro status quo crowd could argue why desync deaths should be acceptable without saying something equivalently stupid to "gid gud" or "use a cookie-cutter build," or "you can prevent any death," or even that desync isn't a problem in the first place, maybe there would be a reason to assume some validity in their stance.

Many people have made the argument for status quo being fine without those remarks, you simply choose to cherry pick the comments you read it seems. It is also a fact that some desync deaths can be avoided or planned around, it isn't limited to deaths from desync, all actions (deaths) in PoE could have went differently depending on player interaction, failure to see that simply means you have your eyes closed.

"

So far, the closest they have come is that lvl 100 shouldn't be free. To that, those of us wanting changes have answered in two ways (sometimes both):

1. If you removed the penalty entirely, it's still a long way to 100. It takes A LOT of exp to get there even if you never die. It is still earned.

If it was removed completely it is no longer something that is "earned". When you guarantee something you are no longer "earning" it, it is handed to you so as long as you put your "time in" This is not something GGG intended for all players to reach, nor is it necessary to do any content at all in the game. Even then toughest fights in PoE take no more then level 85-90, therefore there is no reason why those last 10-15 levels should be a freebie or guaranteed thing.

"

2. There are acceptable alternate penalties that would take the bite out of desync/unavoidable deaths. This means that death can still be punishing, but having the fair choice of which penalty to take is a compromise in dealing with unfair deaths. If this choice happens to also apply to fair deaths (those that are directly the player's fault), they are still paying a penalty, and it's better to err in favor of the player than against them (helps with player retention).

Every death is unavoidable in PoE, this was stated before, but it seems like we like to just repeat things over and over. There is always some other action as a player you could have done to avoid a death. Whether or not you agree with the playstyle of those actions is up to you, but then don't come here and complain about deaths.

Life isn't fair, nor should the death penalty in PoE be. The whole premice of PoE is that you are cast away, struggle for survival, how does removing the penalty fit that? You can't use player retention in every single argument you want changed, it makes them all look much weaker. Player retention should not, just like catering to causal players be GGG's primary concern. GGG's business model is one that is supported by people that invest heavily due to the game they have made, not a vision of a game that you have for PoE.

Please keep in mind that everything stated for the last 20 pages has simply been repeated and that this thread will go no where. Both sides refuse to let the other have the last word, this thread is better locked or patiently waiting a designers post, either way nothing new in this conversation for a very, very long time.

"

AlbinosaurusRex wrote:

If the pro status quo crowd could argue why desync deaths should be acceptable without saying something equivalently stupid to "gid gud" or "use a cookie-cutter build," or "you can prevent any death," or even that desync isn't a problem in the first place, maybe there would be a reason to assume some validity in their stance.

Only thing that bears repeating.

"

AlbinosaurusRex wrote:

"

AlbinosaurusRex wrote:

If the pro status quo crowd could argue why desync deaths should be acceptable without saying something equivalently stupid to "gid gud" or "use a cookie-cutter build," or "you can prevent any death," or even that desync isn't a problem in the first place, maybe there would be a reason to assume some validity in their stance.

Only thing that bears repeating.

Hardcore leagues exist.

"

AlbinosaurusRex wrote:

"

AlbinosaurusRex wrote:

If the pro status quo crowd could argue why desync deaths should be acceptable without saying something equivalently stupid to "gid gud" or "use a cookie-cutter build," or "you can prevent any death," or even that desync isn't a problem in the first place, maybe there would be a reason to assume some validity in their stance.

Only thing that bears repeating.

The validity of our stance rest solely on the design of the game that you are choosing to play.

But fuck it lets keep repeating useless shit over and over again so that this discussion never advances beyond this stage.

"

goetzjam wrote:

"

AlbinosaurusRex wrote:

"

AlbinosaurusRex wrote:

If the pro status quo crowd could argue why desync deaths should be acceptable without saying something equivalently stupid to "gid gud" or "use a cookie-cutter build," or "you can prevent any death," or even that desync isn't a problem in the first place, maybe there would be a reason to assume some validity in their stance.

Only thing that bears repeating.

The validity of our stance rest solely on the design of the game that you are choosing to play.

But fuck it lets keep repeating useless shit over and over again so that this discussion never advances beyond this stage.

Desync is part of that design, and its flaws are what this discussion is about. It is you who will not allow it to advance because you insist that those flaws are acceptable despite how they remove agency from the player when it occurs. Again, you just want to belittle other players so you can feel superior, and it has nothing to do with the game itself--only your own ego. That is why you cannot find meaningful grounds to base an argument on.