Remove xp penalty's from death

"

Antnee wrote:

"

TheAnuhart wrote:

The guy running solo, doing some sketchy mods, on a build that needs to play the fight as it was designed, or die, is the 4%.

Do we really dismiss the 4% concerns over desync v XP penalty?

Yes, absolutely. 100%. Affirmative. Resounding yes.

If we're talking about changing the entirety of the game to alleviate the feels of a small minority, I without question reject that notion.

If you mean remove XP penalty, that's not what I'm suggesting or wanting. Even though the thread is titled such, I thought the thread had moved on and I was responding to nothing else than Scroties figures where indeed there was a small minority cited.

My post was why that minority is such and I think it is relevant.

Personally, I have characters with hundreds of deaths, I have characters that go out there with full expectations that there will be several deaths this session, I have high level characters with 0 deaths, I have a lvl 100 with a few deaths, and another due very soon, my 3rd 100 I aim to have 0 deaths.

The deathless 100 will be such because it was a boring ass build that was built to negate the affects of desync.

I speak from the experience of these vastly varying characters when I say the XP penalty doesn't work and that a flat % can never work. As Moosifer said earlier, it's likely by design that there effectively is no penalty for the first ~85 levels, a fair penalty for ~5 levels and a ridiculously harsh penalty for ~10 levels (debatable numbers).

I think that's wrong, I think the design is flawed, I think the penalty should be meaningful earlier and be less harsh later on, the window of 'fair and meaningful' penalty be for the majority of the levels from 100 down to, say 40. Pre 40 maybe it can be pointless, still. This can only be done with a penalty that isn't just a flat %.

"

I speak from the experience of these vastly varying characters when I say the XP penalty doesn't work and that a flat % can never work. As Moosifer said earlier, it's likely by design that there effectively is no penalty for the first ~85 levels, a fair penalty for ~5 levels and a ridiculously harsh penalty for ~10 levels (debatable numbers).

How does it not work when that has been the implementation in the game for so long. How can you have almost 3 level 100 characters and the XP penalty not work?

Simply because it is not fair is not a valid argument, you as well as others are testament to getting to level 100 is a possibility, why should the game have the penalty for death reduced\removed, at higher or any level when it is both currently possible and very much practical to reach level 100.

Why keep asking questions that have already been answered dozens of times?

"

Antnee wrote:

If we're talking about changing the entirety of the game to alleviate the feels of a small minority, I without question reject that notion.

No offense, but I really hate this mentality. I definitely feel it is something which should be questioned.

Actually, the real issues here have nothing to do with majorities. Only a betty small minority even have characters level 90+. I feel I was wrong using that particular rhetorical technique.

The real issue is as I said earlier: what level 100 means to people. Some view it as an end of a road, something one should expect if one is willing to grind it out. Others view it as an honour, something which requires truly exceptional performance and thus potentially, or even usually, withheld from those who pursue it.

Desync really isn't a factor between these two positions. If you believe in grinding to 100 then the current penalty would seem absurdly high, regardless of desync. If you believe it's an honour, then you wouldn't be willing to let people in using desync as an excuse.

-----------------------

To answer Anuhart, there definitely should be penalty harshness tiering. Getting level 100 should be an astounding accomplishment requiring hours upon hours of deathless play; there isn't really a similar expectation of level 90. The system truly works best when each level's penalty is more devastating than the level before.

That is just one function of the death penalty, however. The other one is as a disincentive to zergy play throughout all parts of the game. I feel this isn't done particularly well, especially at low levels and/or against a loot-centric mindset which doesn't care much about gaining levels. In terms of keeping 100s legit, the current penalty seems ok, if perhaps a tad overtuned; in terms of whole-game anti-zerg disincentive, the penalty is a joke.

"

AlbinosaurusRex wrote:

Why keep asking questions that have already been answered dozens of times?

Because he makes statements that need questions to be asked, it may be similar to nature of those that have already been discussed, but if he can make a statement similar to one already mentioned why can't I ask a question similar? It must be that I oppose this change therefore I am not allowed to post replies in this thread. Please get off your high horse and kindly let others submit post without questioning every action.

You have repeated so many things time and time again in this thread and at this point the only argument you have to make for yourself is those that argue against you are repeating themselves and or are trolls.

Why bother responding to this thread when you yourself have not added anything new to the conversation in such a long time?

Please for the love of all that is holy wait for act 4, wait to see what alternative endgame will be added, wait to see what changes the game provides. This thread has not had any breath of new words in such a long time by you simply replying you wish to keep a thread that needs to be put on suspension until such a time that there is something new to add.

"

goetzjam wrote:

"

I speak from the experience of these vastly varying characters when I say the XP penalty doesn't work and that a flat % can never work. As Moosifer said earlier, it's likely by design that there effectively is no penalty for the first ~85 levels, a fair penalty for ~5 levels and a ridiculously harsh penalty for ~10 levels (debatable numbers).

How does it not work when that has been the implementation in the game for so long. How can you have almost 3 level 100 characters and the XP penalty not work?

Simply because it is not fair is not a valid argument, you as well as others are testament to getting to level 100 is a possibility, why should the game have the penalty for death reduced\removed, at higher or any level when it is both currently possible and very much practical to reach level 100.

This will be the only time I respond to you.

For some unfathomable reason, you told me to 'STFU @TheAnuhart' in Havoc's stream chat yesterday.
It made no sense, there was no reason for you to behave that way, nothing I'd said, it painted a picture of you and I don't wish to converse with you at all.

Thanks.

"

AlbinosaurusRex wrote:

I don't know why you guys think that I should be the one to repeat why your arguments don't hold up, when every single point has been countered and recountered somewhere in the last 50+ pages. Then you accuse me of ignoring posts? Laughable.

We don't need an argument to keep the status quo, you know this.

So bring up your points which haven't been countered and I'll either find quotes that you've ignored or answer them now.

@anuhart - With the first point, if you're on the fence whether or not you can handle piety in the first place, you're better off just skipping her. There's very little to gain but at higher levels a ton to lose. On my 99 journey to I knew I could take out all bosses 95% of the time, but that 5% meant hell. So I stopped doing courtyard bosses and dom. Courtyard ones because it was before they nerfed the leap slammer's damage back down and he could one shot me with 5.5k life on a no damage mod map. So I don't think it's fair to bring optional situations into a meta shift as the bosses are skippable therefore intentional difficult.

"

TheAnuhart wrote:

I think that's wrong, I think the design is flawed, I think the penalty should be meaningful earlier and be less harsh later on, the window of 'fair and meaningful' penalty be for the majority of the levels from 100 down to, say 40. Pre 40 maybe it can be pointless, still. This can only be done with a penalty that isn't just a flat %.

As for this, I partially agree. I'd like the sweet spot to be a little wider but the other two ends I like. I just don't know how you balance this without a complicated system. Which in the end I much rather punish high lvl play, through an easy to understand but harsh punishment later on. Than newer players with a system that they don't naturally know when things change and how they scale.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Antnee wrote:

If we're talking about changing the entirety of the game to alleviate the feels of a small minority, I without question reject that notion.

No offense, but I really hate this mentality. I definitely feel it is something which should be questioned.

Actually, the real issues here have nothing to do with majorities. Only a betty small minority even have characters level 90+. I feel I was wrong using that particular rhetorical technique.

The real issue is as I said earlier: what level 100 means to people. Some view it as an end of a road, something one should expect if one is willing to grind it out. Others view it as an honour, something which requires truly exceptional performance and thus potentially, or even usually, withheld from those who pursue it.

Desync really isn't a factor between these two positions. If you believe in grinding to 100 then the current penalty would seem absurdly high, regardless of desync. If you believe it's an honour, then you wouldn't be willing to let people in using desync as an excuse.

The real issue has to do with a very few vocal minority or people jumping on the bandwagon in order to make the game even easier then it is. Using any excuse in the book in order to gain it.

It is clear those that want the penalty removed, adjusted, ect are using any tool at their disposal in order to try to make a point. We had long past the original intention of this post to completely remove it because of deaths out of peoples control, people focused on level 100 then stated it is impossible for some people to reach level 100 with the current penalty. I do agree with that statement, you must have skill, currency, time, patience and above all willingness to see it through.

I'll restate this, getting to level 100 is completely and utterly optional, no content is locked based on character level (past level 60) Therefore if some players cannot reach level 85, 90 or even 100 that is not a design flaw or problem with the game, that is simply how the game is designed. The game design shouldn't be changed in order to open these doors to a higher number of players. People have mentioned that when the penalty was reduced in the past most players weren't getting past level 80, which I find both interesting and upsetting. You can view the current penalty as a gateway, that if reduced will increase the amount of characters above level 90, not something this game needs.

There are 2188 characters in torment level 91 and above, to me that means the penalty is working as intended.

"

Moosifer wrote:

Courtyard ones because it was before they nerfed the leap slammer's damage back down and he could one shot me with 5.5k life on a no damage mod map.

LMAO, the fucker one shot me with over 8k life while still being stood the other side of the centre piece on the client.

He got a special mention in my 'lvl 99 ragequit' thread along with colossal bonestalkers.
Both received the quite appropriate nerf hammer.

@Moosifer,

You do need an argument for preserving the status quo because the current design system clashes with itself--that's what the entire thread is about.

@Goetzjam,

You can feel that way if you want to, but there is no reason for it to be so.

---

You can't try to say that unfair deaths don't constitute an argument, because that is what the argument is. If you believe otherwise, it's up to you to show how it isn't. The reason the argument is legitimate was established on the first page.

But since you guys don't want to admit that there are many unavoidable deaths, there's no reason to take your position seriously.