Remove xp penalty's from death

"

goetzjam wrote:

"

Moosifer wrote:

"

AlbinosaurusRex wrote:

Then again, I fully suspect you've gone full troll mode because all you've done is try to get a rise out of people at this point. You have no intention of winning any arguments, just trying to piss people off.

That is pretty much his intentions in every thread not just this one.

Nice bit of hypocrisy there. +1

@rex you argue to change so many things about this game that many of us so love and enjoy. I argue for the most part that the core design of the game is why we play it, you on the other hand seem to argue against that.

I've said this before why do you argue for changing so many things about this game we so enjoy? Why not play something else, your arguements to this point boil down to:

"ive already told you"

"status quo must explain why its fine"

"trolls"

"hypocrisy"

Had you anything of any value to say you would have said it, instead you simply bump this thread with ignorant comments like above. Please stop you don't make your point look any stronger you are actually doing quite the opposite.

Sigh...

Let's review burden of proof.

There is a difference between saying "I believe X is true" and "I do not believe X is false." The first is saying you believe actively and thus supporting evidence is required. The second is saying you have not seen convincing evidence to disprove X, while not necessarily believing X is true, either. Supporting evidence is not required for the latter position; the burden of proof is on belief, not on skepticism.

Wanting to change the status quo always requires active belief. We can implement X if we know it is true; we will not implement it simply because we do not know that it is false.

No one here is running a skepticism play. We are all saying we have beliefs, active beliefs which color our perspective of this issue. To the extent each of us uses these beliefs in our argument, to the same extent we have a burden of proof to get others to believe with us. Some of us have been relying on active belief more than others, with some it is vital to their argument while it isn't with others, but everyone has done it some.

Don't be jerks, people.

"

goetzjam wrote:

@rex you argue to change so many things about this game that many of us so love and enjoy. I argue for the most part that the core design of the game is why we play it, you on the other hand seem to argue against that.

Understanding that the game will--and must--evolve is crucial here. If you think it should remain in the same state indefinitely (as you do), you are in no position to talk about game health, because games that stagnate, die.

"

I've said this before why do you argue for changing so many things about this game we so enjoy? Why not play something else, your arguements to this point boil down to:

"ive already told you"

"status quo must explain why its fine"

"trolls"

"hypocrisy"

Bolded point is the important one. It's been discussed to death, yet still you repeat the same questions expecting different answers. Just go back and read the answers already given. Not sure why that's so hard for you.

Underlined parts are just real talk--nothing to do with the argument.

As for status quo, the argument against it has been made, and saying "it's fine" is not a counter-argument. The reasons why it's "fine" need to be there, and this thread exists because those reasons don't hold up in reality.

And for you specifically, Goetz, "you don't like this game" is not only a false claim that presumes (falsely) on my opinions/views/feeling about the game, it isn't an argument either.

"

Had you anything of any value to say you would have said it, instead you simply bump this thread with ignorant comments like above. Please stop you don't make your point look any stronger you are actually doing quite the opposite.

If only you could comprehend irony.

Rex we can say literally the same things to you. If you think there is something we are specifically missing that we can't refute then bring it forward. You're purposely ignoring my attempts to further the discussion rather than this circlejerk of both sides saying neither is proving anything.

I've only been on the defensive. I'm not going to write a long post on why things should stay the same. Point out even 3 of the strongest arguments that you think we haven't addressed properly.

"

Moosifer wrote:

"

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.

The sweet spot depends not just on the game but on the player too.

Someone who plays 5 hours a week, a death penalty that costs 30 minutes wipes out 20% of their weekly playtime accounting for the time taken to recoup losses. That's pretty harsh, probably past that person's sweet spot. However, someone who plays 30 hours per week loses less than 5% of their weekly time on each death, relatively minor in comparison. For one person it's probably above their sweet spot, for the other person it's beneath their sweet spot.

Point being, you can't hit the sweet spot because it doesn't actually exist. A sweet spot for you exists. A sweet spot for everyone doesn't exist. We can define for whom we want to hit the sweet spot, but once we've defined that group, what do we do with the people outside of it? Send them to Hardcore mode?

@Albino: I hope you know I wasn't ragging on you before out of spite or to troll you, but because you've been around long enough that I know you're capable of better feedback than as seen in this thread. I'll admit some fallacy on my behalf, though--I skipped the middle of this thread. Maybe you did post well reasoned replies already? I don't know, and I don't really care to search through fifty some pages of this to find out. What I have seen, however, is several attempts to interject points brought up since early on this thread, and dismissive "nah"s in response.

If you feel you have adequately rebutted the "status quo", could you do me a favor and briefly restate them?

-How are deaths unavoidable?
-How can you explain level 100 in HC?
-Should all builds be capable of reaching 100?
-If not, is it death penalty that prevents them?
-What other goals might a player have that death penalty might interfere with (by design)?
-Does death penalty successfully realize it's purpose?

"

PolarisOrbit wrote:

"

Moosifer wrote:

"

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.

The sweet spot depends not just on the game but on the player too.

Someone who plays 5 hours a week, a death penalty that costs 30 minutes wipes out 20% of their weekly playtime accounting for the time taken to recoup losses. That's pretty harsh, probably past that person's sweet spot. However, someone who plays 30 hours per week loses less than 5% of their weekly time on each death, relatively minor in comparison. For one person it's probably above their sweet spot, for the other person it's beneath their sweet spot.

Point being, you can't hit the sweet spot because it doesn't actually exist. A sweet spot for you exists. A sweet spot for everyone doesn't exist. We can define for whom we want to hit the sweet spot, but once we've defined that group, what do we do with the people outside of it? Send them to Hardcore mode?

You can't simply cater the game to everyones wants and expectations, what you can however do is stay true to your principle.

Those people you mention that only play an hour per week are not the same people in this thread complaining to get the penalty reduced or removed. As it has been very clear in this thread 85+ is where it really matters and idk about you, but a very casual player playing 1 hour a day isn't going to reach level 85 very quickly nor are they very likely to complain about never getting 100, it is the players fault they don't have more time to play. Thing is plenty of games cater to those will that few hours to play a week, however PoE is not, by choosing to play that game you give up your right to complain about such penalty. We are all playing GGG's designed PoE, this is not a kickstarter or early access game where they want to change everything the community (or in this case) a few vocal people are complaining about. If GGG were to do that they would be catering to a whole different crowd then those defending the penality in this thread and to those that have supported GGG from Day 1.

Remove the incentive to build a well balanced character because of the miniscule amounts of 'unavoidable' deaths someone will have? Sounds like a great idea :3 You guys should become game designers.

On death: Deletes your system 32