Remove xp penalty's from death

Simply put, the devs have made no changes to the game to work around desync. Act 3x is basically an entire addition to the game that only made desync more of a problem.

So if you're really trying to convince the devs of changing the death penalty based off an argument revolving around desync, rage all you want, I highly doubt you'll see change.

There's no reason to even write out long replies. You've been playing this game long enough to know what I'm saying is true. So rage if you'd like I don't think basing your arguments on desync will get you far though.

edit: and scrotie, I'm totally with you. I think once you push into optional content it should be brutal and unforgiving. That's why I like the design of atziri. While it's purely a skill fight, you get almost nothing if you can't complete it and it's very much an all or nothing situation. I think higher levels should be similar. 10% still makes it possibly if the person refuses to give up but I wouldn't protest even a 100% exp penalty after like 95.

@ Moos "There's no reason to even write out long replies. You've been playing this game long enough to know what I'm saying is true. So rage if you'd like I don't think basing your arguments on desync will get you far though."

I bet you there was a person just like you in the thread that was started to put "Perma Allocation" into the game.
Yes, GGG might be smart, but it doesn't mean they have thought of everything.

THEY NEED US!! We're the people on the front line, playing the game they made every day. We are inside the world they created, so of course were going to see more then what GGG can see.

GGG doesn't read peoples minds. They need us to bring up suggestions so they can continue to make a better game.

So you know what? I don't care if you keep on disagreeing Moos, the purpose of this forum is to bridge the gap between the company and the community.

I wrote where I stand, gave several arguments, and suggestions on how to improve this.

Trying to find faults in the game, imbalances, easter eggs, QoL increases, so we can evolve into a greater game that GGG alone wouldn't have been able to create.

Like GGG, you made 7 Masters, but you can only have 4 max in your hideout. So when I help people with my dailies, I have do 3 masters, then dismiss them, run to each town, and invite the remaining 3, just to go back to my hideout to run them.

I don't think GGG thought of how much random waiting / running around this would cause. So maybe they will allow you to get the master's daily quest from the Crafting Benches. So you don't have to keep swapping masters.

PS Moos > If they increase the death penalty for levels 95+ you know whats going to happen? People are just going to continue doing easy non challenging content for xp. Will be a lot less fun, but you won't die, and you will get to 100 eventually. Thats the way the game is now, and I don't like it.

Allow players to have fun with the mapping system at higher levels. The times when you are at 0% are so few and far between, that you wouldnt be able to do any risky maps from the entire grind from 95-100. Because in this game, the reward is NOT worth the risk. 20% more iiq isn't guarenteeing you anything. You can find a shavs running docks, or you can find a shavs in a 150% iiq map. So really, the way loot is in this game, the reward of doing hard mods is only personal. Its all RNG. So a person doing a pack size map can get any item that a person doing a crazy RIP 150% iiq map. So that means hard mods are completly optional I guess. Cause you can (and they want you) to get to 100 just using pack size.

I said (They want you to) because its true. If they didn't want you to just do pack size maps, they can lessen the xp penalty at 95+ to give people more motivation to challenge themself. But as it stands, its pointless to challenge yourself because doing 1 tough map, and dying, takes away the past 50 or so "Easy" Maps you have done.

So why should ANYone do hard maps until your out of the grasp of the XP Penalty.
I won't give GGG the satisfaction of taking 5 hours away from my life.

Lower the xp penalty > Increase number of fun maps players are comfortable running.
Lower the xp penalty > Increases the diversity of players running harder end game maps.

Because right now, as the current Loot System sits, the Risk of a hard map, is NOT EVEN WORTH the reward. While leveling, me and several friends were all on the same page. Don't do stupid shit. Even though the "Stupid Shit" is the "Fun Shit". So we had to wait until we hit 100 before we could any fun maps.

Currently there is NO reward. All rewards can be obtained at any map regardless of mods.

The more I think about it, the more I'd like to see an xp penalty of 100%/(100-clvl). That's even more brutal for 91 and up, same for 90, and actually less for players in their 80s.

@Goatz
"Either way GGG will always have a harsh penalty on death, someone will always find the system unfair due to X or Y. This is why it isn't necessary to reduce it, you aren't satisfying anyone by doing so, those that want it removed won't be happy and those that want it to stay the same aren't happy."

Woah... if only there was a way to tune the xp penalty, while being fair to all parties..

Oh YEa!! COMPROMISE!

See with Goatz and Moos, everyones ideas are stupid. Well then think of a solution that will make you and I both happy. Thats compromise, and thats how the world goes round.

You telling me it should stay the same, is only caring about your point of view. So after going back and forth in my own head. I found a good compromise to be either lowering the xp penalty to a set number of xp instead of a percentage, or allowing a person to turn off xp gain/loss for a fun map, to give the person a break from packsize mapping without losing xp.

Levy my point talking with you stands from earlier. You aren't the target market, you aren't the average player and I fail to see how your feedback should be taken with more than a grain of salt.

With your little PA accusation, my personal stance was I don't give a shit as I'm mostly a solo player. I never play in public parties and even without PA my friend and I would save good drops for whoever they dropped for. I personally preferred the more cutthroat feel that came with D2 but that also allowed you to hostile someone on the spot, so having one without the other feels lacking. But I hated D3's loot system not even allowing you to see what dropped for the other person. But GGG's philosophy was they wanted FFA loot, it's their game and after a majority outcry they changed.

You look at this thread and think it's popular but if you review it, it's basically the same 5-6 people going back and forth. Shit, I bet there's 2-3 pages of you basically just bumping it telling someone they had a good point while adding nothing to the conversation. Now we have 2-3 pages of rex saying we haven't addressed previous points adequately. There's a couple people here and there that stop in to agree or disagree but there's no strong showing in this thread towards either side of the issue, it's a few people driving the thread forward.

You're a minority. It's clear to see. Notice how faceless people overwhelm the forums to complain about desync and even trade for that matter, yet there's very little on the death penalty. If you can come up with a death penalty that fits similar to our current one, fits GGG's philosophies on death and high level grind but also satisfies your needs, then feel free to suggest it. So far it's a laundry list of things that radically shift the game away from where the devs have placed it, as if it wasn't put there on purpose.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

The more I think about it, the more I'd like to see an xp penalty of 100%/(100-clvl). That's even more brutal for 91 and up, same for 90, and actually less for players in their 80s.

If it started in merci or something. This would be brutal in cruel for someone starting out and struggling in act 3. Would effectively stop their progress completely.

edit: Rather than adding a new reply

"

levy42088 wrote:

See with Goatz and Moos, everyones ideas are stupid. Well then think of a solution that will make you and I both happy. Thats compromise, and thats how the world goes round.

I've never once even implied any of the ideas are stupid. I've given rational explanations to why each idea brought up doesn't make sense in the current game or wouldn't work. I've put more effort into shooting down ideas and half of the ideas presented. I mean shit, you gave a list of things, I gave answers to why each don't fit and you haven't explain where I'm wrong. Your latest line of argument is it should happen because people want it, where are these people? Who are we compromising for? We're lowering the exp penalty for a guy who doesn't want to play a character under lvl 100? We're adjusting the entire system to avoid a few desync deaths? We're changing the system because people want to death zerg hard maps rather than properly prepare for them?

"

Moosifer wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

The more I think about it, the more I'd like to see an xp penalty of 100%/(100-clvl). That's even more brutal for 91 and up, same for 90, and actually less for players in their 80s.

If it started in merci or something. This would be brutal in cruel for someone starting out and struggling in act 3. Would effectively stop their progress completely.

?

100%/(100-60)=100%/40=2.5%. For clvl 60.

erm, read it too quickly, missed the 100/ part. lol

"

levy42088 wrote:

Yes, GGG might be smart, but it doesn't mean they have thought of everything.

THEY NEED US!! We're the people on the front line, playing the game they made every day. We are inside the world they created, so of course were going to see more then what GGG can see.

GGG doesn't read peoples minds. They need us to bring up suggestions so they can continue to make a better game.

So you know what? I don't care if you keep on disagreeing Moos, the purpose of this forum is to bridge the gap between the company and the community.

I wrote where I stand, gave several arguments, and suggestions on how to improve this.

Trying to find faults in the game, imbalances, easter eggs, QoL increases, so we can evolve into a greater game that GGG alone wouldn't have been able to create.

Exactly.

The discussion on altering death penalty/getting to high levels is legitimate, even if you believe nothing should be changed. We're giving feedback. I respect those who disagree, but the reason people get so argumentative is the implied message "your feedback is wrong because you're not as good at the game as me" - especially when a significant portion of the community is giving similar feedback or has similar opinions (I'm especially infuriated at the repeated conspiracy mongering that desync has been made up by bad players in order to justify our bad builds that actually use the skill tree as it was designed and get DPS nodes. But that's a topic for another thread).

We can disagree on the specifics of where game mechanics should fall in terms of balancing difficulty, long-term replayability, rewarding effort/committment, incentivizing build optimization and diversity, etc. but simply having a disagreement on those points doesn't automatically invalidate our arguments, our loyalty to a vision of what PoE should be, or our integrity as players who don't want everything handed to us on a silver platter. This is not a black and white discussion; there are areas of compromise and moderation where various people's opinions fall, and almost nothing I've seen stated in this thread on either side would ACTUALLY lead to a slippery slope and eventual death of PoE. This is all frenzied hyperbole.

why would i want to play a game which i cant lose ?

You guys seem to be mistaken thinking that every single suggestion needs compromised. It doesn't if GGG "compromised" on every single issue could just keep "compromising" until it isn't the game GGG wants to make, at that point what does any of this accomplish?

I also love it when people misquote my name and cherry pick lines out of my statements. Stop doing that please.

What moo said here fits the conversation well:

"

I've never once even implied any of the ideas are stupid. I've given rational explanations to why each idea brought up doesn't make sense in the current game or wouldn't work. I've put more effort into shooting down ideas and half of the ideas presented. I mean shit, you gave a list of things, I gave answers to why each don't fit and you haven't explain where I'm wrong. Your latest line of argument is it should happen because people want it, where are these people? Who are we compromising for? We're lowering the exp penalty for a guy who doesn't want to play a character under lvl 100? We're adjusting the entire system to avoid a few desync deaths? We're changing the system because people want to death zerg hard maps rather than properly prepare for them?

Disagreeing or trying to prove why it doesn't work with GGG's principles doesn't mean your comments are stupid.