Remove xp penalty's from death

I will not approve of any form of lesser penalty for easier content, or greater penalty for harder content. Ever.

I will happily approve of two hard penalties for easy content, both lessened in harder content.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

No hard cap. Making 100 should be more difficult than it is now.

Don't you find it a bit disappointing that there's a point where you're effectively encouraged to retire your character? It's not even achievement-based either (that I could understand).

What if, instead, you tweaked the xp penalty on death (perhaps using a flat penalty at 95+) and added an xp penalty on gain after a certain level. Each level thereafter implement the penalty of [100% * (levels over base level ^ .66)]. For example if you start the penalty at 93, at level 100 you would be suffering a penalty of 1 x (7 ^ .66) (you'd get 5.45% of your normal xp at 100, which is of course further affected by map level as well). Tweak numbers as needed, then implement.

I've seen and used this model extensively in the past and it's amazing the time people will actually spend chasing the next achievement. Being open-ended there's no reason to stop and there's always more kudos to chase. Getting to level 105 would take ungodly amounts of hours and result in very little added power, but you'd always know if you put in a few thousand more hours you could get that one passive point more at 106.

This would have the benefit of giving strong encouragement for number chasers to keep playing in leagues and actually be at the top by the end, not just no-life for a few weeks to stop at an arbitrary number someone picked when PoE was being designed. And it could slow the approach to 100 if needed, without penalising people lower on the scale.

Totally agree with david.

Competition on the ladder shouldn't end until the very last day of the league. At the very least, let L100 people keep accumulating experience. Ideally, let them level a few more times (with no hard cap) but it becomes quickly intractable (as in: minimum 3000 hours played to get from L102 to L103, that kind of intractable).

"

Antnee wrote:

"

maxkardinal wrote:

GGG made a statement, that they are fine with current situation.

So basiclyy GGG are fine that people prefer time-saving boring grind low-level\easy mods maps over fun play.

Is that coorect?

Yes, your strawman has been thoroughly burned.

I agree that strowman illusion is strong in my statement, but is it really there?

I was talking about context where people are discussing problem of death penalty.

If i got this right, the main problem comes from exp/hour at 90+ levels and 10% xp loss on death.

GGG made formula which counts how much XP you will get.
GGG made enviromen where you play, and their developing choises suffered consequences in form of desync.
GGG introduced skills and content that suffer differently from desync.
GGG did not offer any countermeashure for playstile suffering most from desync.

Basicly, GGG left it for players to choose will they risk and take the punishment, or will they play it safe. As i understatnd, for most people taking risk = fun gameplay, and playing safe = boring low-level\easy mods maps grind.

And thats not because they want it to be so, its because in PoE you can be "safe" only in low level content or in easy mods maps.

People would like to take risk, if the punishment wasn't so savage. I don't know how many hours of gameplay at lvl 99 10% of xp are. But i sugest - alot.

GGG know how their formulas work. They know how desync can punish attemting hard content with any build. They know how players are adapting for this circumstances. (Grinding boring low-level content). And they are fine with that.

Where am i wrong?

"

maxkardinal wrote:

"

Antnee wrote:

"

maxkardinal wrote:

GGG made a statement, that they are fine with current situation.

So basiclyy GGG are fine that people prefer time-saving boring grind low-level\easy mods maps over fun play.

Is that coorect?

Yes, your strawman has been thoroughly burned.

I agree that strowman illusion is strong in my statement, but is it really there?

I was talking about context where people are discussing problem of death penalty.

If i got this right, the main problem comes from exp/hour at 90+ levels and 10% xp loss on death.

GGG made formula which counts how much XP you will get.
GGG made enviromen where you play, and their developing choises suffered consequences in form of desync.
GGG introduced skills and content that suffer differently from desync.
GGG did not offer any countermeashure for playstile suffering most from desync.

Basicly, GGG left it for players to choose will they risk and take the punishment, or will they play it safe. As i understatnd, for most people taking risk = fun gameplay, and playing safe = boring low-level\easy mods maps grind.

And thats not because they want it to be so, its because in PoE you can be "safe" only in low level content or in easy mods maps.

People would like to take risk, if the punishment wasn't so savage. I don't know how many hours of gameplay at lvl 99 10% of xp are. But i sugest - alot.

GGG know how their formulas work. They know how desync can punish attemting hard content with any build. They know how players are adapting for this circumstances. (Grinding boring low-level content). And they are fine with that.

Where am i wrong?

You are not wrong, you are correct. When GGG reduced the penalty it was prior to all of the bonuses we get now from maps:

A) They made all maps larger, which means more mobs
B) Added strong boxes, again added more mobs
1) They also added cartos, while not 100% reliable they have lowered the cost of high level mapping.
C) Beyond, while not always done, it again, adds more mobs.
D) Zana, paired with quite a few of her mods the maps can give great XP\returns
E) If i'm not mistaken they increased the highest level map from 77>78 (yes I know vaal maps are a thing, plus uber atziri)

As stated on here before the most efficient way to go from 99>100 is actually really fast low level maps, ideally gorges or similar.

"

pneuma wrote:

Totally agree with david.

Competition on the ladder shouldn't end until the very last day of the league. At the very least, let L100 people keep accumulating experience. Ideally, let them level a few more times (with no hard cap) but it becomes quickly intractable (as in: minimum 3000 hours played to get from L102 to L103, that kind of intractable).

I was actually thinking about this before David made his post. I don't think GGG will bend on lifting the level cap, nor do I think they should, even though I believe it is a good idea in theory. No matter how steep the curve, how much more intractable the next achievement is than the last, it means that given enough time (or future potential exploits) the possibility exists to fill the entire tree.

Instead, I was thinking, part of the problem is player expectation. There once was a time when we accepted ~65 as when a character is finished, ~80 was a high achievement, and some few players were even pushing the 90's. Perhaps the level curve could be adjusted such that reaching ~85 (now as to what ~65 was then) felt like an accomplishment--not too difficult but enough that the benchmark begins to satisfy the drive to feel accomplished. Not all, but some degree more players I think, will feel satisfied "finishing" their characters then, and will be more amiable towards moving on to the next. After that, for the rest, 90 becomes the next benchmark, beginning a trend towards significantly more difficult. After that, 95 becomes the established end-of-the-end achievement, equalling about as effort as it takes to reach 100 now. After that, only the truly insane glory seekers (or competitors) push onward, with each consecutive level becoming an even greater achievement, and the "new" 100 becoming a nigh impossible, absolutely exclusive, dream.

I fully acknowledge that some people will look at that and go "fuck you're an idiot just stahp," but the intention is to satisfy sooner, the player's natural drive to reach an achievement, and the process of steepening the curve (reducing the level for significant achievements) would simultaneously make the experience penalty that much less damning.

Nice post, CHP.

I feel that, while making highest-level maps more accessible was a good move, it should have came with an adjustment to leveling. Instead, better map access acted as a leveling buff, compounded by the inexplicable 98% cap on level-vs-area xp gain penalty. Essentially, another instance of power creep.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I feel that, while making highest-level maps more accessible was a good move, it should have came with an adjustment to leveling. Instead, better map access acted as a leveling buff, compounded by the inexplicable 98% cap on level-vs-area xp gain penalty. Essentially, another instance of power creep.

That's one part of it, but at the same time as making maps more accessible GGG have been nerfing a number of things, particularly life nodes. Whereas I would have considered a build fairly complete by 85 prior to 1.2/1.3, I'm now looking to level 90 on most of my builds. So there has been some adjustment through the back-end, but it hasn't addressed two issues with level 100:

- It's a time-based achievement that indicates 'no-life race' to some players at the start of the league and allows no differentiation between those who reach it (good example of this is the guy claiming 'I am number 85 in the world! ... Of all level 100s! ...' - orly?); and

- It encourages players to stop playing a character after a certain point, compounding end-of-league reductions in players (given at least some who get there are going to be streamers, and their audience gets enjoyment of the league by proxy, encouraging more involvement).

"

davidnn5 wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I feel that, while making highest-level maps more accessible was a good move, it should have came with an adjustment to leveling. Instead, better map access acted as a leveling buff, compounded by the inexplicable 98% cap on level-vs-area xp gain penalty. Essentially, another instance of power creep.

That's one part of it, but at the same time as making maps more accessible GGG have been nerfing a number of things, particularly life nodes.

Funny you should mention that to me.

At one time in Wraeclast, your base life pool was garbage. You used to get only 6 base life per level, as opposed to the current 12 per level. That's right; over time, they doubled it.

% Life was king back then. 8% basic nodes and 18% notables were a thing. Thus it isn't so much that builds had less final life back then, it's just that the passive tree and flat life on gear played a tremendous role in building that life pool - much more than they do now.

That's why, over two years ago, back when base life still sucked, I made this post. Which, coincidentally, does a good job of explaining why life pools now aren't actually that different in size compared to two years ago.

My suggestion didn't become reality overnight. First they nerfed the life nodes without buffing base life, and there was wailing and knashing of teeth. Then they undid the nerf, going back to 8% nodes, while buffing base life simultaneously such that life would be OP for a while and ES became a joke. But, eventually, GGG came around, and did pretty much what I suggested in the first place.

If everyone had listened to Jack Bauer, the show would have been called Twelve.

But if your point is "final life amounts have been nerfed," then you're only correct if you have a selective memory. It's far less gear- and passive- dependent than it used to be, while having similar overall final amounts to a point in time some of us still remember.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

davidnn5 wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I feel that, while making highest-level maps more accessible was a good move, it should have came with an adjustment to leveling. Instead, better map access acted as a leveling buff, compounded by the inexplicable 98% cap on level-vs-area xp gain penalty. Essentially, another instance of power creep.

That's one part of it, but at the same time as making maps more accessible GGG have been nerfing a number of things, particularly life nodes.

Funny you should mention that to me.

At one time in Wraeclast, your base life pool was garbage. You used to get only 6 base life per level, as opposed to the frequent 12 per level. That's right; over time, they doubled it.

% Life was king back then. 8% basic nodes and 18% notables were a thing. Thus it isn't so much that builds had less final life back then, it's just that the passive tree and flat life on gear played a tremendous role in building that life pool - much more than they do now.

That's why, over two years ago, back when base life still sucked, I made this post. Which, coincidentally, does a good job of explaining why life pools now aren't actually that different in size compared to two years ago.

My suggestion didn't become reality overnight. First they nerfed the life nodes without buffing base life, and there was wailing and knashing of teeth. Then they undid the nerf, going back to 8% nodes, while buffing base life simultaneously such that life would be OP for a while and ES became a joke. But, eventually, GGG came around, and did pretty much what I suggested in the first place.

If everyone had listened to Jack Bauer, the show would have been called Twelve.

But if your point is "final life amounts have been nerfed," then you're only correct if you have a selective memory. It's far less gear- and passive- dependent than it used to be, while having similar overall final amounts to a point in time some of us still remember.

You make the dangerous assumption that players ever actually remember buffs. In most games there is a shocking disparity between player's percieved power levels and actual power-levels. Most of the time in "hardcore" primarily PvE games like this the general consensus of most players is that the game has gotten harder when in reality it has gotten easier.

This is in large part because big nerfs are remembered far more often then big buffs. The former ruin builds and make an instant difference in the difficulty of the game(largely because the heavily nerfed things are usually way too good). By contrast large buffs are frequently mostly overlooked at firs-people recognize the buff, but it usually takes a few months for the community to realize the buffed thing is basically optimal- this dissonance between the merging new power and the time of the buff contributes is a big factor. Even larger though is the simple fact that a lot of people are more inclined to remember the negative then the positive- buffs are "Way overdue, something that should have happened a long time ago" whereas nerfs are "out of nowhere and undeserved"- which do you think sticks in the mind better?