Remove xp penalty's from death

And that's why I think the option to revive with a currency fee (10 alts, for example) instead of exp fee is a decent compromise. For people looking to level up, the currency isn't a big deal as long as they aren't just YOLO-charging all the content. For people wanting to farm, the exp isn't a big deal. It would allow players a way to minimize the pains through a policy of acceptable loss.

There's something discerning about currency just being taken from your account. Losing exp is pretty easy to see, especially if you die 2 or more times in a row. For a new players who didn't research this type of shit ahead of time, if they get unlucky a bunch of times against vaal, go back to see their currency gone, that could be the end of their time here.

Also what happens when someone is out of alts? Vendor currency rates are purposely high, and are basically a ceiling, if they do a lower currency exchange for this they put a floor in, which they might be against as they're manipulating the market. Also there's the obvious of people just storing currency on alt accounts to avoid the penalty altogether, which would lead to more complaining than our currency system because it's more tedious.

I'm mostly playing devil's advocate (and waiting for my laundry to finish so I can go to bed ffs!) but the first point is really important. Learning curve for new players is high, I think they should learn to avoid death but losing currency is way harsher than experience.

I think you misunderstand. It's an option. You choose to pay in either currency or exp. That way dying to desync feels a little less shitty, but dying at all still carries a penalty.

So it's basically buying back the experience, rather than picking which. Ya I got nothing there. No idea how a new player would deal with that situation though, which whenever I think death penalty I'm mostly thinking about new players.

I already explained it, though.

If you are in the mid to high levels where you start to care about exp, you wouldn't want a few deaths to set you back 1/4 of your level, especially if you were already really close to your next level. Dropping a bit of currency to finish out that level may not be a bad trade off.

If you are high enough level that you don't care about your exp anymore, or if you JUST hit a fresh new level up, the exp penalty wouldn't be a big deal (we already have this aspect of it).

All this suggestion really does is take some of the edge off of the penalty--especially for newer players--and make it not feel quite so cheap if you die due to desync (which happens to most people from time to time). Or when opening strongboxes. I know they said they fixed the strongbox issue, but they haven't. They helped it quite a bit, but I can tell you from experience the problem still exists, and sometimes it's auto-death before your screen unfreezes. Not the same issue as desync, but still feels the same way when you die because of it.

"

Moosifer wrote:

So it's basically buying back the experience, rather than picking which. Ya I got nothing there. No idea how a new player would deal with that situation though, which whenever I think death penalty I'm mostly thinking about new players.

the death penalty is trivial until 80's anyway. no one would buy back 5% in cruel or even 10% until they hit the 80's, at which time they should have sufficient currency.

"

goetzjam wrote:

One simply does not "fix" desync, its a side effect of the model of not trusting the client, as your other thread suggestion is to "trust the client" that doesn't "fix" desync it removes the side effect of trusting the server for movement.

I never used the word "trust". Some one else must have said that. What I said was:

"Of course moving position/movement code from the server to the client without adding anything to protect it is begging for it to be hacked. Duh!!! In a previous follow up post I stated that some kind of code thread to self-monitor the client code and then halt the client if a hack is detected was needed. Incidentally, how is GGG able to detect Maphack (they must have added something to the client to detect it)?. Yes, that means multi-threading the client (which should be utilized anyway to better harness our multi-core cpu's for particle effect performance and other fps killing visual effects) and that is much more difficult to debug. But GGG has to do something like that if there is ever going to be a future PoE with lower desync."

So there is NO TRUST involved. GGG can (apparently) detect players using MapHack and then ban for repeated cheating using it. Ok, if GGG can add client side code that can detect MapHack then it is certainly possible for GGG to have code that can monitor the "precious" position/movement code on the client and if a hack is detected can immediately exit to the login screen (with an appropriate message displayed to warn that repeated offenses will get your account banned). Why is everyone against client side authority for the exile/mob position/movement only (nothing else) always saying that I "trust" the client. Hell no! There are players who will cheat in any game (D2 had quite a few hacks) and it's no different here. GGG will have to be ingenious and come up with a way to protect the client code from hackers in real time. My thinking was that a multi-threaded client that can utilize our multi-core cpu more fully so a separate code thread running in parallel with the main client code to self-monitor for any changes (hacks) would be required. I also stated that I know it will be much more complicated but in the long run it is necessary if GGG is to ever have a shot at getting to their ultimate goal of 10 acts.

Of course desync can be minimized. How does Blizzard, Runic, etc. or any of the many MMORPG game companies manage to produce a low desync multi-player online rpg? To state that desync is an unfortunate side effect of not trusting the client for anything important is true but saying it can never be fixed is false (it can never be fixed if the current server side authority never changes).

@OP:

The first time I saw this thread I thought it was ridiculous, to be honest. But playing today in the end-game (in party) I realized I had to agree with this:

"

Wolfarus wrote:

But [the desync] IS there, and it DOES unfairly punish players for something that is entirely NOT their fault.

I'm one of those players tired of wasting my time here leveling up for later on losing experience because of the a****ck chaotic desync that happens in parties.

"

Samkiud wrote:

@OP:

The first time I saw this thread I thought it was ridiculous, to be honest. But playing today in the end-game (in party) I realized I had to agree with this:

"

Wolfarus wrote:

But [the desync] IS there, and it DOES unfairly punish players for something that is entirely NOT their fault.

I'm one of those players tired of wasting my time here leveling up for later on losing experience because of the a****ck chaotic desync that happens in parties.

Funny you mention parties, in all actuality you should feel the effects of desync LESS in parties not more. This is because the mobs have more targets to attack and I would think someone would be running the macro and forcing the party into sync better, not to mention in parties you typically have more auras then alone (so more evasion, armor, es, ect)

The penalty is there for a reason, using desync 100% of the time or even 50% of the time is just a scape goat. More then likely what you do experience more in parties is visual lag, this isn't the same thing as desync and is often mistaken for it.

"

goetzjam wrote:

Funny you mention parties, in all actuality you should feel the effects of desync LESS in parties not more. This is because the mobs have more targets to attack and I would think someone would be running the macro and forcing the party into sync better, not to mention in parties you typically have more auras then alone (so more evasion, armor, es, ect)

The penalty is there for a reason, using desync 100% of the time or even 50% of the time is just a scape goat. More then likely what you do experience more in parties is visual lag, this isn't the same thing as desync and is often mistaken for it.

We can't know if that's why he was experience whatever he was. It may be desync, or it may not, but party play does not mean there is any less desync. It could be more under certain circumstances.

-Summoners cause a lot
-Players with high mobility
-Players who directly effect monster position (Vaal Cyclone)
-Players creating obstacles (Ice Wall)
-Players knocking back monsters (some archers, especially)
-Players clipping against each other

And that's just a few example. Assuming that someone is running the /oos macro isn't really valid either, because there's no way to know who is or isn't unless you form a party insisting that each person does. The only thing you can be certain of is whether or not you do.

Still... for everyone else,

This isn't about just desync. It's about the death penalties that desync unfairly causes. So if you accept a small handful of facts, you can start to talk about solutions.

1. Desync isn't going anywhere any time soon.
2. They probably won't remove the penalty altogether.
3. Sometimes desync causes events beyond your control -- death penalty.
4. Players get frustrated by facts 1 and 3.
5. Player frustration hurts the player experience, and it's in GGG's interest to prevent this.

I only proposed paying with something other than exp as a means to ease the frustration of trying to level and losing anywhere from 10 minutes to 2 hours of play time due to desync (depending on level and clear speed). Choosing how to pay your death penalty as a philosophy of "acceptable loss" is one way of going about it.

If you have better suggestions, simply say so, but just trying to knock someone's ideas without a better solution isn't going to fix anything, and saying "it's fine" sort of precludes the need to even post. Otherwise, why are we debating it?