XP loss goes against gameplay itself

"

cellopietro wrote:

The difference is one essentially counters the sense of "progression" and all that times worth you spent upon leveling.

Which is necessary to make sure that ALL players want to avoid death. In your example rich players wouldn't give a crap about dieing.

"

Forboding_Angel wrote:

Just give up on this game like I did. It's a great H/S, but the xp loss on death penalty is simply there to make you grind. Some people like grinding. I don't. As a result, I stopped playing POE.

Fair enough, however unless you're going for 85+ I don't see the grind, at all.

Only reason I am posting here is I got an email about the 23rd and came to check the forums to see if GGG are still a pack of morons (or smart businessmen? You decide) concerning the xp loss.

Such a good start derailed by a cheap shot of an insult, at least if you're going to call someone else out on your perceived idiocy of them, be creative.

Moreover, there is a legion of flamewarriors here to prop up the cardboard set.

Read : I have nothing worthwhile to say so I'll merely leave an antagonizing comment while softly caressing my ego.

As a game developer myself,

You forgot doctor, lawyer, engineer, physicist and with an IQ over 160, everyone on the internet has those, please present them on the door or I'll have your internet card revoked.


the idiocy of the reasoning (by aforementioned flamewarriors) for xp loss on death here makes me laugh.

Reasoning which you still have not adressed on WHY it is wrong, maybe you need to be reminded on what exactly constitutes a "flame"; hint : it's doing what I detailed in the first words of this line.

There are plenty of ways to punish death. For example, imagine your TP gets closed when you die, you take a max health hit of 10% (guild wars style) for 15 minutes up to a max of 40% of your total health (in other words, dying 4 times would decrease your max health by 40% (10% each death) for 15 minutes).

Would work for any pre-map content, map content already closes your portal, and really, if you died once in a map and took a 10% health dip, not only you'd be playing in a much more careful way (or, by the OP's wording "boring") you'd have a much higher chance of dying yet again, forcing you to play even MORE carefully lest you lose your 6 portals.

Your system would not fix the issue, it would make it worse.

Also it would seem you have not really played maps, therefore have not reached at least level 80, has anyone ever felt the exp loss hit them hard before 80? you can fart and gain 10% before that.

Doing this would make the idea of zerging pretty much impossible, because at that point you and your party would be at such low health that you wouldn't be able to do it.

Only because of the portal closing, really; because the 10% health penalty is either non-important or would make the problem worse.

And again, only for non-map areas.

Unfortunately, the "Olde Guarde" here are completely immune to concepts such as logic, or reason.

Another cheap shot, I've yet to see your logic or reasoning around here, just you spitting out fire and a poorly tought out idea; at least the OP defended his idea a bit.

Great game. Shit mechanics turn it into a mediocre H/S.

You mean even tough mechanics make a good chunk of the game, if not the defining characteristic of a game as they support the gameplay, great game developer you are, even I, being merely a hobbyst can figure that much out.

Reply to me if you must, but I won't be back.

I can't help but read this last line as you coping out of having to bother reading people tearing you a new one because you're a feeble coward who can't even defend his own ideas? yeah I think I went overboard with doubting you being a game developer, you're Phil Fish aren't you?

My IIQ/IIR stacker who's in it purely for the farming does not give one rat's ass about the XP penalty. None. She cares a little bit about the "you have consumed a map portal" penalty, and it's not really an issue until they're all gone. Other than that, she eagerly embraces death.

Is that fair to someone who actually likes gaining levels? Fuck no it's not. Why work so hard to earn something the death penalty taxes, when you can instead focus on something that gets off scott free?

I really don't think she's alone, either. There's a reason why people love stacking IIQ/IIR so much. Obviously part of the reason is just the pure brutal efficiency of it all, but the ability to just shrug off the XP penalty cannot possibly be something which only I have found.

The death penalty should be item-based. My MF character might not care about levels, but no one wants to lose their gear. Additionally, item-based penalties are gear sinks, and those are good for controlling gear inflation.

If you ask me, the softcore leagues should not have an XP penalty on the character, and instead have the following system:

• a (nearly) irreparable durability system — every time you die, all gear you're wearing loses 1 durability, when it loses all durability it is destroyed.
• gems would be exempt to durability, but lose XP when you die (in other words, gems have an XP penalty, you don't); this penalty could rollback gem level, to make it a better gem sink against max-level gems.
• By "nearly" irreparable I mean that Eternal Orb imprints would snapshot durability; thus, Eternal Orbs would live up to their name and prevent your items from eroding away.

Before anyone cries about how such a penalty is way too harsh: the gem % XP and the amount of durability on items is a flexible thing, which you can make such a penalty much softer (or harder) by just fiddling with the numbers. Maybe it takes one hundred deaths for your Kaom's to break, and 2% gem XP per death. A hundred deaths is a lot; a level 80 player, the current XP penalty from 100 deaths is enough to reach level 87 and be 60% of the way to level 88. Maybe durability would be even higher, maybe lower. Whatever seems fair and balanced.

Actually, I'd prefer it if the Standard death penalty was overall less punishing and more of a slap on the wrist. Remember, the softcore death penalty isn't supposed to be sadomasochistic — that's what hardcore is for. However, it would be really nice if that slap on the wrist applied to everyone, instead of only a subset of softcore players.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

My IIQ/IIR stacker who's in it purely for the farming does not give one rat's ass about the XP penalty. None. She cares a little bit about the "you have consumed a map portal" penalty, and it's not really an issue until they're all gone. Other than that, she eagerly embraces death.

Is that fair to someone who actually likes gaining levels? Fuck no it's not. Why work so hard to earn something the death penalty taxes, when you can instead focus on something that gets off scott free?

I really don't think she's alone, either. There's a reason why people love stacking IIQ/IIR so much. Obviously part of the reason is just the pure brutal efficiency of it all, but the ability to just shrug off the XP penalty cannot possibly be something which only I have found.

The death penalty should be item-based. My MF character might not care about levels, but no one wants to lose their gear. Additionally, item-based penalties are gear sinks, and those are good for controlling gear inflation.

If you ask me, the softcore leagues should not have an XP penalty on the character, and instead have the following system:

• a (nearly) irreparable durability system — every time you die, all gear you're wearing loses 1 durability, when it loses all durability it is destroyed.
• gems would be exempt to durability, but lose XP when you die (in other words, gems have an XP penalty, you don't); this penalty could rollback gem level, to make it a better gem sink against max-level gems.
• By "nearly" irreparable I mean that Eternal Orb imprints would snapshot durability; thus, Eternal Orbs would live up to their name and prevent your items from eroding away.

Before anyone cries about how such a penalty is way too harsh: the gem % XP and the amount of durability on items is a flexible thing, which you can make such a penalty much softer (or harder) by just fiddling with the numbers. Maybe it takes one hundred deaths for your Kaom's to break, and 2% gem XP per death. A hundred deaths is a lot; a level 80 player, the current XP penalty from 100 deaths is enough to reach level 87 and be 60% of the way to level 88. Maybe durability would be even higher, maybe lower. Whatever seems fair and balanced.

Actually, I'd prefer it if the Standard death penalty was overall less punishing and more of a slap on the wrist. Remember, the softcore death penalty isn't supposed to be sadomasochistic — that's what hardcore is for. However, it would be really nice if that slap on the wrist applied to everyone, instead of only a subset of softcore players.

So you want to replace a system that already is a slap on the wrist with a system that would punish everyone equally and possibly destroy the biggest assets characters have, bigger than any XP as good gear enables easy xp gain?

I certainly do not see anything wrong with this idea, at all.

But really, I think you've got one foot in and one foot out, the irreparable part of your idea is pants on head silly, so is the gem xp imo; I'd go for flat out durability drops that cost a hurting-but-not-quite ammount to fix and can be fixed without having to resort to one big ass 4ex+ repair *before* you even go out, it feels more like the world's most expensive insurance than a durability system.

Plus, you'd be hurting non-MF chars/users a lot more, they tend (I would know) to be slightly poorly geared, and just scrapping currency out of whatever rares they can find, they're by this also bound to die quite often, and I'd say I rather keep whatever nice piece of gear I happen to find by luckying out and be stuck at level *something* than having the prospect of my gear going kablooey.

"

GhostOfLiemannen wrote:

Plus, you'd be hurting non-MF chars/users a lot more, they tend (I would know) to be slightly poorly geared, and just scrapping currency out of whatever rares they can find, they're by this also bound to die quite often,

It can't be any worse than the current system, where the non-MF character has a penalty and the MF char functionally has no penalty whatsoever.

But, in general, you skimmed over my post, didn't really read the whole thing, and missed several important points in your rush to attack my idea.

Nah.

You need some sort of disincentive for death, otherwise people just start resurrection spamming their way through baseline content. You can still abuse it to get through an occasional rough patch, such as certain boss fights. But if regular levels are too difficult for your character, the penalty stops your character from leveling up / progressing. This is enough of a signal for most players to finally either rework their character or re-roll completely, and plan better next time.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

GhostOfLiemannen wrote:

Plus, you'd be hurting non-MF chars/users a lot more, they tend (I would know) to be slightly poorly geared, and just scrapping currency out of whatever rares they can find, they're by this also bound to die quite often,

It can't be any worse than the current system, where the non-MF character has a penalty and the MF char functionally has no penalty whatsoever.

But, in general, you skimmed over my post, didn't really read the whole thing, and missed several important points in your rush to attack my idea.

Do I need to address every single bit in a detailed manner? I think we're both able to read a bit between the lines here.

It being "flexible", in my case, doesn't ammount to much, flexibility can only get it so far before it turns the penalty into neglible, make it 10k deaths and see if anyone even hits that many deaths; or if a MF stacker won't get an eternal orb worth before 10k deaths; while it does have some flexibility, I can't think of a number off the top of my head that woudn't fall in either extremely punishing territory or kind-of-not-there.

A hundred deaths might sound like a fine number, but, again, you're making the penalty have far more potential for harsh consequences than the current one has; at least the current system does not make me de-level; so even if I go on a die-a-ton I don't stand to lose something that's tediously hard to replace, so much that I'd have to make an MF char just to sustain the possibly broken gear of the character I want to level.

Then the gems, leveling gems to 20 is a pain in the ass, only made relatively doable because they suffer no exp penalty on death (and on areas, sorta); also it is one of the best ways for the budget non-MF player to get a 20% Q gem.

Not only I'd have to dabble on the idea of making an MF stacker to safely farm docks for ever to replace potentially broken couple-exalted gears on my XP seeking character, I'd have to ponder on it even harder if I ever want 20% quality gems to get around harsh maps easier.

So, to me, yes your system can and would possibly be far worse than throwing 10% exp out of the window.

Yes your system affects MF chars who like to throw themselves endlessly at level 500 mobs, but if that happens they'll all just sit in docks and spam farm slightly slower to save their gear, they won't run into level 77 maps to die 6 times per map and have to replace 30ex worth of gear every 20ish runs for a minimal drop quality increase; yet it makes sweet unlubed anal love to people who chose NOT to take part in the MF-ing fest and are kicking the bucket on average gears.

You'd be merely attacking a sympthom rather than the core illness; there's MF characters in hardcore leagues too, and the above is the exact reason I think they exist, to replace "lost" gear on deceased characters.

Which is why I woudn't tie XP penalty to MF that much, yes it helps, yes MF chars do not care about exp penalty, but that's not the core reason imo.

It's not perfect, but what do you guys think of this idea? It could be used instead of or with an experience bonus.

http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/525384

"

GhostOfLiemannen wrote:

flexibility can only get it so far before it turns the penalty into neglible, make it 10k deaths and see if anyone even hits that many deaths

You admit there exists a point where the penalty would be underpowered.

"

GhostOfLiemannen wrote:

your system can and would possibly be far worse than throwing 10% exp out of the window.

You admit there exists a point where the penalty would be overpowered.

Therefore, there must exist a point in between these two points where the penalty would be balanced.

"

GhostOfLiemannen wrote:

You'd be merely attacking a sympthom rather than the core illness; there's MF characters in hardcore leagues too

The point of this is not to fix MF characters in any kind of global balance sense. The point of this is to ensure a death penalty as applied to all characters.

"

wicca369 wrote:

It's not perfect, but what do you guys think of this idea?

A survival bonus only does its job so long as one has it. Sure, if you have a decent bonus, you'll take care not to die. However, once you do die, you have nothing to lose. You will not adapt your strategy or try swapping in a resistance flask, you will just zerg whatever killed you until it dies, then work on trying to restore your bonus. Since it does not discourage zerging, it is a fail suggestion.

De-leveling gems is a vendor recipe that costs a Scouring Orb.

Not sure we want a back door to get that for free, ostensibly as a death "penalty"