Why dedicate my time if I can lose all my XP with a death penalty?

"

The_Kay#6958 написал:

"

CaduAndrade#9284 написал:

For now, I’ve uninstalled the game. I’ll return if GGG realizes they’re losing players for no good reason.

Tantrum like that is not a way to provide feedback.

The XP penalty is there to make reaching very high level something for skilled players and good builds. If you could corpse run your way to level 100, it would detract from the achievement.

Every good ARPG has it. PoE1 has it, Last Epoch has it, Diablo 2 has it. The ones that do not, reaching max level is ridiculously easy and effortless.

If GGG wants to keep the XP penalty, then they need to remove all the on-death effects and bullshit deaths and one-shots that aren't boss mechanics.

"

cowmoo275#3095 написал:

"

Polantaris#1920 написал:

Map loss on death is far more justifiable and a more appropriate punishment for death. The EXP loss is overkill on a system that is already punishing you with something that would push you towards fixing your weaknesses.

Finally! A legitimate criticism of the current iteration of an exp penalty.

You are absolutely right, with the new 1-death punishment, exp loss holds less meaning and really only exists as a double-punishment which isn't totally needed.

However; the 1-death per map is almost SURE to change in some way. The exp penalty will not. Why do I think this? Because one of those punishments is a brand new "experiment" whereas the other is a tried-and-true historical fact of PoE, one that they chose to re-implement in the new game, despite the loud minority constantly yelling about it.

The exp penalty alone in PoE 1 wasn't enough...so they added the map death loss on top of it. Now they just need to tweak that second part to a more comfortable level. But its obvious based on what the developers have said about this game prior to EA release, and also what we are experiencing in the game.....that the developers WANT a more punishing game than PoE 1 was. PoE 1 had 6 portals and 10% exp, no matter what they ultimately end up with PoE 2 will be MORE punishing than that.

This is exacly my thoughts too, the 1 portal policy is a bit harsh and will probably be addressed in the near future, xp loss on death has its purpose and will stay.

"

Sogardev#9713 написал:

[
BTW in this thread I have been quoted word by word and approved by a way larger percentage that all of your posts combined (I feel the need to repeat myself for sad, toxic and aggressive people like you) on this thread.

uh....okay....what a really weird and petty flex. Also demonstrably false. But you got me interested. You were quoted positively once, by some dude who writes in all caps. Thumbs up to you! You are clearly 100% correct.

By extension, there are far more "different" posts (from different users) against the OP and your position than there are agreeing within this thread. Not to mention the hundreds of other threads I've seen on this exact topic throughout my 12 years with PoE.

But that's irrelevant, you're still wrong right here right now whether others agree with you or not. They are also wrong.

"

cowmoo275#3095 написал:

^if you are going to come into an existing thread and shoot your stuff off, you should read at least the last few previous pages.

And sure...call me out on my reading while also....not reading my post? Excuse me?
These are personal achievements. They mean as much or as little as the individual striving for them.

If you find zero value in level 100 thats fine. Doesn't change the fact that it is an achievement and there are many players who DO find it to be an achievement that they strive for. Hence...what I freaking wrote.

If you can and do cheese it, then why the hell are you complaining?! It's a non-issue for you.

Why should a player care for your personal achievement? I think we should punish everyone using more than 1 ability because I think it is a personal achievement to make true 1 button builds.
Those who see SC 100 as an achievement are just trying to defend their ego, play HC and reach 100 there that is an achievement.
SC is where the casuals and new players end up and making their experience worse so someone can pretend farming level 80 enemies for 150hours of gametime is an achievement is a ridiculous position to hold.

"

BK2710#6123 написал:

Why should a player care for your personal achievement? I think we should punish everyone using more than 1 ability because I think it is a personal achievement to make true 1 button builds.
Those who see SC 100 as an achievement are just trying to defend their ego, play HC and reach 100 there that is an achievement.
SC is where the casuals and new players end up and making their experience worse so someone can pretend farming level 80 enemies for 150hours of gametime is an achievement is a ridiculous position to hold.

Obviously you are strawman-ing with a realllllly stupid example, but I'll bite. The difference is that one is built into the game as such by the developers (level 100 + exp penalty, challenges, etc.), whereas the other is a self-imposed challenge deliberately AGAINST the grain of the game (your example). This is why SSF exists....because players DID want to be handicapped further and GGG obliged. It's also why HC exists. Maybe they will do an event one day where you can only use one skill for the entire game and see how far people can get!

That's like saying every pokemon game should force the nuzlocke challenge, because people placed a self-imposed penalty that works directly against the programming and intention of the game, and thus the game should be rewritten for them, and everyone else.

In fact....your example is exactly the same situation as if the devs were to remove the exp penalty, not keep it. Changing the entire game to suit someone's personal choices and feelings.



Ultimately though you are right, and I already commented on that. NO ONE cares about your personal achievements. You can get to 100 however you want. But it is FACT that it IS an achievement, one supported and created by GGG, and one bolstered by the exp penalty for those who achieve it organically. THEY chose a maximum level of 100. THEY chose exp requirement to exponentially increase 90 - 100. THEY chose to stop monster levels at precisely 83/84 to make leveling to 100 hard. THEY chose to add and maintain an exp penalty for 12 years. Your ignorance of that changes nothing.

In PoE 1, I considered it a personal achievement when my builds could beat Simulacrum 30. I considered it a personal achievement when my builds could stand in an 8-mod juiced t16 map and not die. These things mean nothing to you or any other player. Nor should they. I don't play to impress you. I play to achieve my own goals and have fun. Its irrelevant to the argument. What's relevant is that level 100 is max level, you simply DON'T get there naturally because of the exp penalty. And therefore, getting to 100 is an achievement for some.

Guys, in Path of Exile you got the same XP loss as PoE2.. except in POE1 you could die up to six times in a map that's a grand total of 60% XP gone.. when you get into the 97+ bracket it almost becomes mandatory to be carrying an XP Loss OMEN...

Otherwise you're just losing dozens of hours in a single death and days/weeks in multiple im looking at you 99 to 100..

"

cowmoo275#3095 написал:

"

BK2710#6123 написал:

Why should a player care for your personal achievement? I think we should punish everyone using more than 1 ability because I think it is a personal achievement to make true 1 button builds.
Those who see SC 100 as an achievement are just trying to defend their ego, play HC and reach 100 there that is an achievement.
SC is where the casuals and new players end up and making their experience worse so someone can pretend farming level 80 enemies for 150hours of gametime is an achievement is a ridiculous position to hold.

Obviously you are strawman-ing with a realllllly stupid example, but I'll bite. The difference is that one is built into the game as such by the developers (level 100 + exp penalty, challenges, etc.), whereas the other is a self-imposed challenge deliberately AGAINST the grain of the game (your example). This is why SSF exists....because players DID want to be handicapped further and GGG obliged. It's also why HC exists. Maybe they will do an event one day where you can only use one skill for the entire game and see how far people can get!

That's like saying every pokemon game should force the nuzlocke challenge, because people placed a self-imposed penalty that works directly against the programming and intention of the game, and thus the game should be rewritten for them.

In fact....your example is exactly the same situation as if the devs were to remove the exp penalty, not keep it. Changing the entire game to suit someone's personal choices and feelings.

It's not a strawman I took your argument to the extreme. The SSF is plain wrong as the origin is not wanting to challenge yourself but that trading is seen by many, fundamentally, as the antithesis to the rpg genre. Players want to get stronger by playing, not trading. It's only a challenge in regards to the lack of SSF mechanics/viable crafting system (bad game design, see offline arpgs) but this is on a per game basis. You hear from SSF commonly how they have fun with drops, where as in trading using crafting currency to craft feels like a loss because you could have bought a better item you can ever get yourself. This is a key factor here and should be kept in mind when considering future player retention.

100 is the exact same except the developers impose it, it's no different from your self imposed challenge but it is backed by authority.

Putting aside the obvious that the penalties offer no benefit to the player experience, all of them should simply be optional for greater rewards on opt in and you satisfy all sides, except those who sell (or will in poe2) boosts as this is obviously a source of income they have an interest in maintaining.

These XP penalties originate from much older games to pad out gametime due to the impossibility of updating and were just carried over for legacies sake to stuff like everquest and d2, despite everyone hating it. It serves no practical purpose anymore that cannot be dealt with by the aforementioned optional choices.

Players primarily play this genre as a pseudo single player game, it should be recognized as such.

PoE2 was made for a new audience and GGG's shot to be the primary arpg developer on the market and not lose to d4 once more, no matter how much they are praised for some reason their playerbase is just in the 10-20k losing to the bad games financially which do not punish and invalidate a players time, a potentially spending one.

Players who want to keep the xp penalty are not even truly in favor of it, you see it all the time, it is just those few who stuck around being allergic to change (common human behavior) or the "I had to suffer so you will, too" mentality. PoE1 exists already, they can enjoy the game that is meant to be updated next to PoE2. Catering to the same core group in the context of acquiring a larger market share is nonsensical.

"

cowmoo275#3095 написал:

Why do you think getting to Level 100 is "normal character progression"? Because that's how it works in other games? Well sorry to tell you, that isn't how it works in PoE. That's never been how it works in PoE. It's not gatekeeping. Its a literal DIFFERENT game with DIFFERENT meanings for "character progression".

There is no such thing as "normal character progression" at all in PoE. A level 40 character could be stronger than a poorly crafted level 80 character. You could be level 30 in Act 6 PoE 1, or you could be level 60 in Act 6 PoE 1. You could be dealing 100k damage, or you could be doing 100 million damage. This is one of the central things that sets PoE apart from all the other games you are comparing it to to determine this "normal".

It is your choice to go around this and cheese it. It is also a choice to NOT do that. Just like its a choice to "buy" 40/40 challenges which so many people do. It's stupid....but people do it.

Since im apparently making up nonsense.

You literally said and i quote as above: "Its a literal DIFFERENT game with DIFFERENT meanings for "character progression"".
As i said, every last talent point is progressing your character.
I dont see anything made up there so lets move on.

You then said: "There is no such thing as "normal character progression" at all in PoE."
Which you base on build knowledge instead of taking the same build and compare it at a lower level with a higher lvl version of it.
This is how progression works.
What you are trying to argue is that someone with less knowledge and/or luck will have a worse build and hence be weaker. This has nothing to do with character progression at all. The less knowledgable player will, just like the person with the better build, be stronger at higher levels and also be progressing forward.
Hence there is normal character progression.
Lets move on to the next point.

And again lets start with the quote: "It is your choice to go around this and cheese it. It is also a choice to NOT do that."
Yes, it is everyones own choice to either cheese it or not. I feel you are missing the rather obvious implication of your own statement though which is why i will write it out for you: "If you cant do it on your own or think it takes to long, you can go cheese it."
That is equivalent to telling people to just go do exactly that when they hate how things currently are.

"

cowmoo275#3095 написал:

And again you don't read what I wrote and you paraphrase my post incorrectly: what I ACTUALLY said was getting to 100 wasn't "normal" character progression. I wasn't the one who ever said it wasn't progression at all, that was someone else. No one ever said you were "entitled" to level 100 skill points on every one of your characters no matter what. It is not "normal" for every one of your characters to be max level.

And way to miss the point entirely re: weaker vs. stronger characters. I'll try to dumb it down: "normal" progression doesn't always mean higher level = stronger. That's what YOU are implying.

Nor did I say "go cheese it if you CAN": I specifically said if you CHOOSE to cheese it you can. I happen to NOT choose to do that. I've never bought a carry for anything I've ever done in this game because I want to actually play the game and not have someone else play it for me.

If you want any kind of conversation, start by actually reading the posts please. I gave you the benefit of that, the least you could do is actually criticize what I DID say, rather than make up nonsense.

But don't you dare try to justify your point by changing the words that I wrote to suit your story.

Now going over your new and edited reply.
You for some reason are talking about entitlement which is most curious. I never once mentioned entitlement.
With how adamant you are about me not reading the rather lackluster attempt at arguing against common place definitions, i would have thought you would at least try and properly refer to what i say.
I think i can somewhat see how you came to reach for the term but in all honesty, your position is not much different. While i am of the opinion that working your way through the existing 100 levels is part of your character progression, you at least seem to be of the opinion thats its only for "good" players.
Whats the point trying to differentiate when not everyone does it themselfes in the first place? Do you suddenly have "good players with benefits"? But i digress.
Lets move on again, why dont we.

Your quote: ""normal" progression doesn't always mean higher level = stronger. That's what YOU are implying."
Well im not implying it, its a fact. If everything but the talent points stays the same, how could you say otherwise without lying?

You are right with one thing, you didnt literally say "go cheese it if you can" but what you failed to realise, is that that is the takeaway for those which are fed up.

Just like you, i am progressing by myself. I have done T15s, which aside from random oneshots really arent that difficult. I am by no means something i would call a "good" player as my overall build knowledge is pretty lacking and i am still working towards my last ascendency because im still 6/8.

In terms of having a conversation, i already made the mistake of entertaining your "benefits" by engaging with them. The more i answer you, the less i feel you pick up. I insufficiently paraphrased one point, ill give you that as i have ackknowledged above already but in the end it changes little.

You have my full reply here and i dont really see this going anywhere.
In your eyes, facts arent facts so there isnt much to discuss.

"

BK2710#6123 написал:

It's not a strawman I took your argument to the extreme.

hard stop right there. I'm taking a nap.

There's an item in the game you can buy that cuts the exp loss by 75%. Anyone level 90+ should be keeping one of those in their inventory, even if dying is extremely unlikely. I forget what the price is on the currency exchange, but it's around 8-16ex. From level 1-90 I had like 90 deaths, but from level 90-95, almost 96, I had only 3 deaths, and for all 3 deaths that occurred, I had this item activated, so I lost very little exp.