"
I find somewhat amusing seeing people in heated discussions over the "xp loss" part of the endgame over-punishment.. where to me, it is "fine", and the main undue punishment is losing all mechanics bound to that node that are (supposedly) part of said endgame.. to the point I rather avoid said nodes not to miss them.. avoidance or frustration, either way, I end up not engaging with those mechanics (some of wich I actually like).. that, is a clear symptom of an issue behind the endgame.
One thing to keep in mind with "loss" is what that loss represents. Early on, that 10% xp isn't a big deal, because you can pretty easily make it back. But once you get past a certain, xp slows to a crawl, yet the xp loss remains at 10%. So, basically, there's a point at which the xp loss penalty effectively grows much, much larger than it was before. Me, I don't mind it that much before level 87 or so. Easy enough to earn back. But once you get past that point, it's another matter.
When people see a full day's worth of play or more go poof, that's a rage quit or potential game quit moment. And you don't want that. Because even if your game has a lot of other good points, those moments will eventually be a deal breaker.
Sure, early on, the person will probably go back to the campaign, make a new character. Or they'll make some passive tree adjustments or do the very ARPG thing of engaging in trade to build their character because drops are garbage. But these things have diminishing returns. You'll run out of ideas you want to try. You'll run out of upgrades you can afford. And meanwhile, the same BS will happen again on your new character or to your existing one, and the rage from it will build up. Until one day, you realize you're just not having fun anymore.
|
|
"
Amounts of XP lost are trivial until level 90 but after that one death can cost you hours of playtime (and it feels even worse if you got zero useful drops during that playtime). Especially if you aren't playing meta build.
I don't know any other game that comes close to that. None in ARPG genre for sure.
Single player games either have saves every so often or let you OPT-IN for ironman for whatever reasons.
If XP loss was an OPT-IN, 90%+ of players would OPT-OUT of that choice. You masochistic junkies severely overestimate how many players are like you.
Campaign has a perfect amount of punishment.
You die on a map? Zone respawns, try again. Although it might feel bad if you die right after getting something useful to drop but before you picked it up. We've seen screenshots of perfect jewellers lost to death.
You die on a boss? Boss respawns, try again.
There's no XP loss involved because it's not necessary. Why does it suddenly become neceassary in the endgame?
I'm all in for consistency. If you want to have an XP loss, have it there for campaign too. Also, you should delevel, removing last allocated passive point. Because you state it's a punishment for playing badly. So why the punishment is not there when you are at 0% of a level? Does it not go against your "VISION"?
The "exp loss" is not a punishment for the sake of punishing you, it's there to prevent you from "brute-forcing" things.
WITH the exp loss you are forced to do content you are able to without dying - based on your power level. If you do so, you will level up over time, even if you die sometimes, slower - but still.
WITHOUT the exp loss you could still run content not meant for your power level and would even level up - gaining more power when you shouldn't. So you would be rewarded no matter what thus overcoming things you should not overcome.
And this "exp loss" system isn't "inconsistent". It always starts at the same level and you lose a fixed amount of exp, while never losing a level because you already reached it. It's not present right from the start because that is the "learning phase". There you have to get familiar with the game.
If you apply this logic to something else you can easily see why "removing the exp loss" doesn't make sense.
Imagine you fight a boss 10 times, but you cannot defeat the boss. The assumption is - you are too weak atm, but "removing the exp loss" would be comparable to "even if you can't defeat the boss - after 10 attempts you still get the loot".
|
|
"
"
Amounts of XP lost are trivial until level 90 but after that one death can cost you hours of playtime (and it feels even worse if you got zero useful drops during that playtime). Especially if you aren't playing meta build.
I don't know any other game that comes close to that. None in ARPG genre for sure.
Single player games either have saves every so often or let you OPT-IN for ironman for whatever reasons.
If XP loss was an OPT-IN, 90%+ of players would OPT-OUT of that choice. You masochistic junkies severely overestimate how many players are like you.
Campaign has a perfect amount of punishment.
You die on a map? Zone respawns, try again. Although it might feel bad if you die right after getting something useful to drop but before you picked it up. We've seen screenshots of perfect jewellers lost to death.
You die on a boss? Boss respawns, try again.
There's no XP loss involved because it's not necessary. Why does it suddenly become neceassary in the endgame?
I'm all in for consistency. If you want to have an XP loss, have it there for campaign too. Also, you should delevel, removing last allocated passive point. Because you state it's a punishment for playing badly. So why the punishment is not there when you are at 0% of a level? Does it not go against your "VISION"?
The "exp loss" is not a punishment for the sake of punishing you, it's there to prevent you from "brute-forcing" things.
WITH the exp loss you are forced to do content you are able to without dying - based on your power level. If you do so, you will level up over time, even if you die sometimes, slower - but still.
WITHOUT the exp loss you could still run content not meant for your power level and would even level up - gaining more power when you shouldn't. So you would be rewarded no matter what thus overcoming things you should not overcome.
And this "exp loss" system isn't "inconsistent". It always starts at the same level and you lose a fixed amount of exp, while never losing a level because you already reached it. It's not present right from the start because that is the "learning phase". There you have to get familiar with the game.
If you apply this logic to something else you can easily see why "removing the exp loss" doesn't make sense.
Imagine you fight a boss 10 times, but you cannot defeat the boss. The assumption is - you are too weak atm, but "removing the exp loss" would be comparable to "even if you can't defeat the boss - after 10 attempts you still get the loot".
I don't know what's going on in your head when you equate that no XP loss is the sam as free loot from bosses you didn't kill. You already earned that XP by playing the game and killing things. Getting loot from the boss requires killing the boss. No kill = no loot. Same as "no kill = no xp".
XP loss is a punishment. I haven't seen a single convincing argument for why it's not. Yours is not convincing either.
|
|
"
I don't know what's going on in your head when you equate that no XP loss is the sam as free loot from bosses you didn't kill. You already earned that XP by playing the game and killing things. Getting loot from the boss requires killing the boss. No kill = no loot. Same as "no kill = no xp".
XP loss is a punishment. I haven't seen a single convincing argument for why it's not. Yours is not convincing either.
It's simple.
"You already earned that XP by playing the game and killing things."
Yeah? You already earned the fragment by playing the game and killing things,
so you are able to attempt the boss fight.
And you are building UP exp, the only moment where it is yours (you are rewarded for gaining exp) is - when you get your level up. The exp from killing a monster is not the reward you gain, that's the process for the reward "Level Up".
And yes, exp loss is a punishment, never said something against it.
|
|
|
Heya,
As of today, the dumpster fire has only gotten worse, I take NO pleasure in saying that. As I said, I am an OG PoE1 player, along with other franchises, I want options for playing GREAT games. The buyout (10c) has obviously caused a great many changes to what was the ideals formed by GGG, they are long gone, everyone we thought were in charge, their visions...rode off into the sunset.
At some point, reality needs to set in, this is going to be a LONG slog, and 10c has NO ideals except to get as much money as they can from "us".
ANYONE who says PoE2 is a D4 beater is irrational, it's a copy/paste (except for short campaign), it's a pathetic, broken, and has NO endgame that isn't as I said, copied/pasted from PoE1. 3 acts, that's what ALL the years they worked on it...SMH.
WTAF? Shame on them, shame on 10c, and shame on anyone left trying to put lipstick on a pig.
|
|
"
Heya,
As of today, the dumpster fire has only gotten worse, I take NO pleasure in saying that. As I said, I am an OG PoE1 player, along with other franchises, I want options for playing GREAT games. The buyout (10c) has obviously caused a great many changes to what was the ideals formed by GGG, they are long gone, everyone we thought were in charge, their visions...rode off into the sunset.
At some point, reality needs to set in, this is going to be a LONG slog, and 10c has NO ideals except to get as much money as they can from "us".
ANYONE who says PoE2 is a D4 beater is irrational, it's a copy/paste (except for short campaign), it's a pathetic, broken, and has NO endgame that isn't as I said, copied/pasted from PoE1. 3 acts, that's what ALL the years they worked on it...SMH.
WTAF? Shame on them, shame on 10c, and shame on anyone left trying to put lipstick on a pig.
Dude... Tencent acquired GGG in 2018, which was 7 years ago when Tencent already held 87% of the shares. The "Tencent owns GGG so it will get worse" argument doesn't work.
Furthermore, the only "copy & paste" are the end-game league mechanics.
That you say "3 acts, that's what ALL the years they worked on it... SMH" is dishonest and delusional, based in reality.
They worked on:
- new character rigs
- new animations
- new bosses (50 atm, 100 on release)
- new monsters (400 atm, 800 on release)
- new skills
- new passive tree
- new VFX
- new classes (12 in total including old revamped ones)
- new ascendancies (36 in total including old revamped ones)
- new music
- new Acts (1-6 and not 1-3)
- new items (uniques and non-uniques)
- new controls (WASD)
and so on.
Lipstick on a pig... something you only can say with dishonesty. Shame on you.
Zuletzt bearbeitet von JakkerONAIR#4902 um 03.02.2025, 10:45:59
|
|
"
"
Amounts of XP lost are trivial until level 90 but after that one death can cost you hours of playtime (and it feels even worse if you got zero useful drops during that playtime). Especially if you aren't playing meta build.
I don't know any other game that comes close to that. None in ARPG genre for sure.
Single player games either have saves every so often or let you OPT-IN for ironman for whatever reasons.
If XP loss was an OPT-IN, 90%+ of players would OPT-OUT of that choice. You masochistic junkies severely overestimate how many players are like you.
Campaign has a perfect amount of punishment.
You die on a map? Zone respawns, try again. Although it might feel bad if you die right after getting something useful to drop but before you picked it up. We've seen screenshots of perfect jewellers lost to death.
You die on a boss? Boss respawns, try again.
There's no XP loss involved because it's not necessary. Why does it suddenly become neceassary in the endgame?
I'm all in for consistency. If you want to have an XP loss, have it there for campaign too. Also, you should delevel, removing last allocated passive point. Because you state it's a punishment for playing badly. So why the punishment is not there when you are at 0% of a level? Does it not go against your "VISION"?
The "exp loss" is not a punishment for the sake of punishing you, it's there to prevent you from "brute-forcing" things.
WITH the exp loss you are forced to do content you are able to without dying - based on your power level. If you do so, you will level up over time, even if you die sometimes, slower - but still.
WITHOUT the exp loss you could still run content not meant for your power level and would even level up - gaining more power when you shouldn't. So you would be rewarded no matter what thus overcoming things you should not overcome.
And this "exp loss" system isn't "inconsistent". It always starts at the same level and you lose a fixed amount of exp, while never losing a level because you already reached it. It's not present right from the start because that is the "learning phase". There you have to get familiar with the game.
If you apply this logic to something else you can easily see why "removing the exp loss" doesn't make sense.
Imagine you fight a boss 10 times, but you cannot defeat the boss. The assumption is - you are too weak atm, but "removing the exp loss" would be comparable to "even if you can't defeat the boss - after 10 attempts you still get the loot".
This can be resolved very easy...
Record the XP when a player first enters the map; if they die, remove all XP back to that point.
This way only the XP that was "earned" during the immediate map is being removed and GGG still retains their "punishment". Hell, with this kind of XP loss, they could go back to 6 deaths per map because you'd lose the XP between each death; so long as they tracked whether your death was during a boss fight and still only allowed one death then.
|
|
"
This can be resolved very easy...
Record the XP when a player first enters the map; if they die, remove all XP back to that point.
This way only the XP that was "earned" during the immediate map is being removed and GGG still retains their "punishment". Hell, with this kind of XP loss, they could go back to 6 deaths per map because you'd lose the XP between each death; so long as they tracked whether your death was during a boss fight and still only allowed one death then.
It's already solved, but some ppl make a problem out of it when it's not.
If ppl die too often so they cannot reach lvl 96, then it's not the game's fault or a thing GGG has to solve - these players are at fault and have to solve something.
Improve their build, gear, skill, defences, passives, run easier content, etc.
This is not "Diablo 4" where level 100 is the requirement to play the endgame and be able to do the paragon stuff or whatever it was called.
In "Path of Exile" around 99.9% of builds are "done" at level 96 or even below. The last few points are only in really rare cases mandatory.
|
|
"
One thing to keep in mind with "loss" is what that loss represents. Early on, that 10% xp isn't a big deal, because you can pretty easily make it back. But once you get past a certain, xp slows to a crawl, yet the xp loss remains at 10%. So, basically, there's a point at which the xp loss penalty effectively grows much, much larger than it was before.
That's entirely the point though, isn't it? As you are less experienced, less fully developed, the punishment is less intense which promotes learning and growth. BUT that shifts when you reach a point in the deep 90s, when you are now presumably a "master" of not dying (which you ought to be), your build is near complete, you have played a LOT more....so the punishment is more severe.
Effective punishments are always more severe the more you are expected to know. This is true in real life too. You aren't going to punish a five year old for, lets say hitting someone, in the same way you would punish a teenager. Similarly, you aren't going to punish a death from 70 to 71 in the same way as a death from 90 to 91. The difference in expected knowledge and behavior is astronomical.
Starting anew....with PoE 2 Zuletzt bearbeitet von cowmoo275#3095 um 03.02.2025, 11:55:15
|
|
"
Dude... Tencent acquired GGG in 2018, which was 7 years ago when Tencent already held 87% of the shares. The "Tencent owns GGG so it will get worse" argument doesn't work.
Furthermore, the only "copy & paste" are the end-game league mechanics.
That you say "3 acts, that's what ALL the years they worked on it... SMH" is dishonest and delusional, based in reality.
They worked on:
- new character rigs
- new animations
- new bosses (50 atm, 100 on release)
- new monsters (400 atm, 800 on release)
- new skills
- new passive tree
- new VFX
- new classes (12 in total including old revamped ones)
- new ascendancies (36 in total including old revamped ones)
- new music
- new Acts (1-6 and not 1-3)
- new items (uniques and non-uniques)
- new controls (WASD)
and so on.
Lipstick on a pig... something you only can say with dishonesty. Shame on you.
Heya,
Acts 4-6 is a copy of 1-3, hence the "short campaign" wording, along with a great many things promised and not delivered, and can we talk about the support of PoE1 at all, lol, right? I KNOW who has been dishonest, and so do many OG's, you're a fan, so am I, I'm not going to sugar coat crap and support the un-supportable.
I understand the 10c buyout, obviously a great deal has happened in the last year or so to change the dynamics of decision making, and to say it hasn't is one reason why you are seen as you are, a "white knight" supporting this dev team and company despite a myriad of bad decisions.
My apologies for condensing everything to a manageable post, I tend to do so instead of spending time in the forums, you are correct in many of your points, but as I've said, while feasibly some are there, are they working, hell, for a great many folks, the game isn't WORKING. Before pulling the plug, the inane number of technical issues was overwhelming at times.
Anyways, I do hope you enjoy the game as is, I'll be back after another iteration, hopefully it greatly improves.
Take care.
|
|
