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

"

BK2710#6123 wrote:

Without these penalties the game can be made harder in regards to enemy placement/AI/strength and what not because currently it barely does. I speak from my own experience here but I do not see a difference between tier 5 and tier 16 maps outside of how you juice the map. I think this is a huge problem and needs to be addressed because when I hit endgame I did a few t1 maps, then t5, then got 2 t15 from a friend and farmed those since then. You could of course say I knew what I was doing even though I am new to PoE2 but this still feels wrong to me personally.

Back to the topic, dying on maps should also greatly reduce the rewards you gain to the point where if you tackle content you cannot handle you really do not progress in regards to materials and what not (drop rate penalties if you will). If you are a new player with a mediocre build at level 81 then getting 10more levels is not suddenly going to make you clear the best content there is. If someone does achieve this however then that is to be celebrated as you have taught a player how to fix a build, in their eyes, and the confidence makes them return for later leagues and thus improve at the game.

The game is lacking in real hard level 100 content.

I will type this in the end again to remind you why 100 is so important to people, reaching max level/maxing a character gives a player a feeling of closure, humans are goal oriented. If you grind towards a goal (tangible, not grind 500000 maps) then you are motivated as rewards come in reliable steps and you feel progress. If you grind and you get nothing in return, perceived, you feel like it is not worth it.
Game design has to take humans into account, this is how we end up with good games but also sadly things such as gambling and gacha.

+1 for the lack of balance in the difficulty of the maps between T2/T5 and T14+.

As the developers have said several times, it was unthinkable to release the game without an endgame, even in EA. In the end, players have access to the content, but it's clearly unbalanced, and the final version shouldn't be anything like it.

That goes back to your argument that the game is lacking in real hard level 100 content.

To come back to level 100 topic, my opinion is that it shouldn't be easy to get it. I'm not sure that my own experience is duplicable to others, but as an example it took me several years on PoE1 to finally get to lvl 100 with one character.

This goal motivated me to spend hours looking for information on the wiki, on tutorial videos, following streams and trying out new features on my builds. And that's what made my experience of the game really rewarding and enjoyable. It's not the goal that's important, but rather the path to get to that goal.

"

BK2710#6123 wrote:

The game is lacking in real hard level 100 content.

I will type this in the end again to remind you why 100 is so important to people, reaching max level/maxing a character gives a player a feeling of closure, humans are goal oriented. If you grind towards a goal (tangible, not grind 500000 maps) then you are motivated as rewards come in reliable steps and you feel progress. If you grind and you get nothing in return, perceived, you feel like it is not worth it.
Game design has to take humans into account, this is how we end up with good games but also sadly things such as gambling and gacha.

This is the common mistake people make. I think GGG devs have said that goal is not to get to 100 but the progression and playing. If i get to 100 (in EA most likely not as i test current classes and then new ones when they come) then to me i already played too much this class and it was completed probably way before that. You can get VERY powerful from lvl 90 already IF you have currency in trading league or luck for best stuff that is available. Level 20 skill gems need lvl 90 character example.

So i look at completely from GGG point of view. When i hit level 90 i should have already char powerful enough to complete 95% or more of content. Maybe some higher tier uber bosses left to do but with current citadel spawning issues i disregard as i wont be done before hitting 100 (0 found so far).

So motivation should be progress and stuff to do from 90+ not the level 100. Its kinda strange obsession from those who want XP penalty to be removed like they are going for level 100 because of what? Ego or they really think those last passive points are going to make them so much more powerful? I really didnt like D4 apporach where you have to get lvl 100 asap as then end-game starts. In Poe2 to me level 100 is where for that char endgame has already long before that already finished or should be minus the citadel fiasco.

"

Talamor1#0630 wrote:

Sorry buddy not to go over our disagreements point by point, but I'm at work and I don't have the time to develop all my thoughts on these subjects (I may not like PoE2 in its current state, but I still spend all my days on the forums debating and trying to make constructive criticisms to improve it...).

No worries I appreciate the discussion.

"

In my opinion, it would be nonsense to allow people who die on every map to reach level 100 with a build that doesn't hold up.

I don't think anybody is claiming they should be able to make good progress while dying on every single map. I certainly am not. But some little bit of progress for the time spent trying and the monsters successfully killed and maps successfully cleared is absolutely reasonable.

Second, be honest, why should it bother you if someone else spends 2, 3, 4 or however many more times as many hours getting to the same goal? Because for absolute certainty dying often massively slows progress even without the XP loss. You need to use another waystone, you lose the map activities, you have to spend time getting back into a map. Dying a lot is never going to get someone there efficiently due to the other systems in place like waystones etc. But if they spent 3x as long as you did playing the game, why begrudge them getting there eventually?

Thirdly, it's possible to be in the situation where you haven't found any good gear or been lucky with crafting for several levels, so even running the same maps you happily ran say 3 levels ago are significantly worse because because the XP loss has increased massively while the XP has gone down at least in terms of % of a level, possibly the actual amount goes down also (I'm not sure, haven't checked but it feels that way).

"

why do many new players complain about losing experience when they die?
Precisely because they would like to reach the next levels up to level 100.

No it's because going backwards in progression feels awful and is demoralising. It's one thing to feel like achieving something might take a long time. It's another to think that in order to stand a chance you need to only play boringly safe content for many times as long.

"

This penalty makes the endgame challenging and requires planning and going step by step. There's a risk of not being able to gain any more experience if players try to do things that are too difficult given the state of their builds.

It's not needed though - sustaining waystones is challenging for many. Losing map activities and having to re-run the map offers resistance.

"

Instead of complaining about the loss of experience, I'd advise to make lower level maps and improve equipment first.

Firstly, absolutely nobody is playing the game while not bothering to try and improve their gear and build. It's the entire point of an ARPG, it does not need to be enforced. And most know that getting better gear is usually most efficient running easy content as quickly as possible. They just might not find that fun.

Secondly it assumes there is a lower tier - I am sure plenty of people give up because they hit low 70s and are still dying occasionally on T1 maps, which only give a tiny amount of XP at that level so their progression halts. Sure, they might be able to trade or get lucky with upgrades but that just kicks the can down the road. The same will happen again but this time they will be a few levels higher and still running T1 maps due to the increased XP loss. And when you die, you have no guarantee that's going to happen anytime soon. It is demoralising and does not incentivise anything other giving up.

Thirdly, improving equipment relies on RNG. IDK if you are assuming trade or not but many people just hate trading. I realise trade is one of GGGs core pillars but they seem to have accepted not everyone likes doing it hence the SSF. So again you are just advocating running boring content for hours on end just to be able to maybe re-engage with something fun.

I have seen a reasonable compromise being to remove only XP from that map. That would be a big improvement. At least you wouldn't lose the XP you rightfully earned by completing the several maps previous.

To be clear - I am not arguing about getting to 100.

I am arguing based on players hitting walls anywhere from 70 onwards which incentivises them to run boringly safe content (which gives terrible loot and almost no XP and probably still has some chance of death which just represents an even longer amount of time gaining it) and not engage with any of the fun activities on maps. Not to dare risking a more challenging map mod.

It enforces a less exciting gameplay loop which many simply will not enjoy. They would prefer a more exciting but at least viable gameplay experience even if it's much less efficient, but at least they can have fun making slow progress.

I would love to see data on how many stop playing at what level. I would bet good money there is a big loss of retention in the early 70s.

It's not all about getting to 100. It's about feeling like your time has at least earned you something.

XP loss on death isn't going anywhere. Guaranteed. Y'all should move on from the topic.

I switched to a meta build to not die as much

"

CaduAndrade#9284 wrote:

"

FusionXTC#3438 wrote:

The main reason there's penalties is so players actually develop skills and feel rewarded for hitting level 95+, especially level 100.
Without penalty, noobies like you would be able to just grind t1 whites for 500 hours to achieve that goal.

You may enjoy the pain and the XP penalty, but understand that no matter what you think, GGG is losing a lot of players with this. It's not smart to loose money on something that could be configurable.

I and many others won't come back as long as the XP penalty exists. We have other options to dedicate our time without wasting it.

GGG is also loosing a players due to Campaign (for some) being hard, T18 maps being even harder, T4 Pinnacle Bosses being difficulty, powerful items being expensive or very rare in SSF. So should GGG make everything, even the BIS items available to everyone, and let players with zero skill or 20 hours played, to kill T4 Pinnacle bosses?

Games that try to appeal to everyone, are the most boring games. Death Penalty is there force you to improve your characters. This is not Diablo 3 and 4, where max level is your goal and everyone can achieve it.

Current balance issues and on death effects will be fixed/improved. You should not change systems because there are some EA issues.

This is Early Access, many things will improve, but there are some fundamental designs that will stay.

"

BK2710#6123 wrote:

Without these penalties the game can be made harder in regards to enemy placement/AI/strength and what not because currently it barely does.

Exactly this.

The game is EASIER because of the penalties. You simply can't make bosses that you're expected to die to multiple times before you learn all the mechanics under the current system.

If most players are not dying regularly to normal maps and dying often to bosses, the game is too easy and needs to be rebalanced.

Fully agree. I would have hoped they learned from PoE1 that no one except a hard core group like this. It could be a game option. But it's just always there. And it has no need to be there. The game is about builds, bosses and loot. Losing XP and grinding XP and not boss fights is not fun in this game.

No one wants to grind maps just for XP. And then have it all lost because of 1 death. How was this ever a good idea for any dev in any game.

A dad plays a game in the weekend. Kid comes over, asks a question. You answer, turn around. oops; all hours spend last weekend lost... Yhea "fun".

"

Waiden#9514 wrote:

"

CaduAndrade#9284 wrote:

"

FusionXTC#3438 wrote:

The main reason there's penalties is so players actually develop skills and feel rewarded for hitting level 95+, especially level 100.
Without penalty, noobies like you would be able to just grind t1 whites for 500 hours to achieve that goal.

You may enjoy the pain and the XP penalty, but understand that no matter what you think, GGG is losing a lot of players with this. It's not smart to loose money on something that could be configurable.

I and many others won't come back as long as the XP penalty exists. We have other options to dedicate our time without wasting it.

GGG is also loosing a players due to Campaign (for some) being hard, T18 maps being even harder, T4 Pinnacle Bosses being difficulty, powerful items being expensive or very rare in SSF. So should GGG make everything, even the BIS items available to everyone, and let players with zero skill or 20 hours played, to kill T4 Pinnacle bosses?

Games that try to appeal to everyone, are the most boring games. Death Penalty is there force you to improve your characters. This is not Diablo 3 and 4, where max level is your goal and everyone can achieve it.

Current balance issues and on death effects will be fixed/improved. You should not change systems because there are some EA issues.

This is Early Access, many things will improve, but there are some fundamental designs that will stay.

The penalty is that you died. You need to start again. You cannot start again if there's 1 portal. You cannot learn at your own pace if you lose XP.