I might quit your game due to exp lose.

If they removed the XP loss and you hit max level within a week (like D4), you would also quit.

So there's no win here

I've played ARPGs since Diablo came out. D1, D2, T1, T2, Grim Dawn, Chronicon, POE, POE2. I've never been a fan of XP loss, not even in the old D2 days.

Just because a mechanic has been around in ARPGs for a long time does not mean it defines what an ARPG is. The definition of ARPG is not "a game where you lose some of your XP when you die".

Does an ARPG have to have consumable potions? What about scrolls of town portal? POE's flasks were a really cool change to the genre. Should they have just stayed with consumable pots? What about changing TP scrolls to a skill, was that turning away from the ARPG genre?

There are smarter ways to punish failure then taking away XP, but some developers have rose-colored glasses and just can't see it another way.

Very simply, you could give an XP bonus for how long it's been since you last died, and once you hit level cap, change the bonus to item Q/R, that would definitely incentivize playing perfectly even AFTER you've maxed your level. Or since it will take a long time to reach 100, introduce the item Q/R bonus while still leveling but really blow it up after reaching max level.

I'm not saying "there I've solved it". I'm just one person, I'm sure plenty of people have better ideas than me. I wish more developers would give experimentation around death penalty a shot.

"

Nyon#6673 wrote:

I never told him to go play d4? And how am I antagonizing? I dont think you understand what that word means.

He is by his own admission, not enjoying the game.
And I am giving him feedback on how he could play the game differently to have more fun. And I can do this with extreme confidence because there is only one way to play a game wrong and that is to not have fun, which he admittedly isnt having.
Please elaborate whats antagonizing about that or how that is related to diablo 4. A tip for the future would be to actually read someones reply before replying to it.

I'm quoting you because i have seen you replying a lot, so it's for your overall work if you prefer.

Antagonazing is saying stuff like that :

"

D4 and minesweeper gamers that are shocked that they have to look at their monitor while playing

"

A game that is made for everyone is a bad game.
Stop crying, either get better at the game or find a different game.
I can recommend diablo 4 or minesweeper perhaps?

These are two quotes from you.

"

Nyon#6673 wrote:

Their not just my opinion tho obviously.

You think ggg just kept the exp penalty in poe1 for a decade while people complained about it for no reason? They just were absent minded and didnt realise that it was there or that people were complaining about it?

No, obviously they had a reason to implement it, and they had a reason to not remove it, and the reason is the same as why they implemented it in poe2.
You can think its a bad reason if you want, but its still a reason and not just my opinion.

GGG has a reason, yes, and we would like to hear it.
You're literally saying the reason it's there is because it's there. So yeah it's not really enough of a reason, excuse me.

"

deadamaranth#4371 wrote:

I've played ARPGs since Diablo came out. D1, D2, T1, T2, Grim Dawn, Chronicon, POE, POE2. I've never been a fan of XP loss, not even in the old D2 days.

Just because a mechanic has been around in ARPGs for a long time does not mean it defines what an ARPG is. The definition of ARPG is not "a game where you lose some of your XP when you die".

Does an ARPG have to have consumable potions? What about scrolls of town portal? POE's flasks were a really cool change to the genre. Should they have just stayed with consumable pots? What about changing TP scrolls to a skill, was that turning away from the ARPG genre?

There are smarter ways to punish failure then taking away XP, but some developers have rose-colored glasses and just can't see it another way.

Very simply, you could give an XP bonus for how long it's been since you last died, and once you hit level cap, change the bonus to item Q/R, that would definitely incentivize playing perfectly even AFTER you've maxed your level. Or since it will take a long time to reach 100, introduce the item Q/R bonus while still leveling but really blow it up after reaching max level.

I'm not saying "there I've solved it". I'm just one person, I'm sure plenty of people have better ideas than me. I wish more developers would give experimentation around death penalty a shot.

Interesting idea, but now we need to balance the whole game around level 100 people having significantly more IQ/IR than anyone else. That means lowering natural drop rates, which means pissing off even more people.

"

Vinsdvalh#0247 wrote:

"

Nyon#6673 wrote:

I never told him to go play d4? And how am I antagonizing? I dont think you understand what that word means.

He is by his own admission, not enjoying the game.
And I am giving him feedback on how he could play the game differently to have more fun. And I can do this with extreme confidence because there is only one way to play a game wrong and that is to not have fun, which he admittedly isnt having.
Please elaborate whats antagonizing about that or how that is related to diablo 4. A tip for the future would be to actually read someones reply before replying to it.

I'm quoting you because i have seen you replying a lot, so it's for your overall work if you prefer.

Antagonazing is saying stuff like that :

"

D4 and minesweeper gamers that are shocked that they have to look at their monitor while playing

"

A game that is made for everyone is a bad game.
Stop crying, either get better at the game or find a different game.
I can recommend diablo 4 or minesweeper perhaps?

These are two quotes from you.

"

Nyon#6673 wrote:

Their not just my opinion tho obviously.

You think ggg just kept the exp penalty in poe1 for a decade while people complained about it for no reason? They just were absent minded and didnt realise that it was there or that people were complaining about it?

No, obviously they had a reason to implement it, and they had a reason to not remove it, and the reason is the same as why they implemented it in poe2.
You can think its a bad reason if you want, but its still a reason and not just my opinion.

GGG has a reason, yes, and we would like to hear it.
You're literally saying the reason it's there is because it's there. So yeah it's not really enough of a reason, excuse me.

Ok this is actually going to be my last reply to you cause its obviously so pointless, your just a dishonest individual that just makes up your own facts.

Your so dishonest that your just falsely acusing me of doing things that are obviously untrue.
And when I call you out on it you have to dig trough other forum posts to find something similar to try and use as a method to defend yourself.

1. How is what I said to a different person in a different thread in any way comparable or relative to when Mm talking to someone else?

You have the most childish perspective I think ive ever seen anyone have.

2. Again more of the same, I never said that the reason it was there was "its there because its there". Please provide any content to where Im saying this, again your just being dishonest and making up shit. I only said that they have a reason for implementing it and not removing it. Then you tell me that im wrong and that its only my opinion, and now your conceding that there is infact a reason you just dont know what it is? So I guess that means I wasnt wrong then? If that was what I actually said then you quoting me would be enough, there would be no need for your explanation of what I "litterally" said.

Honestly just not even worth discussing with people like you.
Anyone who disagrees with you is just "antagonizing" and your just using language like: "you litterally said this" and then say something that you know is different and then change your own stance to whatever suits the arugment best. Thats why you can quote people on forums btw, so when people like you use these tricks its easy to spot when your being dishonest and falsely presenting what others typed.

"

Valsacar#0268 wrote:

Interesting idea, but now we need to balance the whole game around level 100 people having significantly more IQ/IR than anyone else. That means lowering natural drop rates, which means pissing off even more people.

Well, see, I told you I didn't solve it! You could put drop-rate on a ramp, you get more at the beginning and it tapers as you level, until you hit max.

I guess it depends on how long it takes to hit max. If everyone is able to hit it quickly since they don't lose XP, it's kind of inevitable, isn't it? Like how drops will always be way better in maps. Every player is intended to tough it out in campaign and eventually start seeing better drops in maps.

Hmmm. Good point, though, thanks for knocking me out of my tunnel vision.

"

Nyon#6673 wrote:

Ok this is actually going to be my last reply to you cause its obviously so pointless, your just a dishonest individual that just makes up your own facts.

Your so dishonest that your just falsely acusing me of doing things that are obviously untrue.
And when I call you out on it you have to dig trough other forum posts to find something similar to try and use as a method to defend yourself.

1. How is what I said to a different person in a different thread in any way comparable or relative to when Mm talking to someone else?

You have the most childish perspective I think ive ever seen anyone have.

You can't be trashing people in one thread and play the victim in another. You have to own what you say.

"

Nyon#6673 wrote:

2. Again more of the same, I never said that the reason it was there was "its there because its there". Please provide any content to where Im saying this, again your just being dishonest and making up shit. I only said that they have a reason for implementing it and not removing it. Then you tell me that im wrong and that its only my opinion, and now your conceding that there is infact a reason you just dont know what it is? So I guess that means I wasnt wrong then?

Honestly just not even worth discussing with people like you.
Anyone who disagrees with you is just "antagonizing" and your just using language like: "you litterally said this" and then say something that you know is different and then change your own stance to whatever suits the arugment best. Thats why you can quote people on forums btw, so when people like you use these tricks its easy to spot when your being dishonest and falsely presenting what others typed.

You said "No, obviously they had a reason to implement it, and they had a reason to not remove it, and the reason is the same as why they implemented it in poe2.
You can think its a bad reason if you want, but its still a reason and not just my opinion. "

I read "there's a reason because it's there". How else should have i interpret it ?

-Cut, forgot how to quote-

"

Valsacar#0268 wrote:

Interesting idea, but now we need to balance the whole game around level 100 people having significantly more IQ/IR than anyone else. That means lowering natural drop rates, which means pissing off even more people.

I just had another thought, maybe a really bad one but, and hear me out... they could remove the level cap.

They could make the XP required to reach each level after 100 take about as long as all the previous levels combined, such that the only way to do it is play extremely well, not die, and get the "bonus XP earned" ratio up really high.

Then you could have a ladder competition for who can get to 105, or maybe even 110 if they're truly a no-lifer. And it would only be 5 to 10 more passive points.

They just need to decide how long they want it to take someone to get to a certain "soft cap" and set the XP requirements accordingly.

Then you always have something to shoot for, and brag about, but it means you have to be extremely good to do it. Then they could even tie IIR/IIQ to your current level. Now everyone will want to get as high level as possible, and to do so they have to not die. What about this?

"

deadamaranth#4371 wrote:

I just had another thought, maybe a really bad one but, and hear me out... they could remove the level cap.

They could make the XP required to reach each level after 100 take about as long as all the previous levels combined, such that the only way to do it is play extremely well, not die, and get the "bonus XP earned" ratio up really high.

Then you could have a ladder competition for who can get to 105, or maybe even 110 if they're truly a no-lifer. And it would only be 5 to 10 more passive points.

They just need to decide how long they want it to take someone to get to a certain "soft cap" and set the XP requirements accordingly.

Then you always have something to shoot for, and brag about, but it means you have to be extremely good to do it. Then they could even tie IIR/IIQ to your current level. Now everyone will want to get as high level as possible, and to do so they have to not die. What about this?

How about a death counter and a ladder for lowest counter at level 100, and maybe some MTX rewards attached to it. Would it be a better chase than just reaching level 100 ?