2.3.0 Changes to the High-level Experience Equation

"

ACGIFT wrote:

Also, there's precedent for it: GGG themselves say PoE takes after Diablo 2, and THAT game split EXP between party members, after all.

I've always thought that it XP calculation works this way...
Party members do not get equal splits? So how it is done?
Can somebody explain?

That exp nerf stop many people to progress in game, hope you are happy GGG

"

TreeOfDead wrote:

That exp nerf stop many people to progress in game, hope you are happy GGG

OFC Chris and co. are happy....................

I was getting 3% exp per tier 15 map at level 91. Each map takes 2~5 minutes to clear, so I can easily get 91 to 92 in less than 2 hours. TBH the great limitation in how fast you can level up is your map pool. If I had an unlimited source of T16 maps I could easily hit lv 1~100 in about 3 days (/played time) but "no one" has an unlimited source of T16 maps

While some of these runners are "legit": they party up, make high tier map rotas and spend all their currency on lvling up other's arent. In addition some people have ALL day free to play while most normal people don't. That's why I think balancing the game based on less than 1% of the playerbase is never a good thing.

But one thing that I would like to see would be proper reward for harder content. Right now, doing a white map or a corrupted rare with 8 mods you get bascally the same % xp from that map. The ammount of xp you get from bosses is also irrelevant, sometimes it's better to just skip the boss and run another map, because this way you will be lvling way faster.

"

pelife123 wrote:

I was getting 3% exp per tier 15 map at level 91. Each map takes 2~5 minutes to clear, so I can easily get 91 to 92 in less than 2 hours. TBH the great limitation in how fast you can level up is your map pool. If I had an unlimited source of T16 maps I could easily hit lv 1~100 in about 3 days (/played time) but "no one" has an unlimited source of T16 maps

While some of these runners are "legit": they party up, make high tier map rotas and spend all their currency on lvling up other's arent. In addition some people have ALL day free to play while most normal people don't. That's why I think balancing the game based on less than 1% of the playerbase is never a good thing.

But one thing that I would like to see would be proper reward for harder content. Right now, doing a white map or a corrupted rare with 8 mods you get bascally the same % xp from that map. The ammount of xp you get from bosses is also irrelevant, sometimes it's better to just skip the boss and run another map, because this way you will be lvling way faster.

91-92 gj, try leveling at 97+, reading is hard, get the hell out

Wow, that was a quite a long read, but I read all of the posts. Some of you have great ideas and hope GGG will implement them.

Personally I had/have the same thoughts as 99.99% of the people that posted in the thread. The XP-penalty is extremely crazy imo. I even stopped leveling at lvl 85 since it didn't feel rewarding anymore to level. The rewards in the league are abysmal imo, so not worth for me to continue there, unless I'm bored. I stopped spending my coins that I have in the shop, since the game doesn't feel rewarding anymore. (still have 2K+).

Playing the red maps is a waste imo. Dying a lot atm, since I don't want to run a "meta-build". I want to play what-ever build I like to play. The latest nerves they introduced limits me to to only a couple unfortunately. I loved my CoC-Slammer, but you killed it It was save, I didn't die! But I guess we also have to think about people with toasters. (not that I play with them)

I spend a shitload of money on supporter-packs, cosmetic items, pets, but now I can't play what I would like to play. A weeks after the last XP-penalty and Gem-nerves I don't feel like supporting GGG anymore the way they are going.

Please consider removing the XP-penalty again for the 99.999% (it's a number) and consider some of the ideas people have been suggesting. I really like the idea of the XP-group-sharing part. Shouldn't be hard to implement. (logically thinking)

Loosing your players that actually buy items is not a smart strategy. Unfortunately I see that it is going there. People are not having the fun in the game they used to have. Loosing players means also loosing income! You guys might want to think about that and actually consider what the playerbase wants instead of what GGG is doing.

"Balancing" the game around a "hand-full" of people is plain... It's baffling!

I'm personally not sure if I'm for the exp penalty or not, but a lot of people have been saying it's a balancing around 0.1% or 0.01% of the population. I'd like to actually see GGG's numbers on this, because I think it would clear up a lot of possible confusion. If the balancing is actually being done based around such a small percentage of players, a lot of the arguments being made in this thread are valid. However, if the numbers bare out that it's 10% of the population or higher, these nerfs are easily justified. It also would help us better understand where GGG actually wants player level to balance out. For instance, what percentage of the player base do they want to actually see make it to level 100 per league, what are they aiming for exactly.

Chris, for a lot of us, this game is about theory crafting and crunching numbers. We create builds around it, we trade around it, we craft around it, ect. That's not to argue the entire player base approaches the game this way, as the numbers may bear out that players like this also are a minority. Regardless, if these development manifestos came with the actual numbers you base your development decisions around, I'm of the opinion that these changes would be received with far less negativity. Saying "We find players like a harder grind" is all well and good, but without providing the evidence for those findings, we have no justification for those claims.

It's my understanding that these Manifesto posts are here for the reason of transparency and to help explain the reasoning behind design decisions. So far, they have done a great job in a lot of ways to help us understand the mindset being applied to many changes, but not such a great job at providing us the data conclusions are being drawn from. As stated above, maybe not all players would be interested in that data as much as the conclusions you draw, but my suspicion is a decent chunk of the player base would find such data an interesting read. Posts could easily have a two section format; One for the conclusions and the decisions being made based on them, and a following section where the data is broken down to help better understand how those decisions were reached.

The challenge should be to take any build to 100 not just full time super fast meta. Anyway deaths and lack of time hold me back.

"

JujiKabane wrote:

I'm personally not sure if I'm for the exp penalty or not, but a lot of people have been saying it's a balancing around 0.1% or 0.01% of the population. I'd like to actually see GGG's numbers on this, because I think it would clear up a lot of possible confusion.

You are saying it as if you believe they have such numbers. Not sure if serious or joking.

"

You are saying it as if you believe they have such numbers. Not sure if serious or joking.

If you don't think the people with access to the entire back-end of the game, who've programmed it from the ground up, and run all the servers that every unique player to the game connects to on a daily basis, have access to meta-data about how many people per league reach level 100 and how soon they do so, you need to re-evaluate your understanding of information technology.

There is an in-game tracker for all players ranking in the leader board, so GGG has access to that data. There is a time stamp for all actions that happen within the game (Including level ups, item transitions, and login attempts) to ensure the client side and server side data syncs properly, so GGG has access to that data. There is an even more massive amount of data that you or I have no access to, that the lead programming team can access at the click of a button using developer and server administration tools to gather that source data, so rest assured, GGG has access to any and all information about the game necessary to make development decisions.

Now, the interpretation of that data, is a completely different matter. Depending on the data itself, the design philosophy the developers based the foundation of the game around, and the in the moment decisions that have to be made to resolve arising issues that negatively effect that philosophy, those interpretations can change. Regardless, it'd be enlightening to have a deeper look into the data those decisions are based off of, and the actual thought processes that push the game in one direction or another.