Exp loss on death topics are getting out of hand.

"

Toforto#2372 wrote:

"

MrPedez#4934 wrote:

Yup u can never loose a lvl nor can u cheese ur way to a higher lvl without having a build that can actually do the content without dying multiple maps in a row. So yes systems like this exists for a reason.

Nobody cares about any of that, lvl100 isn't some grand achievement. The average player just wants to have fun in a game without their time being wasted. Just make it optional, and if you enjoy losing your exp and time so much then go ahead and keep it enabled. The people who do not, can opt out and disable it. Everyone wins.

Some people care, and yes it is an achievement and a proof that ur build is good or u would never reach lvl 100 and it should never be allowed to opt out either cause its part of the game. If u cant have fun without constanly gaining levels regardless of skill/build issues or number of deaths then arpg's are probably not for u. Xp loss on death is fine and i dont feel any disrespect of my time just because i die once in a while cause i will still have the loot i gathered and the maps i completed before i died are still completed so no real harm done, its just improve and move on its really that simple. If i die i probably have a pretty good idea what i need to improve

"

Vinsdvalh#0247 wrote:

Still waiting for somebody to tell me what is the purpose of XP penalty.

To make people unhappy seems to be the purpose

"

mrxkon#5764 wrote:

I think that it's been told multiple times, it just seems to be ignored. So I'll give it a try as well.

Actions have consequences, that's the purpose, as simple as that.

If you like that or not, that's a different story.

Not all actions have consequences. You can respec, you can create a new character, you can unequip a bad piece of gear. Why dying makes you lose XP ?

"

Vinsdvalh#0247 wrote:

"

mrxkon#5764 wrote:

I think that it's been told multiple times, it just seems to be ignored. So I'll give it a try as well.

Actions have consequences, that's the purpose, as simple as that.

If you like that or not, that's a different story.

Not all actions have consequences. You can respec, you can create a new character, you can unequip a bad piece of gear. Why dying makes you lose XP ?

You can respec into an absolutely broken build and lose your gold for nothing. Or into a great build and have a blast.

You can create a new character which leads to you grinding everything all over a gain. Might be a fun gameplay, might be a miserable mistake after the facts.

You can unequip a bad piece of gear and put a better, which is great. But you can also brick your character with that seemingly 'better' piece because you accidentally missed that it doesn't have the +20 Dex or whatever else you might needed in parallel with everything else in the heat of the moment.

Every action has a consequence, that's the rule not just in games, but since the day you took your first breath.

Edit: I think that you just prefer the good consequences rather than the bad. Which is fine, they're consequences nevertheless.

So if you
Couldn't respec at all

Couldn't create a new character

Couldn't change a piece of gear

Would it be bad game design or just "actions have consequences" ?

"

mrxkon#5764 wrote:

"

Vinsdvalh#0247 wrote:

Still waiting for somebody to tell me what is the purpose of XP penalty.

I think that it's been told multiple times, it just seems to be ignored. So I'll give it a try as well.

Actions have consequences, that's the purpose, as simple as that.

If you like that or not, that's a different story.

Because the reason is literally nothing more than "someone did it 24 years ago" and the defence for it devolves into nothing more than ego brag.

Not that it's a mechanic that adds positive engagement to the game, which it does the exact opposite.

"

Vinsdvalh#0247 wrote:

So if you
Couldn't respec at all

Couldn't create a new character

Couldn't change a piece of gear

Would it be bad game design or just "actions have consequences" ?

Pokemon enforces one character per game. And unsurprisingly, no it's not a good design outside of marketing. All it does is enforce families to buy multiple versions of it.

WoW also tried to dabble in "meaningful choice" and lo and behold. It wasn't meaningful at all, only aggravating.

"

Vinsdvalh#0247 wrote:

So if you
Couldn't respec at all

Couldn't create a new character

Couldn't change a piece of gear

Would it be bad game design or just "actions have consequences" ?

I'm not sure how is this relevant now, or if we entered the realm of replying for the sake of it? But to be as fair as possible I'll answer.

If you don't have gold, you can't respec. The action here would be you spending it elsewhere, or not gathering it in the first place I suppose...

There's 24 character slots, if you take up all of them, well the consequence is that you can't make yet another.

If you're carrying a piece of gear with specific requirements that you're missing, you can't equip it can you?

None of the above are "bad" or "good" designs by definition, they are just designs. If you like them or not, that's a different story and it's simply an opinion. Opinions vary though and that's the beauty of it :) .

I suspect that the XP penalty has the following effect and is used for exactly that:

initial situation:

you just grinded 40% and suddenly you lose 10%

what happens then?

Due to the loss, your “brain” suggests to you that I have to compensate for the loss and earn it again so that it feels good again

what exactly is happening here?

Just like a gambling addict in an arcade who wants to get back all the money he lost that he had previously laboriously "grinded", that's exactly how the XP penalty works in my opinion

was that all?

No, of course he also gives you the feeling that you, the master of all games, have made it to 100 because you are so good and have overcome most of the hurdles and that is also correct

was that really all?

probably yes



summary:

-promotes gambling addiction

-analyze cause and effect

"

mrfox123#7595 wrote:

Pokemon enforces one character per game. And unsurprisingly, no it's not a good design outside of marketing. All it does is enforce families to buy multiple versions of it.

So it's an excellent design as well (even just within marketing), because it brings the company more cash.

It just doesn't benefit some, so they'd be against it and call it a "bad" design. Which is fine.

And that was exactly my point, opinions vary, but the "design" is still a "design", it's neither good nor bad, it's an abstraction and we either like it or not.

Especially in the stages of an EA where plenty of things might change down the road, everything should be considered an abstraction, while in parallel allow opinions to be heard equally.