Exp loss on death topics are getting out of hand.

"

TheFriggenBest#6781 wrote:

"

tarloch#1873 wrote:

I dont like it i am of an age where games used to have an end, you paid your money had your entertainment and moved on

the current trend is for a neverending subscription model (infecting all walks of life). the free to play and season model here is exactly that, that is why they want to keep antiquated ideas like xp lose on death. to keep you grinding...endlessly

i cant see the xp lose staying in its current form on full release. if it does prepare for the game to be dropped by a huge proportion of the playerbase.

what are you left with them? a niche game trying to be ground breaking and failing. understand i dont want easy or fast and grinding doesnt put me off.
but i do want progress and to entertained not heavily punished by in explicable one shot or be forced to constantly run safe low xp challenge maps

Im quite happy with playing for say a month having fun maxing my character and moving on to come back for the next refresh

if things dont change then i cant see me personally coming back and back its 2025 my time is valuable if i want endless farmville i will play one of my mothers mobile games

But what is it about getting to 100 that you so desperately need to be able to get there? Are you going to quit when you reach level 100? Getting there isn't going to unlock anything you don't already have access too. It's not gonna make you any stronger unless for some reason you think a couple 10-15% passive nodes are really that strong.

You gain nothing be getting to 100 other then a level number going up, is 100 just a place you get to to say you "finished" the game?

"

Jaenisch#6703 wrote:

In campaign you can go into a boss, die then just release and go back in....over and over and over. It feels really good when you finally beat the boss.

Then comes mapping and you're forced to do so many layouts that are horrible. Not all maps have bosses. The map is random so there are plenty of horrible positioning of maps to towers. You get 1 chance on ANY map and after you lose to a map you're forced to do it again without the events.

"

clarebunny440#7952 wrote:

Isn't that the dev's perspective, though, that players would consider 100 to be done, so the penalty is designed to lengthen the process?

I mean, I don't know that of course, but why else have the penalty? The core game loop for an ARPG is power creep - you bash things, you get shinies, sometimes they'll be an upgrade for you, and round and round you go until you can beat the most difficult content in the game easily with the rarest, most OP stuff you can find. You want levels for all of your skills - but is max level an achievement in that model really? It seems to be in this one.

I got to 90 on my witch today and am not intending to aim for 100 but just to take more risks with the existing content. But in principle, I am against taking something away from the player (exp) that was earned fairly prior to the content they died in. Its purpose seems to exist merely to lengthen what is already a longer and longer exp curve.

"

TheFriggenBest#6781 wrote:

"

clarebunny440#7952 wrote:

Isn't that the dev's perspective, though, that players would consider 100 to be done, so the penalty is designed to lengthen the process?

I mean, I don't know that of course, but why else have the penalty? The core game loop for an ARPG is power creep - you bash things, you get shinies, sometimes they'll be an upgrade for you, and round and round you go until you can beat the most difficult content in the game easily with the rarest, most OP stuff you can find. You want levels for all of your skills - but is max level an achievement in that model really? It seems to be in this one.

I got to 90 on my witch today and am not intending to aim for 100 but just to take more risks with the existing content. But in principle, I am against taking something away from the player (exp) that was earned fairly prior to the content they died in. Its purpose seems to exist merely to lengthen what is already a longer and longer exp curve.

I would assume it is the developer perspective, even still, if you can reach 100 with gear that in no way let's you be able to clear the end game bosses and actually survive just because you stay there grinding and dying with bad gear one could say you shouldnt considered yourself "finished" at reaching 100 anyway.

Reaching 100 requires you to be able to get gear to actually survive the content. Getting there in low tier gear that you die with every other map in no way constitutes "finishing" the game. So reaching the max level with bad gear because there's no exp penalty seems the opposite of what would make sense for 100 being the "end" of the game. Getting to 100 would require you to be at a point you can successfully clear the most difficult content and bosses so that would be fully juiced t16 and all bosses at difficulty +4, and if you are strong enough to do that believe me you aren't on here complaining about exp loss.

"

clarebunny440#7952 wrote:

Dying and having to redo content without any tower buffs and a new waystone is its own penalty. I'm still of the opinion that I don't mind losing exp, the waystone and the tower modifiers as long as it is only the map exp that is being removed from the player. I don't see the logic in taking away the exp from previous content that the player has cleared successfully.

"

iMirageX#4580 wrote:

"

fnsonin#2863 wrote:

POE2 is supposed to be GGG and Tencent's break out game for a larger audience. Well, the larger audience is speaking and they do not like -10% experience loss on death, one portal maps, long runbacks to bosses, and sudden non telegraphed deaths.
Compare this to Elden Ring/Dark Souls:
1. your "experience" is on the ground waiting for you to pick it up
2. You are never locked out from a boss fight
3. Elden Ring got rid of long run backs and was the best selling souls game of all time
4. I always knew how and why I died in Dark Souls/Elden Ring.

If GGG/Tencent wants to have a large audience and play with the big boys, then they will make a game that most people enjoy and not a beat for beat homage to a 20 year old game that has now obvious flaws compared to modern ARPGs.

This is early access, what GGG does to fix the endgame will determine the ultimate size of the player base they want to have.

The vast majority of players are not having fun in the endgame.

While I kinda sympathize with your other points, what do you mean play with the big boys? Do they even need to do that? Its funny I keep seeing people utter "play with the big boys" when in reality, POE 2 already surpassed those supposedly "Big boys".

Vast majority of players aren't having fun. Where is your concrete data?

"

immdev#2462 wrote:

"

iMirageX#4580 wrote:

Let's be perfectly honest here, POE 2 has way less, YES, WAY LESS one shot situation compared to the astronomically, plenty of situation you can be one shot in POE 1.

I played PoE1 exclusively on ruthless and I can say you are wrong. I also can't even say what exactly killed me half of the time in PoE2.