XP penalty and likely 1 portal is NOT going anywhere

"

dwqrf#0717 wrote:

The root of your problems is that you die, and you don't like it. There is nothing more to it.

Strawman, ad hominem

"

You want to play a game where you can't die and/or if you do, there is no punishments involved ? Those exist. They are made specifically for people like you.

Strawman, ad hominem

"

PoE1/2 are well known for being difficult, challenging, and punitive, and where death happens often if you aren't a focused and good player and engaging in hard content. Deal with it.

Yes, and the rare deaths feel excessively punitive for a softcore league, hence feedback that one-attempt needs to be removed.

"

You can deal with it in many ways. You can accept the design and play around it. You can get better gear and better build. You can become a better player. You can suck it up. You can even accept this game is too difficult and too punitive for you and move on to something else that suits you better.

Red herring, hasty generalization, willfully ignores the countless times the anti-one-attempt side has admitted to mistakes and sometimes biting more than we could chew.

"

But no, you guys decided the only way to deal with it was indeed to not deal with it and have it changed or even removed from the game. As in, make it another game than what it is.

False dichotomy, hasty generalization, non sequitor, strawman

"

You want to make feedback ? Then you have to explain what killed you, how it killed you, why you character died from it, why it is unfair/unbalanced, why you can't overcome this challenge, and that with many tries and many evidences to support your claim. That's actual factual feedback the devs can work on ; to make every challenge balanced and every death deserved.

Many of us have, you promptly insulted us or ignored our examples or acted as if they were still our fault no matter the case, making you a contrarian and not an honest interlocutor.

"

Saying "I dont like the feeling of death" isn't feedback. Because nobody does. That's the whole point. Now, most of the players deal with it.

Strawman, red herring.

"

CPTBRUMBL3Z#3146 wrote:

you promptly insulted us or ignored our examples or acted as if they were still our fault no matter the case, making you a contrarian and not an honest interlocutor.

Fallacies, false dichotomy, hasty generalization, non sequitor, strawman, red herring. Proof you can't argue in good faith.

"

dwqrf#0717 wrote:

"

CPTBRUMBL3Z#3146 wrote:

you promptly insulted us or ignored our examples or acted as if they were still our fault no matter the case, making you a contrarian and not an honest interlocutor.

Fallacies, false dichotomy, hasty generalization, non sequitor, strawman, red herring. Proof you can't argue in good faith.

So, you don't deny it. Good to know :)

"

CPTBRUMBL3Z#3146 wrote:

"

dwqrf#0717 wrote:

"

CPTBRUMBL3Z#3146 wrote:

you promptly insulted us or ignored our examples or acted as if they were still our fault no matter the case, making you a contrarian and not an honest interlocutor.

Fallacies, false dichotomy, hasty generalization, non sequitor, strawman, red herring. Proof you can't argue in good faith.

So, you don't deny it. Good to know :)

I just did.

If only you could read what people are saying to you and accept their opinions. But you can't, because you can't even accept being at fault when dying in a solo video game. And you can't accept that the game you chose to play has designed punishment for failing.

So you are here... doing what exatly ? Ah yes, trying to prove to yourself and to the world that the game is flawed and it's not your fault if you can't progress in it.

Again, it's not the game's fault. Some people can progress in it. They have to accept the rules and limitations and bend their gameplay around it.

"

dwqrf#0717 wrote:

"

CPTBRUMBL3Z#3146 wrote:

you promptly insulted us or ignored our examples or acted as if they were still our fault no matter the case, making you a contrarian and not an honest interlocutor.

Fallacies, false dichotomy, hasty generalization, non sequitor, strawman, red herring. Proof you can't argue in good faith.

You know, i just come here once in a while and play a game where i open 2-3 random posts to see if i see same pople there. And you are in all of them, every time :D Terminally online, so invested.

You guys, the "oldschools" the "veterans" or as i say - stockholms can talk all you want. No matter what devs said a month ago. No matter what game was or is now. It will change for the people, and you will deal with it.

Yes, they might not change it in a way players say they want it, but it will become different and less punishing. It already did a little, and will more.

Just want to agree that one portal does not help you get better. You have no opportunity to face what killed you to do better or even to figure out what exactly killed you.

Yeah 6 portals might be overkill but at least agree that 1 is bad. How about 3?

"

MadSheo#0280 wrote:

"

dwqrf#0717 wrote:

"

CPTBRUMBL3Z#3146 wrote:

you promptly insulted us or ignored our examples or acted as if they were still our fault no matter the case, making you a contrarian and not an honest interlocutor.

Fallacies, false dichotomy, hasty generalization, non sequitor, strawman, red herring. Proof you can't argue in good faith.

You know, i just come here once in a while and play a game where i open 2-3 random posts to see if i see same pople there. And you are in all of them, every time :D Terminally online, so invested.

Yes, they are.

"

dwqrf#0717 wrote:

.

You’re completely overlooking the point that constructive difficulty includes giving players the tools to understand why they failed. It’s not about making the game easier or reducing punishment, but about offering clearer feedback so players can adapt and improve, which is a fundamental aspect of constructive challenge. Without meaningful feedback, there’s no real way to learn from what went wrong, and that’s what makes the difficulty feel punitive rather than challenging.

As for the “some people can progress in it,” that’s irrelevant to the discussion. Just because some players can push through doesn’t mean the design is optimal or accessible. Just because a few players might adapt doesn’t mean the system isn’t flawed. The goal here is about making the game better, not just pointing fingers at people who struggle.

"

MadSheo#0280 wrote:

You guys, the "oldschools" the "veterans" or as i say - stockholms can talk all you want. No matter what devs said a month ago. No matter what game was or is now. It will change for the people, and you will deal with it.

Yes, they might not change it in a way players say they want it, but it will become different and less punishing. It already did a little, and will more.

I am old-school and yeah it's obviously going to change. One Portal was poorly thought out.