XP penalty and likely 1 portal is NOT going anywhere

"

StrykerxS77x#8221 wrote:

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

Oh for sure. They even said that they considered to make it so the content on the map is saved after death but there is a problem with abusing such system. But simps decide to not hear that.

And to be honest, i see a lot of oldschool players having a sane opinon about the state of some mechanics and want to see game change for the better. Guess there are oldschools and there are stockholms.

[Removed by Support]

i dont mind xp loss, never did. i think its healthy for the game and has to be in it.
but i rly dont like the whole 1 portal idea, thats only a consequence of some guy with the great idea of areas being reset on player death. its nothing but useless, has no benefit to the game.
loot is gone, map is gone, content is gone and on top you have to play the bare waystone with nothing in it again.
if i die and lose some xp, fine. at least i can go on having fun without reset or losing anything but xp.
but dying 1 time and all the fun is taken away from me? who thought that was a good idea? its not

"

Z3RoNightMare#7140 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.

Failing to notice why and how you died is already a player's failure.

"

Z3RoNightMare#7140 wrote:

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.

The endgame, and the end of the endgame aren't designed to be clearable content by everyone. It's meant to be a place for min-maxers to have a endless amount of content to grind through. It's not designed for casuals and people refusing to improve. There is the game for that, where you can already bash your head endlessly against the content and eventually go through without any relevant punishment.

"

dwqrf#0717 wrote:

Failing to notice why and how you died is already a player's failure.

"

Z3RoNightMare#7140 wrote:

In PoE 2, there isn’t an easy way to pinpoint exactly what killed you, especially in complex encounters or with certain mechanics. Without that feedback, it can be hard to learn from a death, leading to players feeling like they’re stuck in a cycle of repeated mistakes without a clear understanding of what went wrong. I’m all for the game being tough, but constructive difficulty means the player is given the tools to learn and improve, and right now, lacking in-depth death feedback feels like a major roadblock for that.

You mentioned providing feedback about how deaths happen, but in cases where the death isn't clearly tied to an obvious mechanic (or when the game doesn’t show us what happened), it’s tough to explain that in detail, let alone provide meaningful feedback to the developers. If I can’t identify the root cause, how can I give the devs specific feedback? That’s where the game design could improve—providing clearer indicators or ways to track what led to the death would help a lot.

I don’t think anyone’s asking for the difficulty to be dialed back or for a non-punitive experience. The goal here is to have a game where players can accept and learn from their failures, but to do so in a way that’s both fair and informative. It’s about helping players see where they went wrong in a way that’s actionable, so they can improve and adapt. That’s the balance that can make PoE2 even more engaging.

Let’s continue focusing on how game design can evolve to enhance this kind of feedback loop, so it’s not just about dying, but about better understanding how to survive and thrive in the game.

While we're also on it, your argument embodies: False Dichotomy, Lack of Empathy for Player Experience, Ignorance of Game Design Responsibility, Appeal to Personal Responsibility Without Context, Overlooking External Factors, Over-simplification of Player Learning and Unrealistic Expectation of Player Perfection, but you made clear that you can't understand any nuance.

"

Z3RoNightMare#7140 wrote:

"

dwqrf#0717 wrote:

Failing to notice why and how you died is already a player's failure.

"

Z3RoNightMare#7140 wrote:

In PoE 2, there isn’t an easy way to pinpoint exactly what killed you, especially in complex encounters or with certain mechanics. Without that feedback, it can be hard to learn from a death, leading to players feeling like they’re stuck in a cycle of repeated mistakes without a clear understanding of what went wrong. I’m all for the game being tough, but constructive difficulty means the player is given the tools to learn and improve, and right now, lacking in-depth death feedback feels like a major roadblock for that.

You mentioned providing feedback about how deaths happen, but in cases where the death isn't clearly tied to an obvious mechanic (or when the game doesn’t show us what happened), it’s tough to explain that in detail, let alone provide meaningful feedback to the developers. If I can’t identify the root cause, how can I give the devs specific feedback? That’s where the game design could improve—providing clearer indicators or ways to track what led to the death would help a lot.

I don’t think anyone’s asking for the difficulty to be dialed back or for a non-punitive experience. The goal here is to have a game where players can accept and learn from their failures, but to do so in a way that’s both fair and informative. It’s about helping players see where they went wrong in a way that’s actionable, so they can improve and adapt. That’s the balance that can make PoE2 even more engaging.

Let’s continue focusing on how game design can evolve to enhance this kind of feedback loop, so it’s not just about dying, but about better understanding how to survive and thrive in the game.

While we're also on it, your argument embodies: False Dichotomy, Lack of Empathy for Player Experience, Ignorance of Game Design Responsibility, Appeal to Personal Responsibility Without Context, Overlooking External Factors, Over-simplification of Player Learning and Unrealistic Expectation of Player Perfection, but you made clear that you can't understand any nuance.

So, again "it's not my fault !" ?

Again: The statement you provided contains a few potential sophisms (flawed or misleading reasoning).

False Dilemma / False Dichotomy:
"Some people can accept to fail every now and then and to improve on it, some people can't."
This implies that people can only fall into two categories: those who accept failure and improve, and those who can't. This oversimplifies human responses to failure, as many factors influence how individuals handle setbacks, and there may be a wide spectrum of ways people deal with failure, not just these two extremes.

Blaming the Victim (Victim Blaming):
"If you die in a video game, it's most often your own fault, not the game fault for existing as is."
This implies that the player is always at fault when they fail in a game, disregarding the fact that the game design, mechanics, difficulty, or external factors can sometimes make it harder for players to succeed. While a player’s actions contribute to their success or failure, it’s not always fair to place the entire blame solely on them, as game design can play a significant role in difficulty levels and user experience.

Appeal to Personal Responsibility:
The argument seems to heavily emphasize personal responsibility, suggesting that if you die in a video game, it’s about your personal growth and ability to accept failure. While personal responsibility is important, this could be seen as an oversimplification, as some game designs or mechanics can be inherently frustrating or punishing in ways that aren’t necessarily a reflection of personal responsibility or growth, but rather of the game's difficulty or structure.

Overgeneralization:
The phrase "most often your own fault" is a sweeping statement that may not always be true. It suggests that in most cases, the player's failure is their fault, when in fact the design of the game, bugs, or even external circumstances could contribute to failure. Not all failures in a video game can be attributed to player error, and it’s important to acknowledge other contributing factors.

Assumption of Universal Tolerance for Failure:
"Some people can accept to fail every now and then and to improve on it" implies that failure should be something everyone can easily accept, which isn't universally true. People have different tolerances and coping mechanisms for failure, and while some may indeed improve through failure, others might feel frustration or loss of motivation instead of growing from the experience.

[Removed by Support]

"

dwqrf#0717 wrote:

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.

No, you didn't. You instead continue to make contrarian troll posts. People point out problems with one-attempt, you attack the person. They make a point about it being too punitive, you blame their skill/ability/gear rather than address the point regardless of their skill/ability/gear. Someone points out a logical fallacy you make, you childishly gainsay "No, you." Someone makes it clear the majority of deaths are spontaneous and extreme damage spikes due to bad game balance, and you still attack the person instead of their argument. You're a troll.

I sincerely hope everyone else trying to have a genuine debate and honest conversation recognizes you are not worth their time nor respect. Have a nice day.

"

CPTBRUMBL3Z#3146 wrote:

I sincerely hope everyone else trying to have a genuine debate and honest conversation recognizes you are not worth their time nor respect. Have a nice day.

Just ignore him. Don't feed the troll.