A Simple Poll - Exp Loss on Death

As I said in one of the recent threads, in this section of the forum. And I think it is worth repeating this thought here.

I want to remind everyone who is participating in the discussion that GGG is a commercial company.
This means that all of GGG's efforts will be directed first and foremost - making a profit.
Therefore, GGG will make the game in such a way as to maximally retain the audience that is willing to pay money.
And if, let's say, even one third of the players don't like the experience penalty for death, but this audience is willing to invest their money in the game, then GGG will remove this penalty. And the other two thirds of the players who don't mind the death penalty will continue to play anyway and GGG will only gain in profit, which is what a commercial company needs.
So don't expect that the experience penalty for death will always be there.
p.s. In fact, I am confident that those people who want the death penalty to be removed are much more than a third of the total number of players.

I hope I have explained my vision of the situation in accessible language.

+1

"

SpankyKong#9805 wrote:

The issue with this entire chain of comments is that it's a common tactic by the pro-xp loss crowd to derail a conversation into theory crafting build improvements and away from the principle that people don't like losing progress that they've earned in prior maps.

It's not theory crafting. It's simple math. 5 or 10 additional points out of 100 CANNOT provide significant improvements when the game calculates (almost) everything based on additive stacking. You simply run into massive diminishing returns, IF there are even any nodes worth taking. For many builds, there simply isn't anything good in reach at this point. Of course, all of this operates on the logical assumption that the most efficient nodes are taken first and left to the theoretical last 5 points. (Duh!)

You have no point. Reality disagrees with you.

"

ForsesGIT#6499 wrote:

"

bloomhead#3858 wrote:

Show it, show your tree. Prove us wrong.

Don't you know while playing bleed-rake amazon how following passives affects your build? You could check poe2 ninja if you want to see the heatmap. Is like two the most picked passives in tree. Are they makes your character stronger? They are.

Or you could unspec Hearstopping and Heartbraking and play without them.

Invalid argument. You have 90 points to take those amazing nodes. By the time you reach level 90 they should already be taken. Nobody leaves the really good stuff for the last 10 points that they don't even have.

You're making up a bogus bad faith argument that doesn't correspond to reality.

"

Skollvaldr#5851 wrote:

"

ForsesGIT#6499 wrote:

"

bloomhead#3858 wrote:

Show it, show your tree. Prove us wrong.

Don't you know while playing bleed-rake amazon how following passives affects your build? You could check poe2 ninja if you want to see the heatmap. Is like two the most picked passives in tree. Are they makes your character stronger? They are.

Or you could unspec Hearstopping and Heartbraking and play without them.

Invalid argument. You have 90 points to take those amazing nodes. By the time you reach level 90 they should already be taken. Nobody leaves the really good stuff for the last 10 points that they don't even have.

You're making up a bogus bad faith argument that doesn't correspond to reality.

Thus 2 passives were bring as an example how 5 extra passives could make your character stronger. I would agree that it could be called as an invalid argument due to the fact that some passives are strongly recommended to be picked in a tree like thus 2.

If you want to see how it works in more real situations - go to poe ninja, select 95 lvl characters (better 90) and take 5-10 extra passive in tree. Is it will make your character stronger or not? Ofc it will, it's that simple.
10% more damage for 5 passives > 0% more damage without them

it should remain but not as punishing or should increase incrementally if you die quickly in succession. 10% straight off the bat is too high.

"

ForsesGIT#6499 wrote:

Thus 2 passives were bring as an example how 5 extra passives could make your character stronger. I would agree that it could be called as an invalid argument due to the fact that some passives are strongly recommended to be picked in a tree like thus 2.

If you want to see how it works in more real situations - go to poe ninja, select 95 lvl characters (better 90) and take 5-10 extra passive in tree. Is it will make your character stronger or not? Ofc it will, it's that simple.
10% more damage for 5 passives > 0% more damage without them

Save your energy. People arguing in bad faith will constantly demand concrete proof or evidence from you, while making all their points in the abstract. If you give a concrete example, they will pick it apart into the tiniest pieces to find the one situation it is not valid in; and if you give an abstract example, they will simply circle back to demanding concrete examples, or claim that not providing that makes your argument dismissible.

They will simply ignore the fact that every point can have an impact on pathing and the notables or keystones you can reach; as shown by the fact that many PoB builds will do a respec at higher levels due to gaining more worth from optimized pathing available with more skill points. The issue is that this would no longer be "simple math," and especially not math supporting their point.

"

dreamstate42#3955 wrote:

"

ForsesGIT#6499 wrote:

Thus 2 passives were bring as an example how 5 extra passives could make your character stronger. I would agree that it could be called as an invalid argument due to the fact that some passives are strongly recommended to be picked in a tree like thus 2.

If you want to see how it works in more real situations - go to poe ninja, select 95 lvl characters (better 90) and take 5-10 extra passive in tree. Is it will make your character stronger or not? Ofc it will, it's that simple.
10% more damage for 5 passives > 0% more damage without them

Save your energy. People arguing in bad faith will constantly demand concrete proof or evidence from you, while making all their points in the abstract. If you give a concrete example, they will pick it apart into the tiniest pieces to find the one situation it is not valid in; and if you give an abstract example, they will simply circle back to demanding concrete examples, or claim that not providing that makes your argument dismissible.

They will simply ignore the fact that every point can have an impact on pathing and the notables or keystones you can reach; as shown by the fact that many PoB builds will do a respec at higher levels due to gaining more worth from optimized pathing available with more skill points. The issue is that this would no longer be "simple math," and especially not math supporting their point.

I'll do as you suggest then. Thank you mate :3

"

dreamstate42#3955 wrote:

Save your energy. People arguing in bad faith will constantly demand concrete proof or evidence from you, while making all their points in the abstract. If you give a concrete example, they will pick it apart into the tiniest pieces to find the one situation it is not valid in; and if you give an abstract example, they will simply circle back to demanding concrete examples, or claim that not providing that makes your argument dismissible.

They will simply ignore the fact that every point can have an impact on pathing and the notables or keystones you can reach; as shown by the fact that many PoB builds will do a respec at higher levels due to gaining more worth from optimized pathing available with more skill points. The issue is that this would no longer be "simple math," and especially not math supporting their point.

You're making a claim and then can't provide concrete proof. Oh dear, if only science would work that way. But sadly, it doesn't.

I've seen a lot of bad ideas in my life, but this one takes the cake.