I explained the whole thing to you in one of previous threads. You are just repeating the same thing over and over again. Even your logic doesn't make any sense - on the one hand you say that last levels are meaningful for your build because it gives you significant amount of damage/defense but on the other you want more skill points for those levels. As I said a few posts before - giving players more skill pts for levels 95+ just increases the gap between players who already reach lvl 100 every league and those who don't. It's not about motovation. It's about time. You don't magicaly get more time whe GGG gives you more rewards for last five levels. Also even if GGG do that players will never be satisfied. So let's take this how it is - it's for the best.
You still seem to be mixing up COST and VALUE like they're the same thing. They're not.
From 95+ the COST of each passive point climbs every level. It's not linear, it ramps. But the VALUE of the reward stays flat. One point is one point, same as level 20, 50, 80, 90, 95. Same "product", wildly different price tag. That's the imbalance people are complaining about.
In a self-regulating market, this kind of mismatch doesn't last. When it gets harder to obtain something, having it becomes more valuable.
Bitcoin is a simple example. As mining becomes harder and more expensive, each Bitcoin tends to become more valuable because scarcity kicks in. Back when mining was easy, one Bitcoin bought you "10 units of stuff". Once mining got much harder, one Bitcoin might buy you "20 units of stuff". Higher COST to acquire, higher VALUE to hold - the system self-corrects.
In PoE2, that self-correction can't happen. The COST of a passive point skyrockets after 95, but the VALUE stays fixed at "one passive point". You can't trade it, you can't re-price it, and the game doesn't scale the reward. So the game treats a "level 96 point" like it's the same thing as a "level 30 point" even though the effort required is in a completely different universe.
And no, "giving more for asking more" doesn't automatically break anything. It's just normal economy design. Higher effort should come with proportionally higher reward, otherwise you're literally teaching players to stop engaging.
Also, the whole "it widens the gap" argument is weird. People pushing 100 aren't competing with casual players for a limited pool of points. This isn't a pie with slices. It's a personal grind against the system. If you make the last stretch feel less like a tax audit, you get more motivated players actually trying to finish 100, not fewer.
Right now the game basically stops rewarding endgame dedication somewhere around 90-95. For me it's 95+. I've hit 97 and it turned into molasses. Same content, massively worse XP. I was getting around 50M XP/hour in juiced T15s, now it's more like 15M. T16s can be better, sure, but then the cost and setup time explode again because now I need more currency to sustain them. So the total time investment keeps rising, and the reward stays identical.
And yes, the points are still worth it. Not because the system is fair, but because those last points can absolutely change a build. On mine, the last 6-7 points are around 10-15% of total DPS. That's roughly 500-750k DPS for me. Not "gamebreaking", but definitely not "nothing". If your build can't use the last points, cool, congratulations on being done early. Some of us are still optimizing.
Plus there's the obvious finishing factor. I want to finish the build. That's the whole point of a build-based game. Right now 95+ feels less like "finishing" and more like paying extra to unlock the last screw in a IKEA table.
Last edited by Jyrlep#4788 on Mar 1, 2026, 5:13:03 AM
I explained the whole thing to you in one of previous threads. You are just repeating the same thing over and over again. Even your logic doesn't make any sense - on the one hand you say that last levels are meaningful for your build because it gives you significant amount of damage/defense but on the other you want more skill points for those levels. As I said a few posts before - giving players more skill pts for levels 95+ just increases the gap between players who already reach lvl 100 every league and those who don't. It's not about motovation. It's about time. You don't magicaly get more time whe GGG gives you more rewards for last five levels. Also even if GGG do that players will never be satisfied. So let's take this how it is - it's for the best.
You still seem to be mixing up COST and VALUE like they're the same thing. They're not.
From 95+ the COST of each passive point climbs every level. It's not linear, it ramps. But the VALUE of the reward stays flat. One point is one point, same as level 20, 50, 80, 90, 95. Same "product", wildly different price tag. That's the imbalance people are complaining about.
In a self-regulating market, this kind of mismatch doesn't last. When it gets harder to obtain something, having it becomes more valuable.
Bitcoin is a simple example. As mining becomes harder and more expensive, each Bitcoin tends to become more valuable because scarcity kicks in. Back when mining was easy, one Bitcoin bought you "10 units of stuff". Once mining got much harder, one Bitcoin might buy you "20 units of stuff". Higher COST to acquire, higher VALUE to hold - the system self-corrects.
In PoE2, that self-correction can't happen. The COST of a passive point skyrockets after 95, but the VALUE stays fixed at "one passive point". You can't trade it, you can't re-price it, and the game doesn't scale the reward. So the game treats a "level 96 point" like it's the same thing as a "level 30 point" even though the effort required is in a completely different universe.
And no, "giving more for asking more" doesn't automatically break anything. It's just normal economy design. Higher effort should come with proportionally higher reward, otherwise you're literally teaching players to stop engaging.
Also, the whole "it widens the gap" argument is weird. People pushing 100 aren't competing with casual players for a limited pool of points. This isn't a pie with slices. It's a personal grind against the system. If you make the last stretch feel less like a tax audit, you get more motivated players actually trying to finish 100, not fewer.
Right now the game basically stops rewarding endgame dedication somewhere around 90-95. For me it's 95+. I've hit 97 and it turned into molasses. Same content, massively worse XP. I was getting around 50M XP/hour in juiced T15s, now it's more like 15M. T16s can be better, sure, but then the cost and setup time explode again because now I need more currency to sustain them. So the total time investment keeps rising, and the reward stays identical.
And yes, the points are still worth it. Not because the system is fair, but because those last points can absolutely change a build. On mine, the last 6-7 points are around 10-15% of total DPS. That's roughly 500-750k DPS for me. Not "gamebreaking", but definitely not "nothing". If your build can't use the last points, cool, congratulations on being done early. Some of us are still optimizing.
Plus there's the obvious finishing factor. I want to finish the build. That's the whole point of a build-based game. Right now 95+ feels less like "finishing" and more like paying extra to unlock the last screw in a IKEA table.
I have a better solution for you - every level should require the same amount of xp, let's say average value calculated from total XP divided by 100. That sounds fair, doesn't it? Then the value and the cost of leveling will be perfectly balanced. Will you be happy with that?
I have a better solution for you - every level should require the same amount of xp, let's say average value calculated from total XP divided by 100. That sounds fair, doesn't it? Then the value and the cost of leveling will be perfectly balanced. Will you be happy with that?
So your suggestion is... to "solve" the cost/value mismatch by making every level require the same XP? Is that an actual recommendation, or just a way to ridicule the argument by throwing in an intentionally over-the-top counterproposal?
Right now the game does the opposite at the top end: XP required keeps going up, and the XP penalty also keeps kneecapping you. So at 95+ you're paying more AND getting punished harder. That's why it feels like hitting a brick wall, not "prestige".
If we want to talk solutions, I'd honestly take either of these:
1) Remove the experience penalty from 90+.
2) Or make passives stop at 90 or give real rewards for 90+ (more passives per level, or something equivalent).
Option 1 reduces COST. People can actually play the game instead of tiptoeing around content like they're carrying a glass of water through an earthquake, and yes, more people will hit the "e-penis" milestone. That's fine.
Option 2 increases VALUE. If you're going to charge "a week's work" for one level, don't pay out "small crumbs".
And the "it's only time" argument misses something obvious - difficulty ramps too.
My build barely changed from 95 to 96 to 97. I got maybe 2% total DPS here and there. But going 97 to 98, suddenly I need to run juiced T16 instead of T15 to keep XP reasonable. That isn't just more time - it's more risk, more setup, more currency burn, and a bigger chance the death penalty deletes your evening.
So yeah, I genuinely don't get why this is so hard to understand. Do we want level 100 to be purely a status badge, or do we want the game to acknowledge that the last stretch costs dramatically more than the earlier stretch?
I have a better solution for you - every level should require the same amount of xp, let's say average value calculated from total XP divided by 100. That sounds fair, doesn't it? Then the value and the cost of leveling will be perfectly balanced. Will you be happy with that?
So your suggestion is... to "solve" the cost/value mismatch by making every level require the same XP? Is that an actual recommendation, or just a way to ridicule the argument by throwing in an intentionally over-the-top counterproposal?
Right now the game does the opposite at the top end: XP required keeps going up, and the XP penalty also keeps kneecapping you. So at 95+ you're paying more AND getting punished harder. That's why it feels like hitting a brick wall, not "prestige".
If we want to talk solutions, I'd honestly take either of these:
1) Remove the experience penalty from 90+.
2) Or make passives stop at 90 or give real rewards for 90+ (more passives per level, or something equivalent).
Option 1 reduces COST. People can actually play the game instead of tiptoeing around content like they're carrying a glass of water through an earthquake, and yes, more people will hit the "e-penis" milestone. That's fine.
Option 2 increases VALUE. If you're going to charge "a week's work" for one level, don't pay out "small crumbs".
And the "it's only time" argument misses something obvious - difficulty ramps too.
My build barely changed from 95 to 96 to 97. I got maybe 2% total DPS here and there. But going 97 to 98, suddenly I need to run juiced T16 instead of T15 to keep XP reasonable. That isn't just more time - it's more risk, more setup, more currency burn, and a bigger chance the death penalty deletes your evening.
So yeah, I genuinely don't get why this is so hard to understand. Do we want level 100 to be purely a status badge, or do we want the game to acknowledge that the last stretch costs dramatically more than the earlier stretch?
None of your "solutions" are better than current system. Right now the last few levels are mostly for flex but there is still a small reward for player's effort. If it's not enough for you then it's OK but deal with the fact that you should build any of your characters around lvl 95. Also difference between T15 and T16 is barely noticable. Even difference between T10 and T16 is not that big. The main jump in difficulty lies in modifiers and you defeinitel DON'T need to run six mod waystones in order to gain levels. What I see is just you trying to justfy your lust for more points because 123 is probably not enough somehow.
Last edited by Sakanabi#6664 on Mar 1, 2026, 8:30:47 AM
I have a better solution for you - every level should require the same amount of xp, let's say average value calculated from total XP divided by 100. That sounds fair, doesn't it? Then the value and the cost of leveling will be perfectly balanced. Will you be happy with that?
So your suggestion is... to "solve" the cost/value mismatch by making every level require the same XP? Is that an actual recommendation, or just a way to ridicule the argument by throwing in an intentionally over-the-top counterproposal?
Right now the game does the opposite at the top end: XP required keeps going up, and the XP penalty also keeps kneecapping you. So at 95+ you're paying more AND getting punished harder. That's why it feels like hitting a brick wall, not "prestige".
If we want to talk solutions, I'd honestly take either of these:
1) Remove the experience penalty from 90+.
2) Or make passives stop at 90 or give real rewards for 90+ (more passives per level, or something equivalent).
Option 1 reduces COST. People can actually play the game instead of tiptoeing around content like they're carrying a glass of water through an earthquake, and yes, more people will hit the "e-penis" milestone. That's fine.
Option 2 increases VALUE. If you're going to charge "a week's work" for one level, don't pay out "small crumbs".
And the "it's only time" argument misses something obvious - difficulty ramps too.
My build barely changed from 95 to 96 to 97. I got maybe 2% total DPS here and there. But going 97 to 98, suddenly I need to run juiced T16 instead of T15 to keep XP reasonable. That isn't just more time - it's more risk, more setup, more currency burn, and a bigger chance the death penalty deletes your evening.
So yeah, I genuinely don't get why this is so hard to understand. Do we want level 100 to be purely a status badge, or do we want the game to acknowledge that the last stretch costs dramatically more than the earlier stretch?
None of your "solutions" are better than current system. Right now the last few levels are mostly for flex but there is still a small reward for player's effort. If it's not enough for you then it's OK but deal with the fact that you should build any of your characters around lvl 95. Also difference between T15 and T16 is barely noticable. Even difference between T10 and T16 is not that big. The main jump in difficulty lies in modifiers and you defeinitel DON'T need to run six mod waystones in order to gain levels. What I see is just you trying to justfy your lust for more points because 123 is probably not enough somehow.
It's nice to build a character around level 95 IF we had equal opportunities in builds. But we have not becouse of the balance issues and some bulds require to push further in levels. Sometimes even further than level 100 wich not exists. So i don't see the reason not to have some extra motivations. This keeps also players in game. If someone completes build in level 95 then what? Personally i would have searched for another game to play because i don't like leagues and building new chars.
It's nice to build a character around level 95 IF we had equal opportunities in builds. But we have not becouse of the balance issues and some bulds require to push further in levels. Sometimes even further than level 100 wich not exists. So i don't see the reason not to have some extra motivations. This keeps also players in game. If someone completes build in level 95 then what? Personally i would have searched for another game to play because i don't like leagues and building new chars.
The main power of every char does not come from levels but from gear. If you complete your build at lvl 95 then grind for gear to increase power. A build which is not completed at lvl 95 at the latest is simply a bad build.
All of my "solutions" are better than the current system.
Right now the system does two things at once
* It discourages you from pushing 96-100 by making progress crawl.
* It penalizes you harder the moment you try anyway.
So yes, it ends up being flex-only. The problem people are complaining about is simple. The cost of each passive point ramps up massively after 95, but the value stays flat at "one point". Same product, wildly higher price tag. That's not "prestige", that's a time-sink with a sticker label.
Also, the "T10 vs T16 is almost the same" take is just wrong once you account for the experience penalty. The formula is straightforward.
There are three parameters
* Threshold = 3 + floor(PlayerLevel / 16)
* EffectiveDifference = abs(PlayerLevel - AreaLevel) - Threshold
* Gained = ((PlayerLevel + 5) / (PlayerLevel + 5 + EffectiveDifference^2.5))^1.3
Then
* Penalty = 1 - Gained
Example for a level 95 player in an area level 80 zone
* Threshold = 3 + floor(95 / 16) = 3 + 5 = 8
* EffectiveDifference = abs(95 - 80) - 8 = 7
* Gained = ((100) / (100 + 7^2.5))^1.3 = ~0,339
* Penalty = ~0,661 so about a 66% penalty
Some quick comparisons
* Level 95 in area level 82 -> ~43,9% penalty
* Level 97 in area level 82 -> ~55,5% penalty
* Level 98 in area level 82 -> ~65,3% penalty
Meaning if T15 felt "fine" at 95, by 97+ you either accept much worse XP, or you push harder content and juice to keep XP reasonable. That is more risk, more setup, more currency burn, and more chances to eat the 10% death tax. Pretending that is "barely noticeable" is like saying walking up one stair is basically the same as hiking a hill because both involve legs.
And the T10 vs T16 example is even more brutal
* Level 95 in area level 75 (around T10) -> ~90,2% penalty
* Level 95 in area level 82 (around T16) -> ~43,9% penalty
So yeah, there is argument there. It's a huge difference.
If your stance is "96-100 should stay prestige", fine. Then make it explicitly prestige with cosmetics or achievements. But calling people greedy for noticing the current cost/value mismatch is just weird. I'm not "lusting for points". I'm pointing at the receipt and asking why the same item costs 10x at the checkout.
Also, the idea that "by level 95 your build should be complete" is just nonsense. Sure, most builds are mostly online by then. But some people want to keep optimizing. That's the entire genre. Saying "stop at 95" is just drawing a random line and then acting like it's gospel.
Why 95 anyway? Gear requirements stop at 90. So by that logic, why not stop at 90 and tell everyone "that's enough"? Same argument, just a different arbitrary number.
I've already explained why those last 6-7 points can matter. On my build it's roughly 10-15% total DPS or around 1.5k energy shield. Not game-breaking if it's missing, but absolutely meaningful if you're trying to finish and min-max.
It's like getting 90% on a test versus 100%. Both are an A, sure. But only one is for people aiming for the top end. The current system basically tells those players "cool, now pay triple the tuition for the last 10%".
In its current state, the game doesn't motivate players to push further. It actively discourages it, and the reward doesn't scale with the achievement.
All of my "solutions" are better than the current system.
Right now the system does two things at once
* It discourages you from pushing 96-100 by making progress crawl.
* It penalizes you harder the moment you try anyway.
So yes, it ends up being flex-only. The problem people are complaining about is simple. The cost of each passive point ramps up massively after 95, but the value stays flat at "one point". Same product, wildly higher price tag. That's not "prestige", that's a time-sink with a sticker label.
Also, the "T10 vs T16 is almost the same" take is just wrong once you account for the experience penalty. The formula is straightforward.
There are three parameters
* Threshold = 3 + floor(PlayerLevel / 16)
* EffectiveDifference = abs(PlayerLevel - AreaLevel) - Threshold
* Gained = ((PlayerLevel + 5) / (PlayerLevel + 5 + EffectiveDifference^2.5))^1.3
Then
* Penalty = 1 - Gained
Example for a level 95 player in an area level 80 zone
* Threshold = 3 + floor(95 / 16) = 3 + 5 = 8
* EffectiveDifference = abs(95 - 80) - 8 = 7
* Gained = ((100) / (100 + 7^2.5))^1.3 = ~0,339
* Penalty = ~0,661 so about a 66% penalty
Some quick comparisons
* Level 95 in area level 82 -> ~43,9% penalty
* Level 97 in area level 82 -> ~55,5% penalty
* Level 98 in area level 82 -> ~65,3% penalty
Meaning if T15 felt "fine" at 95, by 97+ you either accept much worse XP, or you push harder content and juice to keep XP reasonable. That is more risk, more setup, more currency burn, and more chances to eat the 10% death tax. Pretending that is "barely noticeable" is like saying walking up one stair is basically the same as hiking a hill because both involve legs.
And the T10 vs T16 example is even more brutal
* Level 95 in area level 75 (around T10) -> ~90,2% penalty
* Level 95 in area level 82 (around T16) -> ~43,9% penalty
So yeah, there is argument there. It's a huge difference.
If your stance is "96-100 should stay prestige", fine. Then make it explicitly prestige with cosmetics or achievements. But calling people greedy for noticing the current cost/value mismatch is just weird. I'm not "lusting for points". I'm pointing at the receipt and asking why the same item costs 10x at the checkout.
Also, the idea that "by level 95 your build should be complete" is just nonsense. Sure, most builds are mostly online by then. But some people want to keep optimizing. That's the entire genre. Saying "stop at 95" is just drawing a random line and then acting like it's gospel.
Why 95 anyway? Gear requirements stop at 90. So by that logic, why not stop at 90 and tell everyone "that's enough"? Same argument, just a different arbitrary number.
I've already explained why those last 6-7 points can matter. On my build it's roughly 10-15% total DPS or around 1.5k energy shield. Not game-breaking if it's missing, but absolutely meaningful if you're trying to finish and min-max.
It's like getting 90% on a test versus 100%. Both are an A, sure. But only one is for people aiming for the top end. The current system basically tells those players "cool, now pay triple the tuition for the last 10%".
In its current state, the game doesn't motivate players to push further. It actively discourages it, and the reward doesn't scale with the achievement.
Bro, you are very good at being exhausting and that's probably your strategy, OK. Your argument about "lvl 90 being enough" is completely right - that's when I always stop when theorycrafting any build. If your build is not online by lvl 90 then it sucks probably. I don't care about any numbers which basically prove nothing. There's zero reasons to give players more motivation with more skill points per level because what you should care about at that level is gear not skill points. They just exist as a small reward for people who want to push beyond lvl 95. Also give players more skill points for those last 4-5 levels and they will start to cry about XP req being too high and that it must be lowered because "gAmE DoEs NOt rESpeCt mY TimE".
Yes, it takes alot od time to get any level past 95. Insane amount of time to be precise. But all levels before that at least to lvl 90 are gained pretty quickly and those levels matter the most. So to me the whole leveling system look kinda balanced. But if GGG ever introduces more skill points for last five levels they also should balance that with increasing XP req for those levels even more or increasing XP penalty on death to something like 20%.
Last edited by Sakanabi#6664 on Mar 1, 2026, 2:09:48 PM
