Make Leveling from 96 to 100 more meaningful-Add some small additional reward/motivation
" I think we live in different worlds friend. Speedruns, esports, watching videos of other people play video games? mindnumbingly boring and not my thing. Guess it explains my disconnect with half the people commenting here. All good. Still think the current set up is ill conceived and one of the bigger negatives in an otherwise decently fun game. Appreciate the insight on the dev opinions. If true then I have less faith in how this game will turn out on full release. |
|
" Yeah, probably. But the truth is that I never build a single snake bigger than maybe 15 rooms because I don't care. I do not watch any content creators or any guides. I play SSF with my own builds only. So I lean more into "casual" side than the other.
Spoiler
" Bro, you are just contradicting yourself (again). Why we need more value or less price for lvls 95+ while there is already "real power" locked behind them? Right now these lvls serves two purposes - flex and power increase but you want to remove one of them to make you feel better (either stop giving pts at lvl 90 to give you feeling that you build is "really" finished or give you more pts to make you feel that your effort is valued properly). But guess what - this game is not going to be easier or more rewarding because players like you are hurt by not being able to satisfy their FOMO. Also giving players more than 123 skill pts would completely blow up already hard to balance environment. It's an extremely bad idea and no numbers, "evidence" or strawman arguments you are able tu pull out can change that. Period. Last edited by Sakanabi#6664 on Mar 2, 2026, 2:43:58 AM
|
|
" "Bro", I'm not contradicting myself. If anything, you are talking out of both sides - you acknowledge the last levels still give real power, then treat any attempt to make that grind feel worth its cost as automatically "blowing up balance". That is not an argument, it's a veto. Also, reminder where we are. This is the feedback section. People post what could be changed, not a eulogy for "it is what it is". Right now 95-100 is basically one thing - flex. The COST goes through the roof, while the VALUE stays flat at "one passive point", and arguably worse since gear requirements stop at 90. Same product, premium price tag. That's the imbalance people are pointing at. And can we drop the personal stuff? The drive-by "FOMO" and "hurt" talk is middle school debate club energy. This isn't emotion, it's basic cost/value logic - which you keep dodging by trying to psychoanalyze the person instead of the argument. If your actual concern is "more points past 95 widens the gap", fine. Then here's a compromise that matches your own framing. - Double skill points from 90-95 (where builds are still getting finished) - Make 95-100 explicitly prestige only (no more points) That fixes the mismatch without turning level 100 into mandatory power creep. And if you think my numbers or evidence are wrong, then bring better evidence. Not "trust me bro" and not another paragraph of character attacks. Argue the mechanics, the math, or the design goals. Otherwise you're not refuting anything - you're just heckling. Add as many "periods" as you want at the end. The only way this ends is you choosing to stop replying. " Would you mind adding something beyond "bad idea" without going straight to "you must be biased"? If the only move is tossing out personal labels, that's not really argumentation - it's just heckling with extra steps. Also, same here - I don't have a level 100 either. And the reason is exactly what this whole thread is about. The COST of pushing to 100 is wildly out of proportion to the VALUE you get back. I'm level 97 right now. What am I "missing" by not doing the last stretch? Three passive points. That's it. Meanwhile the grind has turned into molasses. Each level costs more XP, the penalty kneecaps your gain harder, and the practical requirement becomes higher-tier maps plus more juicing, which means more risk and more currency burn. So 97-98, 98-99, and 99-100 easily feels like it takes longer than everything before combined. So yeah - I'm not arguing from "bias". I'm arguing from basic cost/value balance. If you think the current setup is good, explain why the price tag is justified for the same flat reward. Last edited by Jyrlep#4788 on Mar 2, 2026, 3:44:58 AM
|
|
|
Spoiler
" You ate twisting my arguments while adjusting yours to look smarter. That's cheap. Also " I'm pretty sure thtat's your strategy - write an essay-long paragraphs to be as much exhausting as possible so your opponents eventually give up. And talking about FOMO it's not a personal attack - it's a sad reality that works for so many players especially on this forum. Many people here are simply unable to accept rules of this game and still coming with "better" solutions not seeing larger picture. Making the game easier/faster/more accessible does not make it better automatically. And the last thing - I don't think the last few skill pts matter that much, maybe not at all. It's your own logic that they are important yet you still want more. If those last points give you "real power" them why you need to lower their price? You don't get the same skill point for more XP because 10% dmg at lvl 1 is something different than 10% at lvl 95+. Now you are free to reply with another wall of text. Last edited by Sakanabi#6664 on Mar 2, 2026, 4:46:11 AM
|
|
|
Once again you're managing to "say something" without actually providing anything to back it up.
You claim I "adjusted my arguments to look smarter". How, exactly? Not just a drive-by accusation - explain what I changed, where, and why it was dishonest. Otherwise it's just vibes. And this "strategy" thing - no, I'm not trying to exhaust you. I'm just capable of typing coherent sentences on a keyboard. Also, reading is kind of the core mechanic of a forum. If a few paragraphs feels like a boss fight, I apologize, but maybe the "written informational channel" isn't your preferred content. On the FOMO/hurt comments - let's not pretend that was some neutral observation about player psychology. It was a direct attempt to ridicule me instead of addressing the argument. It failed, but it also says a lot about the level of discussion you're aiming for. Also, this is the feedback section. The entire point is suggestions and critique. "Accept the rules of the game" is not an argument, it's just surrender dressed up as wisdom. My day job is literally "find what doesn't work and make it better". Nothing is sacred, nothing is static, and "because it's like that" is not a design philosophy, it's inertia. And no, "making the game more accessible doesn't automatically make it better" is not some magic shield that makes every current design decision correct. Accessibility doesn't automatically fix everything, sure. But if a system is actively discouraging engagement through a cost/value mismatch, making it less punishing does, in fact, make it better. That's not crazy, that's basic. Now, about the actual point you keep dodging. Last skill points matter. Whether you personally care or not is irrelevant. GGG decided to attach passive points to those levels, which means they are part of character power. The problem is that after 95 the COST ramps up massively, while the VALUE stays flat at "one point". Same item, premium price tag. People look at that receipt and say "no thanks", which is why this thread exists. And no, I'm not contradicting myself by calling them "real power" while also saying the grind is overpriced. That's the whole argument. They are some power and they are not 10x more special than earlier points. If a passive point at 50 and a passive point at 95 can both be worth roughly the same chunk of DPS/defense, then charging 10x the time/risk for the later one is exactly the mismatch. "You do more, you get more" is not a wild concept. It's how motivation works in games and how economies work in reality. Higher cost should come with higher value, or you reduce the cost. Right now the system does the opposite - it increases the cost and also reduces the rate you earn XP, then pays out the same flat reward. Finally, yes, you had to end with another personal jab about me writing too much. If reading a few paragraphs is unbearable, you can always not reply. |
|
" Because you and the others are trying to find reason why we dont want more reward past lvl 95 out of your head instead of just reading what we say. Stuffs we didnt even talk about. Really weird and most likely bias, yes. Have fun. SSF player
|
|
" Not my thing either, just explaining that humans have different way to have fun. Kinda an important fact to know in life and you have to deal with it wether you like it or not. Thoose people have a lot of fun racing the ladder every season. This is a reason why the devs keep it hard to reach lvl 100, why XP penalty will never be remove. I dont have the time and health to get lvl 100 every 4 months in an online game, like many people here. As we said, adding reward past lvl 95 will only make it more difficult/unfair for people like me. And i believe people with few time that dont want to race the ladder are the majority. No need to search other reason than what we writte here. SSF player
|
|
" "You're inventing reasons" isn't accurate. The opposition has been very clear about why they don't want more rewards past 95, and people have been responding to those points directly. "96-100 is ladder/prestige." Then keep it prestige, but make the reward structure coherent (cosmetic/achievement or adjust the XP curve). "More rewards makes it feel mandatory." That argues for non-power rewards or reducing the endgame penalty, not for keeping a flat reward with a rising cost. "It widens the gap between people who have time and people who don't." If gap is the issue, don't add power. Reduce cost (XP penalty ramp, death-loss mitigation options) so the grind is less punishing without increasing player power. "Endgame is about gear, levels are a side thing." Levels still grant power via passives, so players will treat them as progression. If the design goal is "gear matters", stop making late levels expensive while still power-linked. "A build should be done by 90-95. If not, it's a bad build." That's a personal standard, not a design rule. Some builds and players still benefit from late points. "More points/stats would break balance." Reasonable concern. That's why cosmetic-only rewards or character-bound perks are suggested; balance impact can be kept near zero. "People will never be satisfied and will ask for more." That's not an argument for the current system, it's an argument against any iteration. So no, this isn't reading motives. It's answering what was actually posted. Had fun. |
|
" Currently on POE ninja there are 8,000 out of 124,000 character profiles that have hit 100. I'd assume that this 124,000 represents toons from players more motivated than most because they've gone through the bother of linking up their accounts, and that the percent of overall players (or characters since some individual players will have multiple characters showing on POE Ninja) hitting 100 would be even smaller. I don't think the argument that some select few enjoy the current experience of getting to 100 for any particular reason is a good justification for keeping it as is, particularly when somewhere around 93.5% of players don't seem find what you think would be a core part of the game, getting to max level, fun or worth the bother. Further I haven't advocated for making the grind at the end any easier, so nothing I've suggested would take away the flex aspect for anyone who cares about that. The thread is titled "add some SMALL additional reward" exactly because I don't think the additional reward should be balance breaking (as if this game is well balanced)... I just strongly feel that where far more effort and time is required there should be some meaningful (to more than 6.5% of players/builds) reward or difference. |
|
|
+1
|
|
